Resolve the PVPA Common Property Ownership Issues

There have been many opportunities over the years for the common property ownership issue to be resolved; several opportunities missed!

1. The decision of Judge Gilbert in Gribuski v Point Vivian Association in state Supreme Court 94-1406, September 1995 states:

   Plaintiff Gribuski contentions:

   1. Association land is owned in common with other property owners, and
   2. Gribuski claims a prescriptive easement to maintain a fence on the common property

   After which the court held:

   "While we concur with (Gribuski) that they have a right of access to their property over land owned in common with other property owners, we cannot find that they have any right to construct a fence on those lands, or to place vehicles or other obstructions on the common area, which there affects their co-tenants right to unfettered use of these common areas."
2. Starting in ____ the PVPA Corp. board has placed a budget item in the annual budget to obtain a deed for the common property.
3. Richard Randall, chairman of the PVPA board in 2013 wrote an article for Thousand Islands Life, stating that the PVPA is a shareholder corporation. See http://www.thousandislandslife.com/ThePlace/Communities/tabid/416/agentType/View/PropertyID/16/Default.aspx.
4. After the 2013 effort to amend the by-laws with a provision to include a two-thirds vote to buy/sell common property, Mrs. Johnson replied to change with a clear opinion, "you cannot vote away my property rights."
5. In 2013 when PVPA Corp. board, and in negotiations, asked the membership for input on how to proceed in the Holliday Trust lawsuit, Mrs. Pratt replied, quite accurately:

   Please see the attached memo from B. Pratt to Roger Harris of Oct. 2013. It states clearly what years of legal action proved to be true:

   1. Page 5: "It is my contention that the PVPA (board) can't sell what it doesn't own."
   2. Page 5 : "I'm not an attorney, but it seems logical to me that our attorney's first defense would be to tell Mr. Holliday that he's suing the wrong party, and that the PVPA only holds 1.5/40 interest in said parcel. Let Mr. Holliday pay the cost to prove otherwise. "
6. Pratt/Johnson request to intervene in the Holliday Trust vs PVPA board
   
   

   Pratt/Johnson sought to intervene on the side of the PVPA Corp board to defend against the Holliday Trust's claim of adverse possession.

   Had anyone on the PVPA board contacted Pratt/Johnson, or actually read the content of in the intervention document, they might have learned:

   1. Pratt/Johnson were represented by very well-qualified lawyer whose retainer was already paid $2.000!
   2. The intervention document included a legal brief with a full argument developed to reply to each article in the Holliday Trust complaint.
   3. If accepted, the intervening parties' lawyer would work with the board's lawyer to puruse the case.
   
   

   On Feb. 20, 2014, at 9:30 am the judge was to hold a hearing to decide if Pratt/Johnson were, in fact, owners of the common property in question and entitled to intervene. Approx 18 hours prior to the hearing plaintiff withdrew from the suit and agreed on the deal to grant the property to the Hollidays/Hoonings and the claim terminated.

   Most likely, the judge would have ruled for Pratt/Johnson as he did two years later. The South Street common property would stayed and second lawsuit was unnecessary.