SPRINGFIELD — The town of Southwick has withdrawn itself from a lawsuit it filed in 2021 in Hampden Superior Court to compel the developers of Sunnyside Ranch Estates to complete the two roads in the development and is no longer involved in the yearslong legal dispute because the streets were repaired late last year, according to court documents.
“That’s right,” the town’s Chief Administrative Officer Nicole Parker said confirming the town’s withdrawal.
At the center of the dispute was who or which corporation or limited liability company was responsible for finishing the infrastructure — roads and drainage — of Overlook and Sugar Maple lanes in the Sunnyside Ranch Estates subdivision, a private gated community.
In October 2021, Southwick filed the lawsuit against The Olde Farm Golf Club LLC; Sunnyside Ranch Estates LLC; Peter Clark, the former principal of Olde Farm and Sunnyside Ranch; the Sunnyside Ranch Estates Property Owners’ Association; The Pinnacle Estates at The Ranch LLC; and its former principal Peter Pappas, requesting a jury trial to determine which party should be responsible for bringing the streets and drainage up to the town’s standards.
The town estimated that it would cost $560,000 to complete the work.
In its complaint, the town said when the original developer of the subdivision, Clark and his businesses Olde Farm and Sunnyside Ranch, were granted a permit by the Planning Board in February 2000 allowing it to begin construction, Clark agreed to several covenants in lieu of posting a completion bond, including a “road covenant” and a “maintenance covenant.”
Developers are often asked to post cash bonds so that the town has money on hand to complete or remove the infrastructure if the developer abandons the project before it is done.
Instead of requiring a bond, the covenants that Southwick agreed to indicated it wouldn’t release property lots for sale until the infrastructure was completed to town requirements.
And the town did in 2013 after a commitment from The Pinnacle’s principal Pappas, who had purchased the lots not yet sold in 2011, that the roads were scheduled for completion.
However, the road covenant, according to the permit granted by the Planning Board in 2000, said the development’s streets would be solely owned by the Sunnyside Ranch Estate Homeowners Association Inc., now operating as the Sunnyside Property Owner’s Association Inc.
The road covenant, according to the town’s complaint, designated all the development’s streets as private roadways for its 53 property lots, which meant the town would provide no municipal services to the development other than emergency services.
Both covenants were established by the subdivision’s original principal, Clark, under the Olde Farm limited liability corporation in November 2001, according to the lawsuit.
However, the covenants agreed to by Clark and Olde Farm also said the homeowners’ association would be responsible for the maintenance of the roads, including repairs and replacement, according to the lawsuit.
After the town filed the lawsuit, the defendants filed separate responses, including a “cross complaint” by the property owner’s association.
In the cross complaint, the property owners’ association essentially denied it was responsible for the completion of the subdivision’s streets and that the town shouldn’t have released lots for sale before verifying the streets were completed.
The property owners also said it relied on representations by Olde Farm and Sunnyside Ranch that the road had been completed to town specifications, and that when Pinnacle and its principal Pappas purchased the remaining unsold lots in 2011, it didn’t complete the streets as was required by the covenants.
Clark as the principal of Olde Farm and Sunnyside Ranch, requested the town’s lawsuit be dismissed, as did The Pinnacle’s principal Pappas.
The town objected to both motions to dismiss, but Superior Court Judge Francis E. Flannery agreed to the dismissal, but only for the action against Olde Farm, Sunnyside Ranch and Clark.
The town objected to both motions to dismiss, but Superior Court Judge Francis E. Flannery agreed to the dismissal, but only for the action against Olde Farm, Sunnyside Ranch and Clark.
Flannery, in the decision issued in August 2022, said that because Olde Farm, Sunnyside Ranch and Clark had relinquished ownership of the remaining lots to Pinnacle in 2011, it was no longer obligated to complete the streets as required by the covenants.
The property owners also alleged in their cross claim that Pinnacle and Pappas were responsible for completing the subdivision’s streets and for Pappas being “personally enriched through his operation of Pinnacle,” according to the lawsuit.
Pappas and Pinnacle, in their response to the town’s lawsuit, essentially denied that they were responsible for completing the road. They admitted purchasing the remaining lots, and admitted the property owners’ allegation that it didn’t complete the streets, but denied that the roads it did finish didn’t meet town specifications.
Pappas and Pinnacle, in its answer to the property owner’s cross claim, admitted purchasing the remaining lots and admitted the property owners’ allegation that it didn’t complete the streets, but denied that the roads it did finish didn’t meet town specifications.
Between the time the town’s lawsuit was filed in October 2021 and the judge dismissed Clark, Olde Farm and Sunnyside Ranch as parties to the lawsuit in August 2022, there were over two dozen filings by all the parties involved asking for dismissals and briefs filed opposing the dismissal requests.
Nearly all were between the property owners’ association and Pappas.
In fact, the town only filed three motions with the court after filing the original lawsuit in October 2021. All three were in opposition to requests for dismissals by the defendants.
Since the town has withdrawn from the lawsuit, the Sunnyside Ranch Estates Property Owners’ Association has focused on Pinnacle because it repaired the roads after it initiated a “special assessment” on the association’s membership and demanded Pinnacle reimburse the $501,700 it spent for the repairs.
According to court documents, the association hired a contractor to perform the repairs based on a report by the DPW on what repairs were required.
When the judge ruled that Pinnacle was to reimburse the association, the town was still attached as a party to the lawsuit.
However, in the judge’s decision on Jan. 17, only the DPW report was mentioned.
On April 25, the court ruled against Pinnacle and ordered it pay the $501,700, plus statutory interest of $213,916 to the Sunnyside Ranch Estates Property Owners’ Association.
With that decision made, on April 29, the town requested that the court dismiss the counts in its original complaint against all the defendants.
On May 1, all the parties involved in the lawsuit agreed to the dismissal without needing a hearing.
