Commission signs over roads to Tanglewood Lake Owners group

Vehicles going into and out of Tanglewood Lakes were allowed access only by electronic cards before a court decision last year forced officials there to remove the gates. (Journal file photo)

By Charlene Sims, Journal staff

LCJeditor@icloud.com

MOUND CITY – Linn County Commissioners Jason Hightower and Jim Johnson on Monday, March 23, approved and signed a lawsuit settlement agreement with the board of the Tanglewood Lake Owners Association (TLOA). The agreement stated that both parties agreed that the roads in Tanglewood were the property of the lake association. Commission chair Alison Hamilton was absent.

The commissioners retired into a 15-minute executive session for attorney-client privilege concerning pending litigation with County Counselor Jacklyn Paletta and Public Works Director Jesse Walton. Commissioners returned to open session and voted for a 20-minute closed-door session with the same players and “Foulston,” presumably a representative from Foulston Siefkin LLP, a law firm that has been helping with the case.

When the open meeting resumed, Vice Chair Hightower said there was no action.

Hightower then moved to approve the settlement agreement that had already been signed by Tanglewood Lakes officials that resolves the lawsuit between Tanglewood and Linn County and further the quitclaim deed, which is Exhibit B to the settlement agreement. Both Hightower and Johnson approved the motion.

That settlement laid out the condition that Linn County was “conveying to Tanglewood any and all of Linn County’s rights, titles, and interests in and to any of the Tanglewood Lake Properties, including but not limited to ‘Common Properties’ and including but not limited to any streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake properties.”

For that, the TLOA will deliver to Linn County a check for $10 for the quitclaim deed.

This settlement also agrees to indemnification.

The settlement says, “TANGLEWOOD agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless LINN COUNTY and its commissioners, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, damages, lawsuits, judgments, actions, or demands arising in the past, present, or future relating to the streets, roads, roadways, and

related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties, including without limitation any claims or allegations relating to the following:

“a. the alleged failure to properly maintain, repair, improve, design, construct, or reconstruct the streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties;

“b. the alleged failure to properly operate, manage, or control traffic on the

streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties;

“c. the alleged failure to provide proper signage on the streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties;

“d. the alleged failure to properly warn of dangerous conditions on the streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties;

“e. the alleged failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations, codes, standards, or specifications governing the streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties; and

“f. any other alleged act or omission related to the management, control or maintenance of the streets, roads, roadways, and related infrastructure within the Tanglewood Lake Properties.”                                                                                                                                                                                    

The county commission has indicated it did not want the roads to be public because the county would have to bear the cost  to maintain them. The TLOA wanted the roads to be private so that the roads would be maintained to their standards and also so that they could regulate who used the roads, possibly making it once again a gated community.

Linn County District Court Judge Andrea Purvis in December of 2024 issued a permanent injunction preventing the Tanglewood Lake Owners’ Association (TLOA) from restricting access for property owners at the lake community.

Access to the lake development was only available through electronic gates operated by cards and board members restricted lake lot owners from entering or leaving the community if their lake owner association fees were not paid. In some cases property owners were denied access if the fees were current but there was some other dispute with board members.

In her December 2024 decision, Judge Purvis wrote, “The Court also finds that an action at law will not provide an adequate remedy. The deactivation of gate access immediately prohibits the owner from access to their property and residences. The only way in or out of the Tanglewood Lake addition is through the electronic gate with the gate access card.

“This essentially makes a resident owner homeless at the time of the deactivation. It also makes it impossible for the owner to care for the property by doing such things as truck in water or have their sewage tanks pumped which relates to the health and safety of not just the owner but the community as a whole.

“Having to file a case with the Court to provide a remedy is not expedient – this case is the perfect example. This case was filed in December 2021. The temporary injunction, which ordered the Tanglewood Lake Owners’ Association to return gate access to the owners, not being issued until August of 2023.”

Linn County and the TLOA has been involved in a lawsuit about this since June 2025 after Linn County District Court Judge Purvis made the decision on March 10, 2025 during a criminal case that the roads at Tanglewood were public.

After the case was filed, the attorneys for both sides tried to have her removed as judge for the case saying that her decision on the criminal case (the roads were public) made her biased.

On Dec. 18, 2025, 6th Judicial District Chief Justice Amy Hearth denied the motion for a change of judge in the case.

Harth wrote, “At its heart, this motion requests a change of judge as a result of what the parties anticipate Judge Purvis’ actions in the case will be, based on what she’s done in another case. These affidavits have failed to demonstrate personal bias, prejudice or interest by Judge Purvis, nor have they demonstrated the parties cannot receive a fair and impartial trial.

“What they have shown is they disagree with her previous ruling in a case with completely separate parties.This is insufficient to support a motion to change judge under K.S.A. 20-311d. The motion for change of judge is denied.”