Ouch, I think the other shoe finally dropped.

Thanks for the correction.

MPNA

More documents from the land protection files of the Mohonk Preserve are on their way, look for them on our Facebook page.

MPNA

MPNA, I'm relatively uninformed in this process of foreclosure, land deals, etc. So, bear with me. Did not the MP buy the mortgage from a "willing seller", that being Haberman?

Where exactly is your Facebook page? I've looked and failed to find it.

And, you've still not offered up a count of your organization's membership.
I don't suppose it should be too difficult. I'm not asking for names, just a number. A reply to this simple request might illustrate how many disgruntled neighbors the MP has. Or, hasn't! RC

From up-thread; seven is in fact generous.

Thanks Julie, given that maybe the entire membership couldn't make it for dinner, or maybe the venue was too small to hold the masses, I guess we can presume that there isn't a whole lot of power base, support or interest in the MPNA. I dare say the most attention they may be getting is from the various climbing websites they have been posting to.

No more attention from me.

but Rick, it was unofficial. That changes everything. I doubt there would have been chuckling at an official meeting.


Yo AG,still waiting for you to post on Justice Monks injunction against the Neighbors... ugly stuff.

"Robert K. Anderberg began a foreclosure proceeding, he did not buy it at foreclosure as was suggested by retr2327"

Actually, the documents you've posted suggest that he did buy it at foreclosure (as agent for MP), and that he also initiated the foreclosure as the holder of the note. Which is pretty much what I wrote: "I have no problem with the MP obtaining the land at foreclosure, and could care less about RKA acting as agent for the MP in the process."

My question, however, remains unanswered:

"What I am curious about is how/why RKA was able to 'call in the note once she found out Louise had subdivided.' "

Here's the thing: the mortgage company that holds the note on my house can't just wake up one day and decide that they want my property, so they're going to foreclose. So long as I'm in compliance with the conditions and requirements (monthly payments, maintaining insurance, paying property taxes, etc.), then I'm not in default and they have no right whatsoever to just foreclose. That's the way the vast majority of mortgages are written.

So why was Louise Haviland's note different?

"The most likely explanation -- which I will believe until you post the actual damn documents, and stop hiding behind half-truths, distortions, etc. -- is that she was only able to obtain the land in the 1st instance by covenanting, in the purchase money note granted by the seller, not to subdivide the land. So when she went ahead and did it anyway, she was in default."

And here's the other thing: since I believe in the right of a property owner to dispose of his or her land as he or she wishes, I also believe in the right of the grantor, who may want to keep the land unspoiled, to include a covenant against future subdivision in the note as a way of ensuring that the property does not get subdivided, even if that means selling for less. And if that's how Louise Haviland got this property, presumably at a reduced price reflecting the fact that she did not "pay for" the right to subdivide it, then I'm not seeing the injustice in someone foreclosing on the note when she went ahead and tried to subdivide it anyway. Under this scenario, that's pretty much what the original property owner wanted, and it's what Louise Haviland agreed to.

Kent, the message, as presented, smacks of innuendo and paranoia. As numerous folks have pointed out, the actions by the Preserve for which AG has provided (presumably) his best, cherry-picked 20-year old evidence don't appear to constitute a problem.
I'm personally sympathetic, as I have pointed out to AG by PM. I've also written to the Preserve, asking for clarification on some of these issues, so if I was uninformed before, I'm trying to understand. As you and I have also discussed previously, I respect the private property rights of landowners and their closures of the Nears, despite their impact on me.

Show me something absolutely unambiguous. Also, show me the publicly available docs on 09-2747, not promises. It doesn't show the neighbors in the best light and it would suggest that this isn't just hypocritical trolling.

retr, you have PM