Letter to Russell - Point Vivian Park Community, Common Property

Dear Joe:

Our clients Gus Murray and Phyllis Johnson have provided some recent correspondence from the Point Vivian Park Association:

These are attached for your review and trouble me in several respects. It seems the Board believes for the first time that a novel tenant-in-common relationship has been imposed on them by Judge McClusky and they need to react to it. The attached documents refer to PowerPoint presentations and memos about new governance rules, a whole new Tenant-In-Common voting designation and to revision of the bylaws.

Do you agree with this analysis? It seems to me that Article 11 of the current bylaws "Section 2.01 Purpose." addresses the cottage owner and fractional common property ownership combination perfectly. The PVPA Purpose is for the "mutual advancement or its members as property owners" ... (and) "to provide for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the roads, avenues, public grounds, docks and public buildings at Point Vivian"

Clearly the current purpose (which draws heavily on the original purpose of the corporation) covers the jointly owned common property. I can't understand why the official position creates anxiety and blame about the Judge confirming what has always been the case cottage owners own fractional shares of the common property, roads and buildings.

The only change in approach is a required unanimity for the conveyance/transfer of the jointly owned property. Transfer of the PVPA's own lots 9 and 40 remains a bylaw driven majority. but a transler beyond its 3/80ths interest of commonly held property requires all cotenants. I forecast this in an email to you back in 2014.

I have looked over the April 2018 Point Vivian News which features a Question and Answer memo from you. Since there is no letterhead or signature block, I am not sure it's your work product or has been revised. Without picking apart the entire memo, why wouldn't the Board presently have the responsibility and the right to address installation of waterlines and other infrastructure in the common areas? This is the very purpose for which it was formed by the members themselves. Secondly, why would the Board need approval by each fractional owner to permit the preservation corp to address the needs of the "public grounds, docks and public buildings at Point Vivian"?

The Board of Directors conference call minutes of May 13, 2018 again claims, "our attorney's legal opinion is that this ruling limits the authority of the Board to make decisions and/or approve projects regarding common property." I assume it is your opinion which supports the claim that "tenants-in-common requires 100% approval with issues of common property." What is the legal basis for a need for 100% of tenants-in-common to authorize work on the pavilion or to form a new Tenants-in-Common voting protocol.

There are several other questions and comments which I will reserve at this point. However, to assure all the residents at Point Vivian that the two lawyers fairly familiar with the organization and its history agree how to apply the law.

I would like to discuss this with you.