Analysis of JHPOA's February 2025 Communication

A Comprehensive Guide for Freeholders

← Back to Main Page

Published: February 10, 2025

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For definitive guidance on your specific situation, please consult an attorney qualified to practice in Antigua and Barbuda.

Introduction

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the JHPOA Executive's February 2025 communication and a structured response template. It addresses key concerns, debunks misleading claims, and provides freeholders with tools to protect their rights.

  • Challenge misleading statements about JHPOA's authority
  • Request critical information about CDAL transition plans
  • Protect legal rights as property owners
  • Demand transparency in financial matters

Fact-Checking JHPOA's Key Claims

1. Claim: "All Homeowners are automatically members of JHPOA"

FALSE

  • No legal basis exists for automatic membership
  • Land Transfer covenants make no mention of JHPOA
  • Violates fundamental contract law principles
  • Cannot be enforced under Antiguan law

2. Claim: "JHPOA is the only Homeowner organisation recognised by CDAL"

MISLEADING

  • CDAL has no legal authority to "recognize" or mandate homeowner organizations
  • Previous negotiations with various groups (Transition Task Force, Advisory Board) demonstrate no exclusive recognition
  • Land Transfer covenants establish direct relationship between CDAL and individual freeholders

3. Claim: "95 have paid no Community Fee and continue to feel they can freeload on other Homeowners"

FALSE AND DEFAMATORY

  • Mischaracterizes legitimate legal disputes over service provision
  • Ignores covenant requirement for "services provided to and for the benefit of the parcel"
  • Fails to acknowledge widespread infrastructure deficiencies
  • May constitute defamation under Antiguan law

4. Claim: "The JHPOA prefer to challenge CDAL face to face to make improvements"

MISLEADING

  • No legal authority to represent non-consenting freeholders
  • Cannot override individual freeholder rights
  • Ignores formal legal channels for dispute resolution

Legal Framework and Precedents

A. Land Transfer Covenants

The cornerstone of freeholder obligations is found in their Land Transfer covenants, which explicitly require that any monthly maintenance (community) charge must be "levied for and expended upon the services provided to and for the benefit of the above-mentioned parcel." This creates a direct-benefit requirement that cannot be overridden by JHPOA bylaws or CDAL's interpretations.

B. Relevant Case Law

  1. Trinity Investment Case ([2016] ECSCJ No. 152)
    • While cited by Hill & Hill to argue against withholding fees, this case involved a condominium where owners actively benefited from central services
    • Distinguishable from Jolly Harbour where many owners have received non-functional or inadequate services
  2. Westerhall Point Residents Association v Batihk ([2016] ECSCJ No. 79)
    • Enforced positive covenant because the owner used estate roads daily
    • Supports freeholders' right to dispute charges for non-functional or unused amenities
  3. Waaler v Hounslow LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 45
    • British courts require service charges to be:
      • Reasonably incurred
      • Providing measurable benefit
    • This principle applies under Antiguan law
  4. Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd v Shortlands Investments Ltd [2001]
    • Establishes that service charges must reflect necessary or beneficial works
    • Nonessential or speculative work cannot be passed on to owners

Analysis of JHPOA's Claims

A. "Automatic" Membership Claims

The JHPOA Executive claims all homeowners are automatically considered members. This contradicts fundamental principles of:

  1. Contractual Freedom
    • Under British and Antiguan contract law, no party can be compelled to join an organization without explicit agreement
    • JHPOA's "opt-out" approach violates basic contract principles
    • No legal precedent supports forced membership in private organizations
  2. Property Rights
    • Registered Land Act 1975 requires charges or covenants to be recorded on land title
    • JHPOA membership is not mentioned in Land Transfer agreements
    • Cannot be retroactively imposed on freeholders

B. Fee Collection Through CDAL

The attempt to collect JHPOA fees through CDAL's community charge is problematic because:

  1. No legal basis exists for including private association fees in the community charge
  2. Violates the "direct benefit" requirement in Land Transfer covenants
  3. May constitute unjust enrichment under Antiguan law
  4. Creates unauthorized third-party beneficiary arrangement

C. Mischaracterization of Non-Paying Owners

JHPOA's characterization of non-paying owners as "freeloaders" is legally and factually incorrect:

  1. Legal Rights to Dispute Charges
    • Owners can legitimately dispute charges for non-provided services
    • British and Antiguan law protect against unreasonable charges
    • Direct benefit requirement must be met
  2. Infrastructure Issues
    • Documented sewage system failures
    • Historical neglect of maintenance
    • Non-functional amenities
    • Lack of proper security services

Infrastructure and Services

A. Current State

While recent improvements in water, electricity, and security are acknowledged, significant issues remain:

  1. Sewage system deficiencies
  2. Historical infrastructure neglect
  3. Questions about service delivery standards
  4. Lack of transparent maintenance records

B. Legal Obligations

As detailed in our analysis Infrastructure Liability and Restoration Obligations, CDAL's "as is" acquisition does not exempt them from:

  1. Maintaining infrastructure
  2. Providing contracted services
  3. Addressing historical neglect without burdening freeholders
  4. Ensuring proper service delivery

Harmful Effects of JHPOA's Claims

A. Legal and Financial Impact

  1. Property Rights Erosion
    • Creates false impression of mandatory membership
    • Undermines freeholders' contractual rights
    • Imposes unauthorized obligations
    • Creates confusion about legal rights
  2. Financial Burden
    • Imposes unauthorized fees
    • Creates confusion about legitimate vs. unauthorized charges
    • May lead to double-charging for services
    • Affects property marketability

B. Market Impact

  1. Property Values
    • Misrepresentations affect market perception
    • Creates uncertainty for potential buyers
    • Adds artificial complexity to property transactions
    • May deter investment
  2. Investment Climate
    • Damages Jolly Harbour's reputation
    • Creates artificial barriers to property ownership
    • Increases perceived risk for investors
    • Affects financing options

C. Community Impact

  1. Social Division
    • Creates unnecessary conflict between owners
    • Mischaracterizes legitimate disputes
    • Undermines community cohesion
    • Hampers effective problem-solving
  2. Governance Issues
    • Confuses lines of authority
    • Creates parallel power structures
    • Complicates dispute resolution
    • Reduces transparency

Template Response Email

To: [email protected] Subject: Demand for Retraction and Clarification of JHPOA's February 2025 Communication To: JHPO ASSOCIATION, INC. (JHPOA) Attn: Board of Directors Elected November 19, 2024 •⁠ ⁠Mr. Colin Baldwin – Director & Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Craig Dewey – Director & Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Ms. Kathryn Pound – Director & Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Mark Liddell – Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Allan Aflak – Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Colin Vinall – Director & Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Peter Lansdale – Director & Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Paul Ryan – Executive Committee Member •⁠ ⁠Mr. Carl Turpin – Executive Committee Member Dear JHPOA Executive Committee Members, As a freeholder in Jolly Harbour, I write regarding the JHPOA Executive's February 2025 communication and ongoing concerns about JHPOA's representations of its authority and status. 1. Request for Retraction of Misleading Statements I formally request the retraction of several concerning statements from your February 2025 message: a) The claim that freeholders "wish to destroy Jolly Harbour on social media" by "posting threats and accusations" • This mischaracterizes legitimate legal concerns as destructive behavior • Falsely implies malicious intent behind factual discussions of legal rights • May constitute defamation under Antiguan law b) The characterization of non-paying owners as "freeloaders" • Ignores legitimate disputes over service provision • Fails to acknowledge the covenant requirement for "services provided to and for the benefit of the parcel" • Misrepresents the legal basis for payment disputes 2. Request for Essential Information In the interest of transparency, please provide within 14 days: a) Membership and Payment Statistics: • Number of freeholders who have paid maintenance charges under protest • Current number of consensual JHPOA members with written agreements • Number of JHPOA executives who live in Jolly Harbour full time • Disclosure of how many properties each executive owns b) CDAL Transition Plans: • Detailed plan for proposed CDAL takeover • Projected costs and funding sources • Legal basis for forcing unwilling freeholders to participate • Projected maintenance charges from 2026 onward c) Budget Analysis: • JHPOA's position on the concerns raised in the attached budget analysis • Explanation of how JHPOA reconciles its support for the current budget with its duty to represent homeowner interests 3. Historical Context and Obligations Your reference to "Dr. Earhart's dream" necessitates addressing the complete historical record: a) The 1995 sales documentation explicitly stated: • Community charges cannot increase by more than 10% annually • The landowning company must cover any deficiencies from its own resources (Reference: Jolly Harbour 1995 Sales Documentation) b) Sabana Holdings' Current Obligations: • Complete ownership of all liabilities without exception • Responsibility for infrastructure improvements before any transition • Obligation to pursue bad debtors through proper legal channels 4. Legal Notice Your communication, made in your official capacity as JHPOA Executive, may constitute: • Defamation against freeholders exercising legitimate legal rights • Misrepresentation of JHPOA's legal authority • Interference with individual freeholder rights 5. Demand for Action Within 14 days, you must: 1. Publicly retract the misleading statements 2. Provide the requested information 3. Issue a clarification acknowledging: • JHPOA's limited legal authority • Freeholders' right to dispute charges • The voluntary nature of JHPOA membership 6. Reservation of Rights Failure to comply with these demands may result in: 1. Legal action for defamation 2. Injunctive relief 3. Other available legal remedies I look forward to your prompt response addressing these serious concerns. Regards, [Your Name] [Your Parcel Details] Attachments: 1. CDAL Budget Analysis: https://jollyharbour.org/articles/analysis-of-cdal-2025-community-budget.html 2. Analysis of JHPOA's February 2025 Communication: https://jollyharbour.org/articles/response-to-jhpoa-executive-communication-feb-2025.html 3. Debunking JHPOA's 2025 Budget Memo: https://jollyharbour.org/articles/debunking-jhpoa-2025-budget-memo.html

Next Steps

After Sending the Email:

  1. Document all communications with JHPOA and CDAL
  2. Keep records of any responses or lack thereof
  3. Consider joining collective legal actions
  4. Consult legal counsel if necessary

Supporting Documentation

Relevant Articles and Resources: