The second significant agenda item our board has named for their upcoming SAEPOA Zoom meeting is “Update on Legal Matters/Lawsuits”. To date, the Board has been active in two lawsuits.
1. The lawsuit submitted by Ponto et al. (also known as the “dissolution” lawsuit), that suspiciously sues the Board to force the very things the Board sought to do itself, namely to dissolve the Association. Unsurprisingly, there has been no action on that lawsuit since June of last year, as if it no longer mattered once the Board lost its attempt to dissolve the HOA.
2. The lawsuit submitted by Berg et al., also known as the “roads” lawsuit. This suit simply confirms our ownership of our property, the roads, and seeks “quiet title”, where a judge has made this fact clear. The suit has been shrouded in mystery for those who are not either among the plaintiffs, or among the Board (or perhaps its close allies). It is perhaps the most significant item of business we have in the Airpark right now. I believe it accounts for much of the Board action that we have had difficulty understanding.
Because the Berg et al. (“roads”) lawsuit is so important, Deborah and I did a search through public records in Santa Fe to get information we are not getting from our Board. I will attempt to provide my best interpretation ofwhat has happened so far. Understand, however, that I am not an attorney, I am not a participant in the suit, I have not participated in any depositions, meetings, or deliberations, and thus my knowledge is imperfect. However, since the Board has shared nearly nothing over the past two years about this suit, I must make some attempt to educate all of us as to what is happening and what is at stake.
Why this matters:
A bad misstep in handling our roads could result in significant cost to each lot owner. We could also have great difficulty ever getting the roads repaired. Worse, we could conceivably lose our right to taxi if we lose ownership of the roads — essentially destroying our community as an airpark and greatly harming everyone’s real estate value.
In short, you run the following risks:
- As shown in our companion post at https://kloudcraft.com/blog/2026/01/29/the-crux-of-the-roads-lawsuit/, the legal argument for public ownership is very weak.
- Transfer of roads to the public could jeopardize our right to taxi.
- Costs and expenses are very unclear.
- It is unclear if the Town of Edgewood would accept the roads.
- Any guarantees given for the right to taxi by the Town could be reversed by government action if we no longer own the roads.
- Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Board is denying your rights as a lot owner to have a voice in what happens with your roads. This is a decision that rightfully should involve deliberation among the lot owners and proper voting with a required 66 lot majority.
- The Board has usurped your right to participate in the decision by attempting a “fait accompli” through political action.
In fact, the “roads” lawsuit has only one purpose, to put the brakes on the political action engaged in by our Board and restore (1) a proper condition of who owns the roads (us), and as a consequence (2) to allow the lot owners to make their own proper decisions, per our governing documents, to handle our own roads.
If you want some good background, don’t get it from me, rather get it from the article in NM News when the suit was filed at:
https://nm.news/2024/07/26/neighbors-sue-over-edgewoods-plan-to-taxi-aircraft-on-public-road-2/
Leave a Reply