Although Farr was winner of his court case, he could not run for re-election, under OP's new bylaw [until he changed his property's ownership].   I'd view that  as highly prejudicial to the class of equitable owners. That new bylaw, in effect, reverses the result from Farr's legal case.  It overrides, it flouts that case's results.  Becomes moot just a few months after the case was ruled upon.

Yet I'd suggest that OP's then constituted board, especially Horne was the most active, pushing back against Farr.  Seems others, like the bylaws committee, just marched along the path of least resistance, and missed seeing [debating] this big irony.  And passed Horne's versions of the new bylaws. 

I'd doubt there was there any example where the bylaws committee substantively differed with her.  

Currently seems its good to hear your call for unity.  And it seems good that you're aware and  currently resisting  any "factions".