Memo to: Point Vivian Park Assoc. Members/Owners Part 1

Common Property, Status/History

The 2016 summer season has ended with a very positive and pleasant addition of new roofs to the Dock House and Pavilion. Unfortunately, the process by which the roof projects were achieved was not as positive, or as pleasant as the outcome!

It appears that the misunderstandings and misinformation generated by the recent lawsuit has persisted. Perhaps it is time to clarify some outstanding issues. Quite recently two PVPA Corp board members as well as others asked: "What was the lawsuits all about, why?

The answer is simple! The Pratt/Johnson legal action was to clarify only one question ... How is the common property owned? Is it owned by the current owners of the original 40 lots, or is it owned by the PVPA Corp. as the PVPA Board contended, The corp is also owned by the original 40 lot owners through their shares in the Corp.

If the common property was owned by the PVPA Corp, then the PVPA Inc board could quite legally, with a majority vote of the board, do anything they wished with any or all of the common property; sell it, gift it, donate it, etc. as the appeared to do with the sale/gift of the South Street Extension.

If, as judged in the Pratt/Johnson decision, the common property is owned as expressed in the individual lot owners' deeds, then it would take a unanimous action by all lot owners to transfer ownership of of common property!

The Pratt/Johnson action did not challenge any other policy, practice, or operation procedure of the PVPA Corp board.

This fact if totally substantiated by a review of the Pratt/Johnson claim; by the B. Pratt letter to the PVPA's boards prior to their _____ meeting, and by an e-mail from the Pratt/Johnson 's lawyer to the PVPA Board's lawyer dated August 1, 2014, which states:

If we are successful, the ladies (Pratt/Johnson) expect everything in the PVPA operation and management of the common property would remain as it has always been, except the board could not sell or convey any interest in the common property as it (did) in the spring. Only the sale or conveyance of the common property would require unanimous action, which should not be a big deal since it has occurred only once in the history of the PVP

So, the specifics of the Pratt/Johnson claim were not communicated accurately to the member. And that intercommunication was never corrected.

In the last analysis, why is it so important to the PVPA Corp's board to have the legal authority to complete the conveyance of the South Street Extension to the Holliday/Hoonings, and to have the legal authority to convey other common property they wished with just a majority vote of the PVPA board.

If the legal issue concerning the common property ownership was relatively similar?, why did it take two years and tens of thousands of dollars to decide.

More to come

Lee A. Murray