Lured Market released its documents this weekend. Two of them reset the story: the Town's own 2024 meeting packet, which shows the disputed boathouse clause sitting in a lease the Council voted for — and the termination notice, which rests the eviction on a single missed August payment the Town refused to accept the day before it terminated.

This is a follow-up to our August 23 report, Inside the Fight Over Lake Lure's Best-Known Business.

Over the weekend the Town of Lake Lure's silence broke twice. On Saturday a sitting commissioner, Jim Proctor, posted a detailed personal account of the dispute against his own attorneys' advice. On Sunday Lured Market & Grill published the documents it had promised — the lease, the termination notice, the complaint with exhibits, and links to four Town Council meeting records.

Those four council records are the story. Not because Lured framed them well, but because one of them contains a document that neither side has discussed and that changes how the central question should be read.

The Town has told a court that reading its lease to give a market tenant rights over a police boathouse is "absurd and could not have been the intent of the Parties when they executed the Lease."

The lease the Town Council approved on April 24, 2024 contains that clause, word for word.

What Was in the Packet

The agenda item reads: "Consider Authorization of Lease Agreement for 2654 Memorial Highway and Portions of Parcel #1616938." The summary notes the lease was noticed under N.C.G.S. § 160A-272(a1), that a copy began on page 7 of the meeting packet, and that "there was a brief discussion and the Lease Agreement was approved."

Page 7 of that packet is still online. Three things in it matter.

First, Section 19 is already there. The draft reads: "In the event that the Landlord discontinues using the existing police department boat house, this boat house and premises would become a part of the concession agreement section of this lease." That is identical to the executed lease. The elected body approved a document containing it.

Second, it was one lease with two tenants. The opening paragraph names "TOWN OF LAKE LURE, a North Carolina municipality ('Landlord'), and SECOND MOUNTAIN LLC ('Tenant') and Lake Lure Rowing Club, LLC. ('Tenant')." Both businesses were co-tenants of a single agreement.

That is why the boathouse clause made sense when it was written. In the April draft, the concession was not a contingency buried in one tenant's lease — it was part of the rent. Section 4 of that draft reads: monthly rent of $4,000 "plus the amortized payment for the deck structure... and a 15% concession agreement payment based on gross receipts for revenue generated via Tenant's rowing operations and rentals, paid to the town monthly." One lease, two tenants, one concession, one boathouse clause pointing at it.

Third, the premises description was unfinished. Section 1 of the approved draft reads, in full: "The real property hereby leased to Tenant consists of that certain real property and improvements located thereon having a street address of 2654 MEMORIAL HWY, Lake Lure, Rutherford County, North Carolina and a Parcel number of 1616937 and portions of (the 'Premises')."

The sentence stops. The agenda item says the lease covers "Portions of Parcel #1616938." The draft never names it. The Council approved a lease whose description of the leased land trails off mid-clause.

That unnamed parcel is identifiable, and it matters. Rutherford County's tax records list Parcel/PIN 1616938 as a 0.55-acre tract at 2662 Memorial Highway, owned by the Town of Lake Lure since 1993 — and its official property description, on the county's own record, reads simply "POLICE BOAT HOUSE." It is not a stray reference to some other piece of town land. It is the boathouse parcel itself, sitting next door to the 2654 Memorial Highway address the rest of the lease describes. The April 2024 authorization the Council voted for was, on its face, for a lease reaching onto the boathouse's own parcel — not merely for a clause that might someday hand the boathouse to a tenant on a contingency. What that draft, incomplete sentence and all, was actually offering the tenants access to was resolved by leaving it out of the executed lease four months later.

The executed lease, signed four months later, drops the second parcel entirely. Its Premises clause names only 2654 Memorial Highway, Suite A, parcel 1616937 — and keeps Section 19.

The Liquor Permit

What happened in between is documented in the Town's August 28, 2024 work session summary, and it has not been reported.

"Mr. Brock and Mr. Oppliger have requested an amendment to their lease for 2654 Memorial Highway in order to receive an ABC liquor permit," the summary states. "This amendment includes the removal of Lake Lure Rowing Club from the lease. Town Attorney William Morgan has advised that this could be done either by having two leases (Suite A and Suite B) or by allowing Lake Lure Rowing to act as a sublet to Second Mountain LLC with a standalone concession agreement."

The attorney's preference was one lease with a sublet. What the Council did was this: "A recommendation was made to have Attorney William Morgan draw up a new lease and give the Town Manager the authority to approve the new lease based on the discussion."

The lease was executed the next day, August 29, 2024.

So the final agreement — the one now being litigated, the one containing Section 19 in its "MISCELLANEOUS" section — was approved by the Town Manager under delegated authority, not by a vote of the Council on its text. And the restructuring that produced it was undertaken to satisfy an alcohol permit, not to change anything about boathouses.

That restructuring is what orphaned the clause. Split into two leases, Section 19 stayed in Second Mountain's document while the rowing operations it pointed to moved into Lake Lure Rowing's. The concession terms in the executed Suite A lease no longer describe a shared operation; they now trigger only if the Rowing Club ceases operating, at which point Second Mountain takes the rentals over at fifteen percent of gross with a $6,000 annual floor.

Commissioner Proctor described the clause on Saturday as meaning the boathouse "could be used as part of the rowing concession agreement that Wade had with Suite B." He is describing the structure that emerged from the split. The clause was drafted for the structure that preceded it.

None of this tells a court what Section 19 means today. It does make one argument harder to sustain. A clause cannot be an absurdity that could not have been intended when it appears, unchanged, in the draft the Town's own elected board reviewed and approved, inside a lease that also reached for a second parcel of waterfront.

The Termination Notice, in Full

The complete four-page notice is now in hand, and it is narrower — and stranger — than either side's public account of it.

It is dated August 18, 2026, on Allen Stahl + Kilbourne letterhead, signed by Marty Benson and Robert C. Carpenter, copied to the Town, and addressed not to Paul Brock but to Lured's attorney, Edward L. Bleynat, Jr. Subject line: "Notice of Lease Termination and Demand for Immediate Possession." The Lease "is hereby terminated effective immediately pursuant to Section 15."

The termination rests on one missed payment. Under "Basis for Termination," the first item reads: "As noticed by our August 10, 2026 letter to your office, Tenant failed to pay rent due on August 1, 2026 in accordance with the terms of the Lease. More than five (5) days elapsed after the rent due date, constituting an Event of Default under Section 15.1(A). This is the latest in a series of repeated breaches for untimely payment."

And then, unambiguously: "The foregoing Event of Default independently entitles the Town to terminate the Lease and demand immediate possession."

The years of late checks are not the grounds. They appear four paragraphs later, under "Reservation of All Rights and Remedies," as claims the Town reserves the right to pursue: "the right to pursue remedies based on Tenant's repeated payment delinquencies and prior notices of default, including defaults in March, August, and October 2025, and February 2026."

Which settles the count. The Town's own termination notice names four prior defaults, on exactly the four dates its attorney listed on April 2, 2026. Commissioner Proctor told residents on Saturday that the figure was ten. The document that ended the tenancy says four.

The Town refused the payment the day before it terminated. The notice's second ground is remarkable for appearing in a document drafted by the terminating party:

"No August Rent Accepted; Tender Refused: The Town has accepted no rent payment from Tenant for the month of August 2026. On August 17, 2026, Tenant attempted to tender payment, which the Town expressly refused."

So the sequence is documented, by the Town, in writing. Rent came due August 1. The five-day cure window closed Thursday, August 6. Counsel noticed the default Monday, August 10 — the day before the Council's August 11 closed session. Mediation reached impasse Friday, August 14. On Monday, August 17, Cara Brock brought the payment and the Town refused it. The next day, Tuesday, August 18, the lease was terminated, with a demand to vacate and surrender all keys to Town Manager Olivia Stewman by 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 21.

Refusing a late tender is not sharp practice; it is the conventional step a landlord takes to avoid reinstating a lease it has already declared in default. The notice says as much, and cites the clause: "Acceptance of any payment by the Town, if it were to occur, would not reinstate the Lease, waive the termination thereof, or waive any right or remedy available to the Town. Section 19.8."

But it means the public accounts on both sides need adjusting. This is not an eviction for a long history of unpaid rent — the Town's lawyers did not plead it that way. It is a termination on a single August default, matured on August 6, with the tender refused on August 17 and the history preserved as a damages claim. Whether a court finds that proportionate to closing a business with 24 employees is a different question from whether it is contractually available. On the face of the lease, it is available.

The notice closes by promising that if Lured does not leave, "the Town will immediately commence a summary ejectment action in the General Court of Justice, Rutherford County."

The Waiver Question, and the Town's Answer

Lured's sharpest argument is a rhetorical question: "How can they accept rent payments that are a few days late and then claim a breach of the lease based on the late rent payment?"

The company says the late payments "were ultimately made and accepted by the Town," that it "even paid the additional late fees and interest because the Town issued a demand for those several months after the rent checks were cashed," and that it is current on rent except for the August 2026 payment the Town refused. Its complaint pleaded the same theory back in June: that the Town "had waived any right to declare default or forfeiture."

It is a real doctrine. A landlord who accepts rent knowing of a default can, in some circumstances, be held to have waived the right to declare a forfeiture on it.

The Town has a direct answer, it is in the lease, and its lawyers cite it by number twice in the termination notice. Section 19.8 provides: "The delay or failure of Landlord to seek redress for violation of or to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant or condition of this Lease shall not prevent a prior or subsequent act, which would have originally constituted a violation, from having the effect of an original violation. Any waiver by Landlord of any breach or default by Tenant must be in writing and will be effective only to the extent specifically set forth in such writing."

That is an express non-waiver clause, and no writing waiving these defaults has surfaced. The notice invokes it preemptively, declaring that the Town "does not waive and has not waived any right, claim, or remedy." It does not automatically end the argument — courts examining a long course of conduct have sometimes found waiver despite such clauses — but it means the answer to Lured's question is written into the contract, two subsections below the boathouse sentence.

The Town's refusal of the August payment fits the same logic. Declining rent after declaring a default is the conventional step a landlord takes precisely to avoid accepting it.

What Is Asserted but Not Yet Documented

Lured's post makes several claims this report cannot verify.

That the Town "seems hell-bent on spending over $100,000 in taxpayer money." No public record supports or refutes that figure; legal invoices are public records and can be requested.

That "it was the intent of the Town to move out shortly after the lease was signed, which they did." This is the central factual dispute, and it is now squarely contradicted by Commissioner Proctor's account that the police boats sat in the boathouse until two days before Helene. Neither version is documented publicly.

That the Town "has intentionally left this lakeside property derelict." An assertion of motive.

That it took the Town "five months to discover" the changed locks. The complaint places the lock change in approximately October 2025; Town Manager Olivia Stewman's email flagging replaced locks is dated February 3, 2026. That is roughly four months, and it is a fair question — though the Town's answer, that the lake was drained and unusable through that period, is on the record.

One Lured claim does check out cleanly. Lake recreation was in the plan from the start: the Town's January 24, 2024 work session summary records that "there was a discussion regarding the lease, the parties included in the lease, the improvements that may be made to the property, the non-motorized boats that will be rented, and the timing of the signed lease and rent," and notes that at the December 2023 regular meeting Council "voted to authorize the Town Manager to negotiate lease terms with Mr. Paul Brock and Mr. Wade Oppliger based on their proposal."

That December 2023 authorization also confirms Commissioner Proctor's procurement timeline over the complaint's. The complaint alleges bidding opened in January 2024 and was awarded in March; the Town's records show a proposal accepted in December 2023 and a draft lease under review by January 24.

Tonight

The Town Council meets tonight, Monday, August 24, at 5:00 p.m. at The Landings, 920 Buffalo Creek Road — a special meeting and public hearing, with the Comprehensive Plan on the agenda. Lured has asked supporters to attend and speak. A work session follows Wednesday, August 26 at 8:30 a.m., whose closed session is noticed under the property-acquisition exception rather than the attorney-client one.

Four questions are answerable in public, tonight, without waiting for a court.

Did the Council vote to terminate this lease, and when? No published agenda or minute records such a vote. The August 11 regular meeting closed session, held under G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3), is the only candidate — and the termination notice reveals that counsel had already issued a default notice on August 10, the day before it. In H.B.S. Contractors, Inc. v. Cumberland County Board of Education, 122 N.C. App. 49 (1996), the Court of Appeals held that terminating a contract in an attorney-client closed session violates the Open Meetings Law.

Why did a commissioner say ten? The Town's own termination notice names four prior defaults. Commissioner Proctor told residents ten.

Who authorized the August 10 default notice? It went out the day before the only closed session that could have approved this course.

Who decided to refuse the August 17 payment? The Town has confirmed in writing that it did.

What happened to portions of Parcel 1616938? The Council authorized a lease covering them. The executed lease does not mention them.

Where were the police boats between May and September 2024? Vessel logs, dock assignments and dated photographs would settle the case's central question in an afternoon.

The Documents

Court file — Second Mountain, LLC d/b/a Lured Market & Grill v. Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Superior Court, 26CV000857-800

• Complaint with Exhibits A–F, filed June 1, 2026, including the executed lease and the February–April 2026 correspondence — published by Lured Market
• Notice of Lease Termination and Demand for Immediate Possession, dated August 18, 2026, Allen Stahl + Kilbourne to Edward L. Bleynat, Jr., 4 pages — the grounds, the refused August 17 tender, and the four reserved prior defaults — published by Lured Market
• Town of Lake Lure's Motion to Dismiss, Answer and Counterclaims, filed August 5, 2026 — published by the Town

Town Council records

• January 24, 2024 work session — draft lease review; non-motorized boat rentals; December 2023 negotiating authority
• April 24, 2024 work session — lease authorization, "and Portions of Parcel #1616938"
• April 24, 2024 meeting packet — the approved draft lease begins on page 7; Section 19 is in it
• May 14, 2024 regular meeting — authorization for the Town Manager to sign
• August 28, 2024 work session — ABC permit; lease split; authority delegated to the Town Manager
• August 11, 2026 agenda and packet — no lease item; closed session at Item XI
• Town Council contacts and meeting schedule

Federal records

• FEMA Public Assistance, DR-4827-NC — 31 obligated projects for the Town of Lake Lure, $14,596,866.67 obligated. Searchable at fema.gov by applicant.

County records

• Rutherford County parcel record, PIN 1616938 — 0.55 acres, 2662 Memorial Highway, owned by the Town of Lake Lure since 1993, property description "POLICE BOAT HOUSE"

Sourcing and Caveats

The April 24, 2024 draft lease, the January 24 and August 28, 2024 council summaries, and the August 11, 2026 agenda and packet were read directly from the Town of Lake Lure's published records. The executed lease and the February–April 2026 correspondence were read from Exhibits A–F of the complaint. The description and acreage of Parcel 1616938 are from Rutherford County's current online tax record, pulled directly rather than from any secondary source.

The August 18, 2026 termination notice was read in full, all four pages, and every quotation from it here is verbatim. Statements by Commissioner Jim Proctor are quoted from a post on his personal Facebook page, which he expressly labels personal and not an official Town communication; this report has not independently authenticated it. Statements by Lured Market are quoted from its published posts. None is sworn testimony.

The Town of Lake Lure's official position remains that it "does not comment on pending litigation" and directs the public to its August 5 filing. Allegations in pleadings are contentions, not findings. No claim in this case has been adjudicated.

Last updated: 2026-08-24