A Rift Among Jolly Harbour Freeholders: Are Those Demanding Accountability "Shit Stirrers," or Simply Seeking Fairness?

Analyzing the Growing Division Over CDAL's Legal Obligations

← Back to Main Page

Jolly Harbour, a long-established development on Antigua's southwest coast, is now divided by a deepening tension. One faction calls for Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Ltd. (CDAL) to fulfill its contractual and legal obligations—particularly regarding infrastructure repairs, charges, and past mismanagement. Another group, including some affiliated with JHPOA Inc. (an organization claiming to represent all freeholders without their explicit consent while extracting unlawful fees from freeholders through CDAL), contends the relentless focus on "historical arguments" and legal battles stifles the community's progress and risks burdening the majority of owners with additional costs - costs that CDAL unlawfully imposes on freeholders. The debate has grown so heated that some owners have labeled their more confrontational neighbors as mere "shit stirrers" 💩

This article dissects the recent public exchange to clarify the issues, the legal backdrop, and whether seeking accountability truly undermines progress.

Published: January 6, 2025

1. The WhatsApp Exchange: Summary of the Key Comments

1.1 Sarah Ashford's Message (January 5, 2025)

  • "We are all tired of a small minority just continually shit stirring…"
  • Sarah, a UK-based accounting professional and Jolly Harbour owner affiliated with JHPOA Inc. (which claims to represent all freeholders despite lacking explicit consent from the majority of freeholders), expresses frustration at those she perceives as obstructing positive changes. She views them as a "minority" who refuse to pay community charges at new levels yet protest cost-shifting for "bad debt" and legal fees that push everyone else's charges higher.
  • "$44.59 USD a month by my calculations… many think it's very unfair."
  • Sarah acknowledges that "bad debt" (unpaid or fixed-lower fees by certain owners) plus CDAL's legal costs add about $44.59 monthly to the standard community charge. She admits it seems unfair, but contends that continuing "negative" arguments hamper the unity needed to move forward with improvements.
  • "A website encouraging no one to buy in JH is in no one's interest?"
  • "We want to move on… We want our property values to increase… "

1.2 Additional Supportive Comments

  • Geoffrey Pidduck: "Brilliant Sara… A small group spoiling and shortchanging. Being highly counterproductive. The majority will pay US$500 per month while a few, less than US$100."
  • Paul Ryan (JHPOA Inc board member): "The budget is the community (our) budget… If CDAL was run by homeowners, would they get same arguments? JHPOA is us… We all have a responsibility…"

2. The "Minority" Owners' Counterpoint

Even though not all direct quotations are included in this thread, the "minority" group consistently raises legitimate, legally grounded grievances:

  1. CDAL's Historical Negligence
    • They argue that many infrastructure failures—like overflowing sewage or defunct generators—stem from CDAL's own mismanagement. If so, it's arguably not the freeholders' obligation to pay for "catch-up" costs.
  2. Misplaced "Bad Debt"
    • Some owners pay fixed or near-zero fees, often through legacy agreements or legal rulings. Others claim that if CDAL foolishly or unlawfully set such deals, it should absorb the financial shortfall, not load it onto the rest of the owners.
  3. Legal Precedents
    • Notably, the Coleman case—where a homeowner successfully litigated against "unlawful utility disconnections" and was awarded both special and general damages—suggests courts may side with owners when CDAL bypasses due process or tries self-help tactics.
  4. Lack of Due Process & Transparency
    • These "minority" owners see abrupt increases, threatened disconnections, or forced expansions (like a new pool, tennis/pickleball courts) as done without adequate consultation or compliance with the Land Transfer covenant. They do not aim "never to pay," but they want fairness, consistent with the principle that monthly charges go only "to and for the benefit of [the] parcel."

3. Legal & Contractual Context

  1. Land Transfer Covenants
    • In Jolly Harbour, each freeholder's covenant states that monthly fees must be expended upon services beneficial to that property. Owners question how expansions like new tennis courts for future developments or covering CDAL's "bad deals" with certain owners align with that principle.
  2. Coleman Ruling
    • Awarded damages for unlawful disconnection, plus a declaration that no interest on outstanding sums could be charged if procedures are not properly followed. This outcome emboldens owners who believe CDAL's threats or forced fees might be similarly unlawful.
  3. Obligation to Provide Infrastructure
    • Under typical "developer–homeowner" legal frameworks, the developer is expected to maintain or replace assets, or to demonstrate that major cost expansions are truly "common expense" items consistent with the covenants. If historically neglected, owners can argue those are CDAL's own liabilities.
  4. Potential Liability for Damages
    • Negligence: Overflowing sewage or other mismanaged facilities harming rental prospects can constitute a direct link to owner losses.
    • Diminished Property Value: If prospective buyers or renters read consistent complaints of dilapidated common areas, HOs can claim that CDAL's inaction or unlawful handling of charges effectively caused them quantifiable harm.

4. Are They "Shit Stirrers" or Advocates for Accountability?

4.1 Understanding the Anger

Sarah and others accuse these freeholders of stirring up trouble. However:

  • In law, a property owner has every right to question or resist demands they see as breaching the covenant or ignoring due process—especially when the developer's past missteps appear to drive cost escalations or hamper infrastructure.
  • Pushing for legal clarity is not necessarily sabotage; it can ensure no one is paying for corporate overhead or expansions that do not benefit existing homes.

4.2 Coexistence of Goals

  1. Preserving Value: Ironically, both groups want higher property values and a well-maintained Jolly Harbour. The difference: one side is prepared to pay more to fix everything swiftly, while the other side demands that CDAL abide by the covenant and not shift burdens unlawfully.
  2. Insurance & Reserve Requirements: Part of the "minority's" argument highlights that CDAL ignoring recommended insurance coverage or a reserve study might eventually breed lawsuits or hamper improvements—thus reducing property values. This indicates a motivation aligned with preserving the community's future.

5. Looking Ahead

5.1 Risk of More Lawsuits

If CDAL insists on heavy-handed measures (e.g., disconnections, ignoring rightful disputes over charges, or blanket capital assessments for decayed systems) without a transparent process, more owners will follow the Coleman path, seeking:

  • Damages for lost rental income,
  • Reimbursements for improper or forced fees,
  • Injunctions to halt disconnections.

5.2 Potential Middle Ground

  • Transparent Accounting: If CDAL thoroughly itemizes each cost, explaining precisely how it benefits each parcel, owners might be more willing to pay.
  • Negotiation and Due Process: Instead of labeling vocal critics as "shit stirrers," CDAL (and sympathetic owners) could engage an impartial mediator or joint committee that acknowledges historical negligence and equitably apportions future costs.

6. Conclusions for Jolly Harbour Owners

  1. Being Pro-Accountability ≠ Shit-Stirring

    Despite strong words from certain owners, wanting clarity on fees, lawful dispute processes, and reliable infrastructure is not sabotage. It is a normal exercise of property rights under well-established legal norms.

  2. Coleman Ruling: A Warning to CDAL

    If CDAL persists with unilateral utility disconnections or tries to impose arbitrary fees to cover shortfalls from its own history of deals, it faces an uphill legal battle. Courts, as shown, may award compensatory damages—potentially in large amounts.

  3. Better to Seek Solutions than Division

    Ultimately, all freeholders want a functioning, appealing Jolly Harbour. While some prefer a quick fix financed by all, others want due respect for their covenants, freeholder rights, and basic fairness in cost allocations. Mutual respect and more transparent processes could bridge that gap without devolving into labeling or legal fights.

In short, the friction is understandable: some owners just want to "enjoy paradise" and pay up, while others want the developer to do its legal duty. But brandishing critics as "shit stirrers" ignores the valid possibility that by questioning CDAL's approach now, the community might avoid a wave of lawsuits, preserve property values, and prevent the gloom of further decaying infrastructure—benefiting everyone in the long run.