hadhad, had you been paying attention you would have noticed that three of those "removed" were initially "appointed" as well. A fourth was illegally "appointed" as a write-in candidate and the other two were "appointed" due to an incorrect tabulation of apartment votes. It's no wonder one of those "appointed" and later "removed" took it upon himself to shred the ballots from prior elections. Gotta cover those tracks, huh?

You also conveniently ignored the fact that the attorney representing the association and whom this “group” initially retained, recommended the last remaining board members fill the vacated positions.

I don't believe there is any dispute that the neighborhoods were indeed annexed incorrectly, but as the prior board learned, four states have addressed the issue of transferring development rights by intent, rather than by documentation. In each case the states have ruled that development rights can be transferred by intent. I wonder if that's why the board moved so quickly away from litigation to a "Settlement Agreement". You don't think they actually cared what anyone actually thought now do you, hadhad? If they HAD cared, why didn't they put dissolution or the legal action up for a vote?

I think you were "had" by the prior board.