On January 10, 2025, Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Ltd. ("CDAL") circulated an email titled "Budget 2025 – PLEASE VOTE." While this communication appears to solicit homeowner input on certain cost items—most notably security—the broader content raises significant questions about whether CDAL's budget truly aligns with our land transfer covenants. Below, we break down the key points of CDAL's message, compare them to what we know from court rulings and published documents, and highlight common misconceptions that need clarifying.
1. The Legal Role of a "Vote": Not a Substitute for Covenant Compliance
CDAL's email implies a "majority vote" will decide issues such as whether to reduce or remove security patrols to keep the community charge lower. However:
Critical Legal Facts:
- Not a Condominium or HOA: Jolly Harbour is not a registered condominium under Antigua's 1973 Condominium Titles Act, nor is it a homeowner association with membership. Legally speaking, we're freeholders connected by land-transfer covenants—not members in a group that can "vote" to waive or add new obligations.
- Covenant Obligations Trump "Votes": Our land transfer covenants explicitly dictate what items can be charged to each parcel and how increases must be audited. No informal poll can override these contractual obligations or bestow new cost items on freeholders.
Key Takeaway: The "vote" might function as a survey or "advisory poll," but from a legal perspective, CDAL must still abide by the covenants, regardless of poll results.
2. Security as a Covenant-Approved Service
The email proposes cutting patrols and caterpillar spraying (saving $20 monthly) if enough owners choose to reduce costs. While owners have every right to an opinion, we must recall:
"...services provided to and for the benefit of the above-mentioned parcel, which services are not limited to security, grounds maintenance..."
If owners do indeed want the existing roving patrols, they have a covenant-based right to have security properly budgeted, subject to the normal cost apportionment.
Potential Misinformation:
"We are offering the option to reduce the community charge by eliminating the following costs..."
This frames the matter as if freeholders must pick between a budget-lowering measure and no security patrols, when in reality, the covenant contemplates security as part of one's monthly fee—provided it is "to and for the benefit" of each parcel.
3. The "Bad Debt Recovery" Narrative
In the email, CDAL claims:
"In 2024, US$213,504 in bad debt was recovered and reimbursed to the community budget..."
While that might sound positive, it doesn't address why some owners have withheld partial or full charges. According to rulings like Coleman, owners may justifiably dispute maintenance portions not supported by audited, covenant-valid items. Merging "bad debt" from either developer overhead, expansions, or indefinite prior mismanagement can overshadow the legitimate reasons freeholders withheld certain fees.
Key Misinformation:
"These owners are also being denied access to the new sports facility."
But the covenant never obligated owners to pay for a facility that might not truly benefit their parcels (e.g., new pool/pickleball expansions). Blanket denial of "community management services" or facility access can be seen as coercive if the facility is not an enumerated covenant-based expense.
4. Utility Leaks & Infrastructure Deficiencies
CDAL states:
"An international company has been engaged... to fix leaks."
On the surface, employing specialists is commendable. Yet, the 2022 Reserve Study concluded that many neglected or "end-of-life" infrastructure components remain unaddressed. The real question: Are these repair costs part of the "common expenses" truly benefiting each parcel, or are they capital overhauls for developer-owned property left to degrade?
Community Concern:
If the water distribution system has decayed from a lack of investment by CDAL, homeowners question why they must retroactively fund expensive fixes that go beyond routine "maintenance."
5. "Developer-Owned Facilities" & Their Charges
CDAL states:
"Community charge funds have not been, and will never be, allocated to new private developments..."
CDAL's email insists no community money goes toward the golf course or marina. Yet, from our vantage:
Key Issues:
- Lack of Transparency
- The same pattern arises with the new pool or pickleball courts—amenities not explicitly required by the covenant but appear in budget lines or "rent" items.
- The "interest-free loan" of US$800,000 remains a prime example: If it financed generator replacements or expansions mostly benefitting future developments, is that "to and for the benefit" of each freehold parcel?
- Audited Evidence
- "Common expenses" must be audited, verifying they truly remain within the scope of covenant services.
- The email does not present any current "audit" verifying the charges do not cross-subsidize the developer's private expansions.
6. "New Offices & Sports Centre" with Rent
CDAL states:
"Rent costs are distributed evenly... historically the community charge included rent for office space and a sports centre..."
Key Discrepancy:
- The covenants do not mention homeowners must underwrite indefinite rent for new office expansions or developer's business overhead.
- If the developer previously leased or used older sports facilities, that doesn't automatically authorize any future commercial arrangement for a brand-new center at an elevated cost. Freeholders question whether these expansions are being forced upon them.
7. "Financial Transparency" & The Audit Gap
CDAL states:
"Monthly community financial statements are on the website, and the audited financial statement for 2024 is expected end of February 2025..."
Under the covenants, maintenance fee increases hinge on "audited common expenses." Coleman and other rulings confirm that no new figure is legally enforceable without that legitimate, covenant-based audit. It's unclear how the 2025 budget was formed if no updated audit yet exists.
Potential Misinformation:
- Presenting "draft statements" or monthly financial breakdowns is not the same as a full, external covenant-compliant audit.
- The mere act of posting figures online doesn't cure the requirement for an official, third-party audit correlating each line item with "services to and for the benefit" of each parcel.
8. The "Vote" on Security & Caterpillar Spraying: A Distraction?
The email suggests:
"We are offering the option to reduce the community charge by... removing all security patrols... The final decision will be... a majority vote..."
Why This Is Potentially Misleading:
- Security is a Named Service: The land transfer covenants typically list security as a legitimate, beneficial service. Cutting it to reduce the monthly fee by US$20 does not solve the broader question of whether other cost lines—not covenant-based—remain in the budget.
- Diverts Attention from Unjustified Expenses: Owners may focus on the trade-off "security vs. $20 savings," rather than investigating whether large expansions or developer overhead are still lumped into the total.
- Prolongs Past Patterns: This approach "buys another year," letting CDAL appear to "listen" to owners while not really addressing fundamental covenant or structural issues.
Conclusion
CDAL's "Budget 2025 – PLEASE VOTE" email suggests they want owner feedback on a few cost items—especially security. But from a legal standpoint, the community's real question is whether the entire budget structure honors the original covenant obligations:
- Has a covenant-compliant audit verifying which expenses are truly "common" and "to and for the benefit of [each] parcel" been published?
- Are expansions (e.g., new offices, "developer's overhead," or the $800k interest-free loan) inadvertently or deliberately allocated to freeholders?
- Are lumps of older developer liabilities or "catch-up" repairs resulting from prior neglect unlawfully folded into the monthly community fee?
Owners have repeatedly asked for clarifications, citing case law (Coleman) and the covenant's explicit language about cost increases requiring an "audited" basis. Until these underlying concerns are resolved, an up-or-down "vote" on security does not address the deeper mismatch between the budget's content and our contractual rights.
Remember: We are not "members" of any HOA or condominium; we are freeholders tied solely by land transfer covenants that must be respected. No internal poll or star-based consultation can supplant CDAL's duty to comply with those covenants and the relevant legal precedents.
Further Reading & References
- Coleman Ruling – Summaries and PDF
- Reserve Study (2022) – Key pages noting urgent infrastructure deficits
- Land Transfer Covenant Excerpts – Detailing "services to and for the benefit of each parcel"
- Past Surveys (e.g., pickleball) – Illustrating how majority disinterest was overlooked
- Documents on the $800,000 Interest-Free Loan – Budget references from JHHA, JHPOA, and CDAL
Disclaimer: This article reflects the collective input of concerned Jolly Harbour freeholders citing publicly available documents and existing rulings. For any official legal interpretation or challenge, owners should consult qualified counsel.