Memo to: PVPA Members
Subject: PVPA Inc. board memo to members dated December 15, 2017, with attachments
Reference: Murray11-19-2017 e-mail to members, plus various prior communications.
State of New York Supreme Court, County of Jefferson, Final Judgment dated 1 April 2016, with noticed of entry in Jefferson County Clerks office on April 6, 2016. Together with Bill of Costs. (Pratt/Johnson, el al vs PVPA Inc., et al)
"NEWS FLASH the Randall/Harris/Board ruling elites lost the Pratt/Johnson lawsuit thoroughly and completely. GET OVER IT! The SOUTH STREET EXTENSION is again available to enhance all your Point Vivian experiences and dreams."
Let me restate my above statement in somewhat less dramatic language, and, then amplify WHY IT IS TRUE.
After consulting with my lawyer, I state: The South Street extension, as a section of Point Vivian common property is, and, always has been equally available to all association members for their access/use. No recent events have changed that.
1. South Street extension ownership/access/use.
I assert that as a PVPA member, or, as a fractional owner and tenant in commonI I may:
- Walk or drive on South St. and South St. Street Extension to the river.
- Park on common property, including South Street Extension in a manner not to impede or block any other member, owner tenant-in-common from access to their property, or, to the river.
- Cross the (HWM) high watermark and enter the River to swim/kayak etc. … exercising my riparian rights as a partial owner of the attached common property.
All other PVPA members including the Hoonings and Hollidays have exactly the same rights/obligations as I have for access to, and, use of this common property.
2. Next, I will address the board's 12-15 -2017 memo page by page to address some serious inaccuracies/misstatements.
Page 1
Board comment:
"For the mutual advancement of the interests of its members as property owners at Point Vivian."
Murray comments:
The PVPA Inc. board has consistently advanced, and supported the interests of the Holliday property owner.... A non-owner, invited member of the PVPA. Board's advocacy of the Holliday claims is to the detriment of all other PVPA members/owners.
Page 2
Holliday summons (From page 1)
Page 2, Item 2
No way to verify this claim.The board refuses to make available the member replies to their requests.
Mr. Holliday did not need an easement as a PVPA member he had a guaranteed right of access to all common property.
Page 2, Item 3
The obvious victims throughout this whole process are the Hoonings! First the Hollidays and the board team up to potentially exclude them from the use of the South St. Extension. Then Mr. Randall and the board demanded that the Hoonings be active participants in the Pratt/Johnson lawsuit. Iff anyone is due an apology from all this it would be the Hoonings!
Page 2, Item 4, and the next paragraph
Did not sell? Did not sell? Conveyed without the owner approval!
Negotiated settlement
The PVPA board attempted to convey 100% ownership of two parcels of land 12' x 177' each ... one to the Hollidays, one to the holdings. They, the board, only transferred what they did own, 3/80% ownership. Had the PVPA board conveyed, legally, 100% ownership, then indeed exclusive use, and riparian rights wou8ld have gone with ownership. They did not!
Interesting to note, other owners, tenants-in-common may have then challenged the exclusive use with a claim of prescriptive easement.
Page 2 (Continued)
Pratt/Johnson Court Decision, December 8, 2015
Be Dec. 8, 2015 noted here is a subset of the final judgment of April 1, 2016. Other noteworthy orders in the final judgment are:
- Includes the reference to the acknowledgement and consent to judgment by the Hoonings and Hollidays.
- The PVPA claim against Phyllis Johnson to tear down her boat house is dismissed.
PVPA claim of ownership "Public grounds" by articles of organization or by adverse possession is dismissed.
- PVPA claim of ownership of the public grounds as depicted in the 1880 map is dismissed.
Page 2 Conclusions, Pratt/Johnson December 8, 2015 No!
Final judgment April 1, 2016
- 1. Certainly not ... PVPA Inc. owns the common property associated with lots 40, 9, minus the 3/80% ownership of the two South St. Extension parcels (12' x 177') conveyed one each to the Hoonings and the Hollidays.
- 2. ... which are owned by owners of all or part of the original 40 Point Vivian lots.
Page 3
- 4.(a) Wrong The PVPA Inc. conveyed only their 3/80s percent ownership of a 12' x 177' piece of the South St. Extension adjacent to the Holliday properties to the Hollidays.M
- (b) wrongThe Holliday property owner is a 3/80% ownership of a 12' x 177' piece of South St. Extension. As such, the Holliday property owner is a tenant-in-common in that 12' x 177' piece of property only. As an invited member of the Association, the Holliday property owner has equal rights/obligations access/use of all common property.
- 5. Common property may not be sold or conveyed in any manner without unanimous approval. The Holliday property owner would be entitled to vote only on the 12' x 177' peice of propderty th he is a aprtial owner, and, tenant in common of.
- Vote I am sure would be biy property! Do you really want Phyllis Johnson to each of her six co-owners to vote?
