SUBJECT: Board of Directors actions regarding the Holliday Trust legal action.

REFERENCE: Board of Directors of PVPA communications of October 20, 2013 and April 28, 2014 letter to PVPA property owners by Board members Roger Harris and Peter Hludzenski. (only Board communications to property owners during the time period, Date of the summons September 12, 2013 until today!)

In our communication to the PVPA property owners dated February 19, 2014, we (Barbara Pratt, Phyllis Johnson) announced that the legal action of the HOLLIDAY TRUST vs. PVPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS, as owners of the "common property" of Point Vivian had been dropped by the claimant, Holliday Trust. At that time we indicated that we would follow up with a "fact sheet" discussing the actions of the parties involved. Given recent developments, it is more than appropriate to do that now!

1. On Thursday evening, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013,The Point Vivian Park Association was served a Summons, with the Jane E. Holliday Trust, Arnold Holliday as Trustee, as Plaintiff stating that the plaintiff had acquired the title to land of the PVPA between the Holliday and Hooning properties by "Adverse Possession", the Defendant was the Board of Directors of the PVPA as " owners" of the disputed property. We, (Pratt, Johnson) believe, as stated in our Deeds, that the ownership of the "common property" rests with the current owners of the original 40 properties that made up Point Vivian Park at its inception.

2. Richard Randall, President of the PVPA Board of Directors recused himself from Board activities August 16, 2013.

3. On November 12, 2013 Phyllis Johnson asked Roger Harris, acting President of the PVPA Board for a copy of the Summons and related documents. She was told by Mr. Harris that, "I have been told not to give anyone a copy." A very curious response, since the Suit had been registered with the Supreme Court of the State of New York and copies were available to ANYONE visiting the County Clerks office on Arsenal St. in Watertown, which Ms. Johnson did

4. On October 20, 2013 the PVPA Board communicated to property owners asking for guidance on how to proceed. It was totally inadequate and misleading in discussing alternatives; The letter made no comment on the validity of the Holliday claims. N.Y.S law very rarely grants "adverse possession" if the claimant has consensual access and use of the property, as the Holliday's have had for years.

   • The letter fails to note that it understands the competing views of ownership of the "common property" ownership by the Board of Directors as a corporate entity, versus the fractional ownership by cottage owners.

   • The letter states that an active defense against the Holliday claim would cost $25,000 to $40,000 or more. It does not address the financial impact of losing the case: decreased property values, expense of each property owner to redo/reregister Deeds, and/or the eventual loss of all Common Property if precedent was established. (the recent "gift" of Common Property to Holliday/Hooning has the same effect)

5. In early December we learned that the Board was pursuing a negotiated settlement with plans for a Board vote on the settlement, and a vote by the membership The Board had not communicated a strategy, or action plan to the property owners at anytime.

6. On December 10, 2013 we (Pratt, Johnson) sought legal advice regarding the Suit and the possible ramifications to property owners of possible outcomes. After this consultation and after considerable personal work, including: researching both the history and status of common property ownership: researching current Deeds of PVPA properly owners, researching the history and status of the corporate structure of the PVPA over time, and relevant N.Y.S. Property law. We(Pratt,Johnson) Concluded:

   • The Holliday Trust claims of "Adverse Possession" had little basis in N. Y. S. law and could be successfully defended against.

   • An active, successful defense would cost significantly less than the $25,000 to $40,000 suggested by the Board.

   • Loss of the case would put all of the Common Property at risk. It would also result in no gain to property owners, expose them to large potential expense to redo/reregister Deeds... sized at $50,000 by the Board in an association meeting.

    

7. Our decision was to tile for "intervention" in the legal process(Suit) in order to help actively defend against the Holliday claim, and, to protect all our ownership against loss of the common property.

8. On January 2, 2014 legal representation of the Holliday Trust and the PVPA Board were informed of our employment of legal council.

9. On February 10 2014 we (Pratt,Johnson) filed legal papers seeking judicial opinion re' our request to intervene in the Holliday Trust vs. PVPA Board suit. Our filing included a thorough explanation of the history and status of the ownership of the PVPA common property. In addition the filing included a point by point position on each of the Holliday claims. Presumably this content represents the bulk of the legal work sized by the Board at $25,000 to $40.000. It is important to note that this work is paid for at this point in time and therefore free to the Board. One would expect the Board to be delighted!!!

10. On February 12. 2014 Richard Randall retracted his recusal in this matter.

11. Both the Holliday Trust and the PVPA Board refused to support our request to intervene. The Holliday refusal understandably. But, WHAT POSSIBLE REASON COULD THE PVPA BOARD HAVE FOR NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY WELCOMING OUR HELP IN DEFENDING AGAINST THE HOLLIDAY CLAIM???

12. The court date for the Supreme Court of the State of New York to hear our request for intervention was set for 10AM, FEBRUARY 20, 2014.

13. At approximately 3:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 19, 2014 the legal representatives of all parties were informed that the Holliday Trust had dropped the the Suit. This action also terminated our intervention. It is interesting to note that the Suit was dropped lust 18 hours or so before the court hearing. It is also interesting to note that at no time From September to today there has teen ANY contact by any Board member to either of us. It would be reasonable to conclude that at this point that there is no longer any need to continue to negotiate anything with anybody regarding Common Property... particularly that addressed in the Holliday Suit!!! GIVEN SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, THE PVPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OBVIOUSLY HAD A DIFFERENT AGENDA.

14. An April 28. 2014 letter from Board members Roger Harris and Peter Hludzenski announced to PVPA members that the Board had not only continued to "negotiate" Re' the Holliday Suit, but had in fact GIVEN the Common Property away!!!!

    Interesting to note that all paperwork completing the "gift' predated the APRIL 28. 2014 letter.

    • Richard Randall, president of PVPA Board, signed the SETTLEMENT an March 11,2014.

    • New Holliday Deed recorded April 23. 2014

    • New Howling Deed recorded April 25, 2014

    The April 20 2014 letter is the first communication from the Board to members since the letter dated October 9, 2013 which was sent out on November 10, 2013. No vote, no explanation of behavior, no minutes of board meetings. Copies of minutes at Board meetings were requested several times, never given. No possible reasonable explanation.

SUMMARY

The results of this settlement includes:

• Enhanced value of he Holliday/Hooning properties!

• Reduced value of all other PVPA properties particularly those without DEEDED WATER ACCESS.

We Continue to contend that the PVPA Board:

• Can not give away what it does not own. The Common Property ownership is clearly stated in each of the Deeds of the current owners of the original 40 parcels of the Paint Vivian Park. 1/40 share of ownership of the Common Property to each parcel owner.

• Owes its members a thorough. detailed, transparent accounting at all its deliberations, decisions, actions from September 12,2013 to the present, including:

  • Contents and dispositions of all motions presented to the Board tor discussion, decision, member who offered motion/ content, member who seconded motion. members present to vote, how voted?

  • Review of Board action versus By Laws.

   

• Should commit immediately to a legal action/decision on the correct interpretation of ownership of the Common Property.

• Should commit immediately that the Board will not entertain any additional demands for transfer of Common Property.

• Each Board member should commit that they will not request/ accept "gale of Common Property.

The Board should develop a Fair, Just, and Legal way to deal with this issue, with Support by all property owners

sincerely. Phyllis Johnson