Analysis of JHPOA February 15, 2025 Communication

JHPOA Claim:

"...CDAL ownership are also committed residents"

Reality:

• CDAL owners are business investors who paid US$30M for a profit-making venture
• No evidence of long-term commitment to community interests
• Business decisions prioritize profit over resident welfare
• Documented pattern of asset extraction and cost-shifting

JHPOA Claim:

"While they are not perfect, when compared to the two previous ownership groups who at best can be described as incompetent, and at worst fraudulent, their transparency, dedication, and overall professional conduct has been a huge improvement"

Reality:

• Previous mismanagement doesn't justify current covenant violations
• No evidence of improved transparency:
  • No detailed audits provided
  • No itemized cost breakdowns
  • No response to information requests
  • No disclosure of umbrella company relationships
• Current management continues problematic practices:
  • Unauthorized charges
  • Infrastructure neglect
  • Coercive payment tactics
  • Lack of financial transparency

JHPOA Claim:

"negotiations are ongoing to fund these important projects"

Reality:

• No concrete funding plans presented
• No timeline for infrastructure repairs
• No disclosure of negotiation details
• No commitment to cover costs as required by covenants
• Reserve Study shows US$62.3M repair backlog

JHPOA Claim:

"Either we identify a way to create a legal structure that respects and protects the interests of each individual villa owner [...] or we face the real possibility of CDAL being sold to a third party"

Reality:

• Presents false dichotomy ignoring existing legal remedies
• Current land transfer covenants already protect owner rights
• Multiple court rulings confirm freeholder protections
• CDAL's obligations persist regardless of ownership
• Sale to third party doesn't void covenant obligations

JHPOA Claim:

"For those of you that are mired in pursuing the past, find a way to accept that your negative actions will likely never amount to anything"

Reality:

• Ignores successful legal precedents:
  • Coleman ruling protecting owner rights
  • Bigler case establishing billing requirements
  • Recent injunctions against utility disconnection
• Dismisses valid legal concerns as "negative actions"
• Attempts to discourage legitimate legal remedies
• Contradicts documented court successes

JHPOA Claim:

"when the upgrades to Jolly Harbour and the surrounding properties are completed, not only will the investments we've made increase dramatically"

Reality:

• No evidence provided for property value claims
• No detailed development plans presented
• No timeline for promised improvements
• No financial projections or market analysis
• Ignores negative impact of:
  • Infrastructure deterioration
  • Ongoing legal disputes
  • Covenant violations
  • Management issues

Anonymous Claim:

"This makes me angry learning there are so many people who want to/continue to ride off the backs of others (who always pay)!! It is not right. We pay, and pay their share again and again."

Reality:

• No evidence provided that disputing owners are "riding off others":
  • Many disputing owners continue paying under protest
  • Legal challenges focus on unauthorized charges
  • Disputes target CDAL's covenant violations
  • Questions about charges don't equate to nonpayment
• CDAL's own actions create payment issues:
  • Failure to provide audited accounts
  • Charging for non-beneficial services
  • Violating Coleman ruling requirements
  • Not responding to legitimate queries

Anonymous Claim:

"Also, I had no idea people are posting to social media – this ruins it for everyone (Jolly Harbour outward, global reputation) – can you say 'RENTALS' which I/we need!!"

Reality:

• No evidence of rental market impact from legal discussions:
  • Property values affected by infrastructure decay
  • Rental demand impacted by deteriorating facilities
  • Market rates influenced by CDAL's neglect
  • Documented infrastructure issues pose greater risk
• Transparency benefits the community:
  • Helps potential renters make informed decisions
  • Protects against future liability claims
  • Ensures proper disclosure of property conditions
  • Supports long-term property value stability

Anonymous Claim:

"And the disrespect toward all you volunteers (who are doing this for FREE) is appalling! We cannot run things without people like you"

Reality:

• JHPOA's role needs clarification:
  • No legal authority to represent all owners
  • Voluntary membership organization only
  • Cannot approve charges for non-members
  • Not responsible for infrastructure management
• CDAL remains responsible for:
  • Infrastructure maintenance
  • Utility management
  • Emergency repairs
  • Service delivery
• Volunteer status doesn't exempt from:
  • Legal obligations
  • Proper financial oversight
  • Transparent operations
  • Accountability to owners

Anonymous Claim:

"Maybe they should do swimming pool repairs, roads, infrastructure themselves. And what about emergency calls to services and those repairs – who does that?"

Reality:

• Infrastructure management is CDAL's legal obligation:
  • Defined in land transfer covenants
  • Confirmed by court rulings
  • Part of CDAL's business model
  • Included in service charges
• CDAL is paid for these services:
  • Monthly maintenance fees
  • Utility charges
  • Service fees
  • Emergency response costs

Anonymous Claim:

"But please pay your fair share. What if the monetary load on those of us who do pay (together with negative social media) forced us to sell?"

Reality:

• "Fair share" concept misrepresented:
  • Owners entitled to dispute unauthorized charges
  • Legal right to challenge non-beneficial fees
  • Coleman ruling protects dispute rights
  • Payment under protest is valid option
• No evidence of:
  • Increased burden on other owners
  • Forced sales due to disputes
  • Market impact from legal discussions
  • Connection between disputes and property values

JHPOA Claims:

"Since the fall of 2021 when Sabana purchased CDAL, what I have observed is an organization dedicated to transforming our community into a world class destination while maximizing their own legitimate business objectives"

"...CDAL ownership are also committed residents who not only invested over $4MM of their own money in infrastructure improvements"

Reality:

• CDAL remains a for-profit limited liability company owned by Sabana Holdings
• Sabana Holdings paid approximately US$30M to acquire CDAL as a business investment
• The "$4MM investment" narrative misrepresents basic business obligations:
  • Infrastructure maintenance is a legal requirement under the covenants
  • July 2022 Reserve Study documented US$62.3M in repair backlog
  • CDAL extracted valuable assets while deferring infrastructure obligations
  • Basic maintenance is a business cost, not a voluntary contribution
  • Infrastructure repairs are CDAL's responsibility as the asset owner
• Previous owner misconduct does not justify current covenant violations
• Business purchase price does not eliminate infrastructure obligations

Key Financial Context:

1. Business Investment:
   • US$30M acquisition cost for CDAL
   • Purchased as a profit-making business venture
   • Includes revenue-generating assets and obligations
2. Infrastructure Obligations:
   • US$62.3M repair backlog identified in Reserve Study
   • Legal responsibility under land transfer covenants
   • Cannot be shifted to freeholders
   • Independent of purchase price or business strategy
3. Asset Management Strategy:
   • Strategic asset extractions post-purchase
   • Deferral of major infrastructure repairs
   • Attempt to shift costs to freeholders
   • Pattern of maximizing profit while minimizing investment

JHPOA Claims:

"The audited financial reporting and management team upgrades have provided us with a clear picture of the finances of JH"

"...we face the real possibility of CDAL being sold to a third party whose intentions could be to operate and manage our community as a 'for profit' business, in which case we would be at the mercy of any decisions they make"

Reality:

• No detailed independent audits verifying legitimate "services" have been provided
• Budget includes questionable items like:
  • Rent for private expansions
  • New development overhead
  • Developer's "interest-free loan" repayment
  • Infrastructure replacement (US$600,000)
  • Bad debt expense (US$287,674)
  • Credit card commission (US$87,759)
  • Property taxes (US$124,151)
  • Mandatory JHPOA fee (US$35,578)

Current For-Profit Operation:

• Inflated charges through umbrella company billing system
• Markup on subcontractor services
• Overhead allocation from development activities
• Charging freeholders for CDAL's business expansion

Documented Profit-Maximizing Practices:

• Rent increases up to 133%
• Charging freeholders for CDAL office space
• Including developer loan repayments in maintenance fees
• Adding management fees on top of direct costs

JHPOA Claim:

"Maybe if we managed to collectively raise $500K USD we could retain a reputable and qualified legal firm"

Reality:

• Three reputable law firms have already provided estimates ranging from EC$50,000 to EC$150,000
• No evidence provided by JHPOA to support their inflated $500K figure
• JHPOA has never presented any documentation or quotes to justify their cost estimates

Notable Pattern:

JHPOA executives have never presented:

• Detailed financial analysis of their claims
• Independent expert assessments
• Documented cost breakdowns
• Evidence-based counter-arguments
• Professional reserve studies supporting their positions
• Accurate maintenance charge calculations
• Proper infrastructure liability assessments

Instead of providing factual evidence, JHPOA communications consistently:

• Use emotional language ("get back to enjoying our chosen tropical lifestyle")
• Make vague references to "majority" support without data
• Dismiss legitimate concerns as "negative actions"
• Label those seeking accountability as "part of the problem"
• Avoid addressing specific legal and financial questions
• Deflect from documented covenant violations

1. Joining Legal Action:

• One-time shared legal cost
• Recoverable legal fees upon success
• Immediate 50%+ reduction in monthly charges
• Protection from US$17,000+ per freeholder liability
• Refund potential for past overcharges
• Long-term cost control and stability

2. Cost of Inaction:

• Minimum US$17,000 additional cost per freeholder
• US$13.5M+ total community burden
• Continued exponential fee increases
• No recovery of past overpayments
• Permanent loss of covenant protections
• Ongoing exposure to unauthorized charges

Taking legal action to enforce covenant compliance will:

• Restore fair and transparent charging practices
• Hold CDAL accountable to its obligations
• Protect individual and collective property rights
• Create sustainable community management
• Preserve property values
• Maintain community amenities through fair-cost access
• Set clear precedent for future management