Owner-elected board and no deed-level rental monopoly, but five commercial units (three master-owned) sit inside the regime, the resort facilities' rules and 'Resort Expenses' are set by the declarant's designee (MPOA) with Renaissance holding one seat, legacy declarant consents remain, and a pending-or-unresolved owner lawsuit alleges years of board concealment and under-reserving.
StructureTwo tiers: a master association above this one
Master associationThe Myrtle Beach Resort Homeowners' Association, Inc. (MPOA)
Commercial unitYes, with its own deed rights
BoardFive directors, all elected by the owners at the annual meeting for staggered two-year terms, no cumulative voting; each director must be a co-owner (or voting member of a corporate owner) in good standing and automatically leaves the board if delinquent; officers elected by the board; serve without pay (By-Laws Art VIII, IX). The declarant-appointed initial board was to hand over control within nine months of the 1984 recording (Master Deed Art II.4). Budget is due Nov 15 and mailed by Dec 1 each year (By-Laws Art IX Sec.6).
Developer rightsHistoric (1984) declarant rights: consent required for any amendment affecting declarant rights (Art VI, Art VII, By-Laws Art XX); consent needed for timeshare marketing (Art XI); right to grant beach, access and amenity easements/licenses to outsiders for fees (Art XIV, XVIII); right to use units as sales/rental/management/laundry offices and to lease its own units free of any leasing restriction (Art XI, Art XV(a),(d)); exclusive right to contract for water, sewer, utility, telephone and TV services for the regime, charges being common expenses (Art XV(e)); and, for the resort, the declarant 'or its designee' (not the owners) sets the rules for the Resort Facilities, collects 'Resort Expenses' in advance subject only to an annual accounting, and is subrogated to the Association's lien rights if they go unpaid (Art XVIII). Whether any successor still holds the regime-level rights is unstated; the resort homeowners association (MPOA) is the declarant's designated successor for the Resort Facilities (Art XVIII).
Commercial-unit rightsFive commercial units (restaurant/lounge, registration desk with maid rooms as limited common elements, meeting room, future retail/rental space, game room) carry 20+3+3+3+1 = 30 of 1,119 votes (Exhibit 4; Art II.3 says 16 for Unit A, but the 1,119 total only reconciles with 20: 58x5 + 120x4 + 31x3 + 113x2 + 30 = 1,119). Exhibit 4 values Unit A at about four times a Grand two-bedroom. Commercial owners may use adjoining common elements for their business, display signs, and opt out of the master insurance (Art X.1; By-Laws Art XII Sec.8, 10). The 2026 budget letter says Units A, D and E are 'Master-owned' and opted back into the property policy for 2026. No deed-level monopoly on rentals, check-in or guest services is stated; owners may rent as they choose (Art XI).
VotesVotes by unit value: 5 for Grand/Front 2BR, 4 for Side 2BR, 3 for 1BR and 548-sf Front Suites, 2 for other suites; 1,119 total votes (Exhibit 4). One voting member per unit, proxies allowed; majority = 51% of total votes; quorum 51% (reducible to one-third by board action); written consent in lieu of meeting needs 67% (By-Laws Art VII, XI).
Changing the deedMaster Deed: 67% of all voting members; unanimous owner and mortgagee consent to change percentages, votes or terminate; declarant and institutional-mortgagee consents for provisions affecting them (Art VI). By-Laws: 67% of total vote (Art XX). Common-element alterations/additions: Board plus 75% of total votes plus mortgagees holding 90% of mortgage debt (Art XII.2). Rules: Board alone, subject to the deed (By-Laws Art XIV).
Disputes or lawsuitsA federal class and derivative action (U.S. District Court, D.S.C., Florence Division, Civil Action 4:22-cv-03556-RBH; First Amended Complaint, a redline of the original October 2022 complaint, verified March 2023) was brought by a group of unit owners (individuals and LLC owners), one of them derivatively on behalf of the regime and for a class of all residential owners as of Oct 7, 2022, against ten former and current co-owner directors of the board, the regime's former management company, William Douglas Management, Inc. (manager from before 2015 until 2020) and unnamed John Does, with the regime as nominal defendant. Alleged: the board and manager knew from about 2017-2018 (an engineer's inspection and 2018 repair drawings) that structural steel under the first floor was corroding and had to be repaired, deferred the work for about five years while spending on non-structural projects (cooling tower etc.), made selective disclosures to owners, never obtained a reserve study, held under $1.3 million in reserves (July 2022) for a 21-story 322-unit beachfront building, levied a $2,075,600 structural assessment on Sept 15, 2022 (contractor Procon began the repair Oct 3, 2022), and on Oct 7, 2022 the engineer found the building 'not structurally sound' and ordered it evacuated on one hour's notice; the building stayed unoccupied until about Feb 25, 2023; owners allegedly lost rental income (short- and long-term), housing and unit value and face further shoring/repair assessments. Causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty, breach of covenants and by-laws, negligence and gross negligence; damages claimed over $5,000,000 plus punitive damages and attorney fees; jury trial demanded. The engineer's Oct 7, 2022 letter said shoring was required and the repair scope had to expand to replace the bottom of the columns (paragraph 140). The outcome, any settlement, and the current status of the case are not stated in the set. The 2026 budget's $629,604 'Special Steel Assessment' shows the steel repair financing is still running.