Reply to Hludzenski E-mail 12/13/2016
Read Peter Hludzenski Email to Members on Dec 13, 2016
1. I am a new owner/member at Point Vivian. As such I have been very careful to actually read all of the court documents and related information so as to develop an informed opinion based on fact.
Your board members have admitted on several occasions that they have not done so! As a result they have misinformed you. Their memo to you on the contract/significance of the Pratt/Johnson legal action is a classic example. It was totally wrong and if you based your opinion and decision to support the board on that memo, you were misguided.
2. The two lawsuits were; the Holliday trust vs. P. V. P. A. Inc. board of directors, and, Pratt/Johnson VS. P. V. P. A. Inc. Board of Directors. The seven or eight members of your "board" obtained your support in each case with a bogus explanation of the situation. Your "board” then mismanaged your affairs in each case! In the Holliday case, you're "board" not the association denied Pratt/Johnson; request to join with your board to defend against the loss of your common property. If pursued, the likely result of the joint action would have been retention of the South Street property, and, no need for the Pratt/Johnson action.
In the Pratt/Johnson suit there was/is only one issue! The board contended that all common property was owned by the P. V. P. A. Incorporated and that under NYS law your "board" with a simple majority vote could convey title to anyone they wished. This is not opinion, it is fact. Your "board" had attempted to do so in the Holliday/Hooning transaction. Your board spent tens of thousands of your money to establish this one authority. The board is correct that no point Vivian management group, association or corporate, has attempted to transfer or convey common property in the 130+ years. They knew that they did not have the legal authority to do so. I assume all of you knew it also.
The only time that the membership of the association were potentially exposed to active participation in the Pratt/Johnson legal action, was when your board demanded that each of you receive a summons. Yes, you then would have required legal representation. As I stated previously, the court rejected the board's demand with some colorful language.
3. You cannot rewrite history. Your board, in March 2014, attempted to convey, sell for $2.00 dollars or give $64,500.- worth of common property to Hooning/Holliday! This is fact!
If the Pratt/Johnson suit had been settled in favor of the P.V.P.A. Board of directors the only only change in P.V.P.A. Inc. board power or process would be their ability to transfer ownership of common property without unanimous approval of the owners/members. This is fact! Your “board: spent lots of money for this power!
4. Yes, the magical missing document! Presumably this is a deed assigning ownership to that the P.V. P. A. Incorporation of all Point Vivian common property, if such ever existed, why is it not registered at the Jefferson County Clerk's office in Watertown?
Your board contends that in December 1884 all property owners at Point Vivian (approx 44 lots) transferred their interest in the common property to a new building corporation being formed by 11 local businessman, some of whom owned lots. This would have generated 44 new pieces of paper at least…new deeds registered with the county ... none exist. It would also have also generated 44 stock certificates expressing ownership in the new corporation. None exist. An interesting additional issue is that it was not legal at that time for such corporations to be capitalized with anything other than cash. B. Pratt and P. Johnson did exhaustive work on this issue in a copyrighted document I will discuss at some future point.
This common property exchange did not happen!
