MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-4563
FREDERICK AUFIERO, FREDERICK )
BIRD, GORDON JAMESON, DONALD )
KREBS, RICHARD MAZOW, HOWARD )
RUBINSTEIN AND JOHN M. )
UPDEGRAPH, JR., AS TRUSTEES OF )
BEDFORDSHIRE CONDOMINIUM TRUST, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
V. )
)
BARRY KORT, )
)
Defendant )
)
Plaintiff's Answers to
the Defendant's
Interrogatories
1. What were the understandings, negotiations, decisions, and covenants
developed between Moore Homes and the Bedford Planning Board with respect
to the use of Parcels 'C' and 'D' in the Planned Residential Development?
In particular, how did these agreements restrict the use of the land
relative to its prior and historic use?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of such objection the
Trustees respond that they do not know the understandings, negotiations,
decisions, and covenants developed between Moore Homes and Bedford Planning
Board.
2. Which governmental entity owns the beneficial rights to the Covenants
in the Master Deed restricting the use of the Common Open Space (Parcel
'C')?
A: The Trustees do not understand this question. However if the question
is regarding the ownership of Parcel 'C', the parcel is a portion of the
common elements of Bedfordshire Condominium.
3. Since June 1988, what permits have been applied for or granted by the
Bedford Planning Board or the Bedford Code Enforcement Office for
alterations to the Common Open Space?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of such objection the
Trustees respond that they do not know the answer.
4. What written authorizations or opinions exist assuring the Condominium
Association that development and use of the Common Open Space since June
1988 is in compliance with the Covenants and other legal processes required
by the Town?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of such objection the
Trustees respond that they do not know the answer.
5. To what extent did the then existing Trustees participate in and
approve of the July 1988 Marketing Decision of McAlpine to salvage the
first 5 holes of the golf course?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of such objection none of
the existing Trustees were Trustees in July 1988 and therefore respond that
they did not participate in any manner.
6. What is the position of the Trustees with respect to the provision of
the ByLaws that alterations to the Common Areas require approval of 50% of
Unit Owners?
A: The Trustees' position is that the ByLaws speak for themselves and need
no further elaboration.
7. What is the position of the Trustees with respect to the provision of
the ByLaws that Common Fees may not be expended except on facilities
defined in the Site Plan and Master Deed?
A: The Trustees position is that the Common Funds may be expended as
authorized in the Master Deed and ByLaws of the Bedfordshire Condominium
and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 183A.
8. What is the position of the Trustees with respect to the incorporation
of the Golf Course into the Site Plan and Master Deed according to the
provisions and processes set forth in the Condominium Charter Documents and
applicable State Law?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
9. Does Bedfordshire have water rights or permits to draw water from the
Wetlands ponds and from the Shawsheen River for irrigation of the golf
course?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
10. Who among the Trustees (past or present) knew that Parcel 'D' is owned
by the Town of Bedford as Conservation Land, and when did they learn that?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
11. Who among the Trustees knew that a portion of the golf course,
including the diesel pumping station, was situated on Parcel 'D', and when
did they learn that?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
12. What applications were made to the Bedford Conservation Commission
since June 1988 for permits to alter the Common Open Space, in compliance
with the Wetlands Protection Act and the Bedford Conservation ByLaws?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of any such objection
objection, the existing Trustees state that they have made no application
to the Bedford Conservation Commission.
13. What applications were made to the Bedford Conservation Commission
since June 1988 for permits to alter the Conservation Area?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of any such objection
objection, the existing Trustees state that they have made no application
to the Bedford Conservation Commission.
14. What is the Trustees understanding of the meaning of the term 'Passive
Recreation' as it appears in the restrictive covenants in the Master Deed?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of any such objection
objection, the existing Trustees state the restrictive covenants speak for
themselves and need no further clarification.
15. What votes were taken pursuant to Article 10 of the Condominium ByLaws
and MGL Ch. 183A Sec. 18, authorizing alterations to the Common Open Space?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of any such objection
objection, the existing Trustees state there were no votes of the unit
owners taken other than those taken at the Annual Meetings.
16. Since June 1988, what contracts were let, to whom, and for what
amounts to alter the Common Open Space and/or the Conservation Area.
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
17. Which Unit Owners contributed private funds for the construction of
the golf course. Please provide dates and amounts. What written
agreements were executed requiring those Unit Owners or their successors to
assume responsibility for maintaining those alterations?
A: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 15th day of December,
1995.
_____________________
Richard K. Mazow
President, Board of Trustees of
Bedfordshire Condominium Trust
on behalf of the Board of Trustees
and Not Individually
Newspaper Coverage
Legal Documents
Letters from Barry Kort
Letters of Support
Other Discussion and Support
Moulton's Home Page
Barry Kort
bkort@musenet.org