Volume 1 Pages 1 to 144 Exhibits (See Index) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BRISTOL, SS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT NO. 254067 ) LANDING AT SOUTH PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSN ., ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs ) ) BORDEN LIGHT MARINA , INC., ) Defendant. ) ) DEPOSITION OF JOHN C. LUND , taken pursuant to Notice under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Plaintiff, before Linda M. Thomas, RMR, a Notary Public and Registered Merit Reporter, in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at the offices of DANIEL R. SEIGENBERG, ESQ., Two Commercial Street, Sharon, Massachusetts on November 1, 2010, commencing at 10:00 a.m. LINDA M . THOMAS COURT REPORTING Certified Shorthand Reporter No . 129293 Registered Merit Reporter 235 Winter Street Walpole , Massachusetts 02081 (508) 668-5821 E- mail : [email protected]
Volume 1 Pages 1 to 144 Exhibits (See Index) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT NO. 254067 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
LANDING AT SOUTH PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSN., Plaintiff, vs BORDEN LIGHT MARINA, INC., Defendant.
DEPOSITION OF JOHN C. LUND, taken pursuant to Notice under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Plaintiff, before Linda M. Thomas, RMR, a Notary Public and Registered Merit Reporter, in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at the offices
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Volume 1Pages 1 to 144Exhibits (See Index)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSBRISTOL, SS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT
NO. 254067
)LANDING AT SOUTH PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSN., )
Plaintiff, ))
vs ))
BORDEN LIGHT MARINA, INC., )Defendant. )
)
DEPOSITION OF JOHN C. LUND, taken
pursuant to Notice under the Massachusetts Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of the Plaintiff, before
Linda M. Thomas, RMR, a Notary Public and Registered
Merit Reporter, in and for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at the offices of DANIEL R. SEIGENBERG,
ESQ., Two Commercial Street, Sharon, Massachusetts on
November 1, 2010, commencing at 10:00 a.m.
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTINGCertified Shorthand Reporter No. 129293
DANIEL R. SEIGENBERG, ESQ.LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. SEIGENBERGTwo Commercial StreetSharon, Massachusetts 02067
(For the Plaintiff)
EDMUND J. BRENNAN, JR., ESQ.BRENNAN, RECUPERIO, CASCIONE, SCUNGIO & McALLISTER LLPOne Church GreenP.O. Box 488Taunton, Massachusetts 02780
(For the Defendant)
Also present:
Charles Schnitzlein
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
3
I N D E X
WITNESS Direct Cross Redirect Recross
John C. Lund(By Mr. Seigenberg)4 140(By Mr. Brennan) 132
E X H I B I T S
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
16 Second Request for Production ofDocuments
14
17 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff'sSecond Request for Production ofDocuments
16
18 Series of photographs 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
4
S-T-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S
MR. SEIGENBERG: We have agreed that we
will have the same stipulations as the prior
deposition relative to objections and motions to
strike. All objections, except as to form of the
question and motions to strike, are reserved until the
time of trial.
And as for the reading and signing, we all
recognize that with the trial one week away, it is
going to be difficult to read and sign the deposition.
So we will send it to the witness as promptly as
possible for him to review his deposition transcript
and sign accordingly. And we will waive any notary.
Is that fine?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
JOHN C. LUND, first having shown
identification and been duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. And good morning again. Can you please
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
5
state your full name?
A. John C. Lund.
Q. And your residential address?
A. 161 Harbor Road, Swansea, Mass.
Q. Can you tell us your educational background?
A. College and law school.
Q. Specifically, what high school did you
graduate from?
A. Belmont High School.
Q. And what college?
A. Bates College.
Q. And what year did you graduate from Bates
College?
A. Sixty-five.
Q. You indicated you went to law school. What
law school and what year did you graduate?
A. Boston University, '68.
Q. And were you admitted to the Bar in 1968?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you still admitted to practice Law in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. No. I don't know what I am. I guess I
crossed that box off "retired" four years ago.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you stay registered?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
6
THE WITNESS: I don't know what I am.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Let's talk about after BU. What did you do
for work after graduating law school?
A. I went in the Peace Corps for two years.
Q. And after the Peace Corps?
A. After the Peace Corps, I worked for Jimmy
Waldron and followed with him for a year, Clark and
Waldron and Tucker.
Q. And I am not so sure I need to necessarily
go through each year of your legal experience, but if
you can give me a general background as to the
practice of Law?
A. In general?
Q. What years did you practice Law? How's
that?
A. Up to -- well, I was an Assistant Clerk in
the Superior Court for two-and-a-half years, and then
after that, maybe 10 years.
Q. So you were an Assistant Clerk from,
approximately, 1970 to 1972-1973?
A. No. I think I was Assistant Clerk until
like '73.
Q. In what Court was that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
7
A. Bristol County Superior.
Q. And then you practiced Law after that?
A. Until 1988, I guess.
Q. And what type of Law did you practice?
A. Basically, everything.
Q. General practice?
A. General practice.
Q. And were you involved in any -- as an
attorney, any development work?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your experience as a lawyer in
development work?
A. Actually, doing the development work while I
was an attorney moving -- we moved houses, did
subdivisions -- a couple of subdivisions.
Q. Are these for clients, or for yourself?
A. For ourselves.
Q. Okay. I was actually trying -- so when you
were doing this development work for yourself, you
also handled the legal work, as well?
A. My partner did and I did, yes.
Q. Who was your partner?
A. Brian Corey.
Q. So Brian Corey was an attorney, as well?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
8
A. Yes.
Q. Did you do any development work as an
attorney for any clients, other than yourself or Mr.
Corey?
A. Sporadic, but I can't recall a specific
client. I can think of one, Charlie Baldwin. That
was about it that I can recall.
Q. I wasn't trying to ask about specific
clients. The question was more simple. Did you, in
fact, do any -- perform any legal work for clients,
other than yourself and Mr. Corey relative to
development work? That one would be a yes or no at
this point in time.
A. Yes.
Q. And can you recall how many developments you
were involved in simply as an attorney?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Can you give me an approximation at all?
A. Starting in 1980, I was the guy out in the
field with the chainsaw. I was the guy out there with
the guys with the transits. And I was out there
building roads. And in between, I am sure there was
somebody that you could find. Not that much.
Q. Okay. So is it fair to say from 1980 to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
9
1988, the vast majority of your time was spent on
development work for you and your partner; is that
correct?
A. Fisher Pines, Bryant's Hollows, Slade's
Farm, the marina.
Q. Those first three developments, were those
residential developments?
A. Um-hum.
Q. How big were those residential developments?
A. Oh, big.
Q. How many lots?
A. Slade's Farm, 20 -- these are all guesses,
though. I don't remember. Slade's Farm was 70 lots,
approximately, a mile of road; Bryant's Hollow was 40
lots.
Q. And what was the third one you mentioned?
A. Fisher Pines.
Q. And how many lot subdivision is Fisher
Pines?
A. I'm going to guess 20.
Q. And you also indicated you were involved in
the development of the marina?
A. Right.
Q. And for the record, that is Borden Light
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
10
Marina?
A. Right.
Q. As part of that development you and Mr.
Corey incorporated Borden Light Marina, Inc.; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. According to the records at the Secretary of
the Commonwealth, that was incorporated in February of
1987. Does that sound about right to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it fair to say that you haven't practiced
Law since 1988, other than maybe work you might have
done for yourself or your partner?
A. No. Swansea Water District.
Q. What work did you do for the Swansea Water
District?
A. I just represented the Swansea Water
District.
Q. For how many years?
A. When did you start?
MR. BRENNAN: Go off the record for a
second.
[Off-the-record discussion]
THE WITNESS: My guess is between 1990
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
11
and 2002.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. And as Counsel for the Swansea Water
District, what were your responsibilities?
A. Mostly, the meetings, you know, getting the
meetings arranged, attending the meetings.
Q. I am assuming there was other work that you
performed?
A. Yeah, there was other work.
Q. Please describe that.
A. Nothing of any real significance. The
annual meetings; putting together the agendas for the
meetings; really answering questions from the
superintendant from time to time and doing research on
questions. That was about it.
Q. As Counsel for the Swansea Water District,
were you involved with any permitting, or any
development projects?
A. Permitting, no.
Q. Other than being Counsel for the Swansea
Water District, since 1989, have you been employed
with Borden Light Marina, Inc.?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that your primary job?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
12
A. Yes.
Q. And are you still employed by Borden Light
Marina, Inc.?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you and your son, Michael, break down
the responsibilities of Borden Light Marina?
A. He runs the operations. He is the
President.
Q. What have your responsibilities been since
Michael Lund became the President?
A. Nothing really specific. Working on this, I
suppose.
Q. You mean the litigation?
A. The litigation.
Q. Okay. So since Michael has been the
President of Borden Light Marina, he has run the
operations; is that correct?
A. Yeah. We consult on various things, yeah,
but he is the day-to-day guy.
Q. And when did Michael become President of
Borden Light Marina?
A. I believe that was three years ago.
Q. Was that, approximately, 2007?
A. I don't know. You might have the records of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
13
the Secretary of State when he got to become
President.
Q. Do you think that was, approximately,
2007-2008?
A. Yeah, seven or eight.
Q. And prior to Michael being President, you
were President of Borden Light Marina; correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. When you were President of Borden Light
Marina, did you run the operations of Borden Light
Marina?
A. Starting like five years before that, it was
like trying to get him to take over more and more and
more so I can get out.
Q. I appreciate that. But the question still
is when you were President of Borden Light Marina, did
you run the operation?
A. Yeah, yeah.
Q. And by running the operation, you would make
all the major decisions, obviously, with consultations
with other officers?
A. We would make them jointly, yes.
Q. Jointly would be you and Michael?
A. Right.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
14
Q. I sent to your counsel documents entitled
"Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of
Documents."
A. Um-hum.
(Deposition Exhibit No. 16, theabove-referred to Second Requestfor Production of Documents, wasmarked for identification.)
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Mr. Lund, we just marked as Exhibit No. 16
Plaintiff's Second Request Production of Documents to
Defendant, Borden Light Marina, Inc. Have you seen
that document prior to today?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is, certainly, a document you are
familiar with based on your practice of Law?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now the first request -- do you see the
first request calls for any documents, including but
not limited to photographs depicting any work
performed by Borden Light Marina, Inc. at, near, or in
the vicinity of the Plaintiff's property from 1999 to
the present.
And did you, in fact, produce any of those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
15
documents that you have within your possession,
custody, or control?
A. Yeah, I think they were produced.
Q. Sir. Here are the documents that your
attorney produced. Why don't you spend a little bit
of time. And my question to you is going to be are
all those documents that I just handed to you, which
were produced to me, are those all the photographs
that you have in your possession, custody, and control
at Borden Light Marina relative to response No. 1?
A. How many do we have here? Did you count
them?
MR. BRENNAN: I think what we should
do, if you are presenting those documents as the
package I produced for you.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Right. I am.
MR. BRENNAN: Those three piles are the
documents you got from me.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Correct. Maybe I can
clear this up on the record. I think that's a good
point, Ed.
We just marked as Exhibit 17 Defendant's
Response to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
of Documents. In Exhibit 17 --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
16
MR. BRENNAN: I'm sorry. I thought it
was 16.
(Deposition Exhibit No. 17, theabove-referred to Defendant'sResponse to Plaintiff's SecondRequest for Production ofDocuments, was marked foridentification.)
MR. SEIGENBERG: And in Exhibit 17 it
indicates, "See 152 photographs submitted herewith."
THE WITNESS: That is what this is.
Okay.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. So there are 152 photographs produced by
your counsel. Are you aware of any other photographs
within the scope of request No. 1?
A. No.
Q. Actually, your counsel was good enough to
produce documents that even predated 1999. Were you
aware of that, sir?
A. Yeah, because -- well just looking at them,
yeah, these are the original foundations.
Q. Mr. Lund, do you know where those
photographs were located before they were produced to
your counsel and then to me?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
17
A. No, I can't really tell you. Some were in
our files; some Ed had from 2000. I don't know if any
of these are on the computer.
Q. And you are not aware of any other
photographs that exist that show the property of
Borden Light Marina and/or the property of The
Landing, other than those 152 photographs?
A. Was that the question of the property?
Q. It was not. It was not. That is why I
asked the question. The request talks about -- you
can read the request No. 1, sir.
A. I take it they weren't.
Q. Correct. That is why I asked you this
question. Are there any other photographs within the
possession, custody, or control of Borden Light Marina
that show the property of Borden Light Marina, other
than the 152 photographs produced here?
A. There's got to be one.
Q. Are you aware of any, though?
A. As I sit here today, I am not aware of any.
All I am aware of is that this was what was requested.
And as far as I know, this was the appropriate
response. Do I know of any others about work done?
No. I'm sure there were others just depicting the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
18
marina and The Landing, which you didn't ask for.
Q. No. I appreciate that. I am just trying to
get a sense if you are aware of any other photographs.
A. Any specific one, no.
[Off-the-record discussion]
MR. SEIGENBERG: In the response to
Request for Production of Documents I was given three
groups of photographs. And I am going to mark as
Exhibit 18 one of those series of groupings of
photographs that were produced.
(Deposition Exhibit No. 18, theabove-referred to Series ofphotographs, was marked foridentification.)
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. In some of these photographs within Exhibit
18 there are dates next to the photographs. Are you
aware of that?
A. I looked at those. Which one do you want me
to look at?
Q. For example, here is a photograph that's
dated 2001 on it. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who placed that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
19
A. Michael did.
Q. So Michael wrote in the dates that are on
the photographs shown on Exhibit 18; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And when did Michael write those dates in,
if you know?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it this year?
A. Yeah. This was in response to your request.
Q. That is what I was trying to figure out. At
some point in time when your son, Michael Lund, was
attempting to produce these documents, he also wrote
dates on some of the photographs; is that correct?
A. Um-hum, that would be correct.
Q. Okay. And did he do that with consultation
-- did he do that in consultation with you, sir?
A. No.
Q. How do you know that Michael wrote those
dates on the photographs, then?
A. I don't know which one, but I saw him
writing dates on it, and I saw him trying to figure
out what were the right dates.
Q. When Michael wrote dates on the photographs,
you were present in the same room with him; is that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
20
correct.
A. Michael had a whole bunch of photographs.
And he was trying to figure out what day and he was
comparing this, that, and the other thing. Did I
participate? No. Do I know what he wrote on which
particular photograph? No. I am seeing it now for
the first time.
Q. Okay. Let me ask you some questions about
it, then. The first photograph I want to show you has
writing here of "1987," and it shows, it looks like,
some shacks, or something of that nature. Do you see
that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that photograph depict, sir?
A. That depicts the northerly portion of the
marina at the time when we obtained an option to
purchase the land.
Q. I see. And at that time, on or about 1987,
there were shacks along the beach area?
A. Well, it was in '86, or '87.
Q. I don't know. I am going by the photograph.
A. Well sequentially, that is what was there at
the time we signed the option with EG&G to purchase
the 13 acres.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
21
Q. Could you label that as "A" that photograph
anywhere so that for the record we know what we are
looking at?
A. [Witness complying]
Q. Certainly, in 1986, there were those shacks
on the property that became owned by Borden Light
Marina?
A. Yes. There were 26 of them.
Q. It is my understanding those shacks were,
eventually, raised, or taken down; correct?
A. Yes. We took them down.
Q. And what year were those shacks taken down?
A. They were taken down immediately after
signing the option with EG&G.
Q. The Option to Purchase?
A. Right.
Q. But prior to the acquisition of the property
by you and Mr. Corey; is that correct?
A. That was prior to, yes.
Q. Sir, I am going to show you another
photograph that was produced that is also labelled
"1987," and ask if you recognize that photograph?
A. Yeah. This is a picture of the bank in
1987.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
22
Q. And in what location, sir?
A. I think it's in the southerly portion.
Q. So you believe that this photograph depicts
the bank and the southerly portion of The Landing
property some time around 1987; is that correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And on top of what appears to be a bluff in
that photograph?
A. That's true.
Q. On top of the bluff there appears to be some
homes located there; correct?
A. Yeah. It appears to be the houses on Bay
Street.
Q. That was my question. These are the houses
that are actually, what, behind where The Landing
buildings are now located; is that correct?
A. Yeah, because 1 and 2 --
Q. You are referring to lots 1 and 2?
A. No. I am referring to Buildings 1 and 2, do
not look like that.
Q. When you say Buildings 1 and 2 did not look
like that --
A. The current Landing buildings numbered 1 and
2 do not appear to look like those two buildings.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
23
Q. Okay. If you could put a "B" on that
photograph that we have just been describing?
A. [Witness complying]
Q. Showing you once again the photograph B,
could you describe where The Landing buildings were
constructed?
A. In front of these buildings.
Q. Once again, if you could do it with words.
A. You want those buildings numbered?
Q. No, that's okay. Are you indicating The
Landing buildings were constructed before the
buildings depicted in Building B, but on top of the
bluff. Is that correct, sir?
A. They were on top of this bluff, if that is
what you want to call it; that's correct.
Q. Okay. I am going to show you another
photograph also marked "1987." And if you could mark
that with a "C," first of all. And can you tell me
what that photograph depicts?
A. That is one of The Landing buildings going
up.
Q. Where is that located on photograph "C"?
A. Right there. [Indicating]
Q. You are saying the top, right-hand corner?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
24
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you know which building that is of The
Landing? Can you tell from that photograph?
A. No.
Q. And the bridge in the background there is
the Braga Bridge?
A. That's correct.
Q. Would you agree that photograph is a fair
and accurate depiction of that area on or about 1987?
A. Yeah, but I'm not quite sure what we are
depicting. Was the whole top flat, levelled, nothing
up there? Yeah.
Q. Okay. Tell me. What do you believe this
photograph depicts, sir? I know it's black and white.
A. You are asking me which building it is, and
I'm saying I'm not sure.
Q. I am just asking what the photograph
depicts.
A. It depicts the top of the bank.
Q. On or about 1987?
A. Right. Can I see it again, please?
Q. Oh, sure, of course you can.
A. Yeah, okay.
Q. I'm going to show you another photograph
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
25
also marked "1987." If you could mark that as "D" and
I'm going to ask you what that photograph depicts,
sir?
A. That's the marina landing 1987, and
beginning -- I think that's the clubhouse for The
Landing and Building 3, 4, 5, I believe.
Q. So photograph "D," then, the buildings on
top of the bluff you believe are The Landing buildings
either constructed, or being constructed; is that
correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. That's a "yes"?
A. Yes, sorry.
Q. No problem. And can you see the pier out
there, sir?
A. This one?
Q. On the far right-hand side of the photograph
do you see the pier?
A. Yeah.
Q. Is that the pier where the King Phillip
Yacht Club is?
A. Yeah.
Q. Thank you. The next photograph I am going
to show you, if you could mark this marked with "E"?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
26
A. Yeah.
Q. What does photograph "E" depict?
A. That is the entrance to A Dock and B Dock.
Q. You are indicating the pier depicted in the
photograph is the pier that leads to A Dock and B Dock
of the marina; is that correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. And on the top of the photograph there are
some buildings depicted. Are those, in fact, some of
The Landing condominium buildings that have been
constructed?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that photograph is a fair
and accurate representation of that area on or about
1988?
A. Yes.
Q. In photograph "E" there is a concrete wall
located on the photograph?
A. That's correct.
Q. Who constructed that wall?
A. I did.
Q. And when was that wall constructed?
A. Some time before 1988.
Q. Okay. Can you give me an idea of when prior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
27
to 1988, that wall was constructed?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Well you didn't -- did you construct the
wall prior to having the option to purchase the
property?
A. No.
Q. So that would give you, certainly, a range,
would it not? You obtained the option what year?
A. After the closing. After the closing.
Q. So it's fair to say that wall was
constructed some time from 1986 to 1988?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. Prior to constructing that wall that is
depicted in the photograph "E," did you obtain any
permits to construct that wall?
A. From?
Q. Well let's talk about the local permits.
Did you obtain any buildings from the Building
Inspector?
A. No.
Q. And why not?
A. We thought after going through all those
agencies, that is all we needed.
Q. When you say "we," you and Mr. Corey?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
28
A. Yeah.
Q. You now know you needed a Building Permit to
construct that wall, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you said you went through those other
agencies, you are talking about what, DEP; is that
correct?
A. Wetlands, Waterways, yeah. How many are
there you've got to write to?
Q. I'm going to show you another photograph.
This one is marked "1989." If you could mark that as
"F," please, and I am going to ask you what photograph
"F" depicts.
A. Photograph "F" depicts part of the railroad
-- I'm not sure it is the railroad superstructure, or
part of the railroad that goes over onto our property.
Q. You are referring to some concrete blocks?
A. Yeah, this stuff.
Q. That is debris that either Keith Development
created, or the railroad created; is that correct?
A. It is part of what was up on what is now The
Landing property.
Q. Now the building -- there is a building on
the top of the bluff?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
29
A. That's right.
Q. That is Building 3; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. The building on the left-hand side of
photograph "F" is Building 3 of The Landing; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this photograph -- photograph "F"
depicts the bank in front of Building 3 at or about
1989; is that correct?
A. Yeah, on or about.
Q. I appreciate that. And is that how the bank
looked from 1986 to 1989?
A. I believe so.
Q. I'm going to show you another photograph
also marked "1989." And if you could mark that as
"G"?
A. Um-hum.
Q. What does photograph "G" depict?
A. You mean which buildings?
Q. Well, okay, we can start with the buildings,
if you want, sure.
A. You got the stone pier out there. Where is
the stone pier? That is in front of 3, isn't it? I
don't know what pier this is.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
30
Q. First of all, what does the photograph
depict?
A. Well, it depicts -- why is this like that?
It depicts a couple of Landing buildings on the
left-hand side the property line, the fence.
Q. Does it also depict the bank below the
buildings?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you're not able -- the photograph
indicates this was in 1989. Do you believe this is a
fair and accurate representation of that area in 1989?
A. My problem is I don't know what year it was
like that. What year did they build 3, 4 and 5?
Q. Okay. But in any event, you believe --
A. At one point in time it looked like that,
yes.
Q. You believe that photograph "G" depicts
Buildings 3, 4, and 5 of The Landing; is that correct?
MR. BRENNAN: You can just testify as
to what you believe and what you know.
THE WITNESS: 3 -- 4.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. You believe photograph "G" depicts Buildings
3 and 4 of The Landing; correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
31
A. I guess so.
Q. Can you mark this please with "G"?
A. Sure.
Q. Thanks.
MR. BRENNAN: Can we go off one second?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Sure.
[Off-the-record discussion]
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Now you indicated you and Mr. Corey had an
Option to Purchase what is known as "Lot 3"; correct,
sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And when I refer to Lot 3, that would be the
marina property. You understand that?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when did you -- my records indicate that
-- my understanding is you and Mr. Corey purchased Lot
3 from Leo Kelly Trustee; correct?
A. Right.
Q. What year did you purchase Lot 3, that is
you and Mr. Corey?
A. That was '86, I believe.
Q. And it is also my understanding as we have
already --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
32
A. You got the deed?
Q. I do somewhere.
MR. BRENNAN: April of '86.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. It is also my understanding that Borden
Light Marina was organized in February of 1987;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then there was a deed from John Lund and
Brian Corey to Borden Light Marina of Lot 3 in July of
1989; is that correct, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. Could you tell me then from the period of
1986, until Borden Light Marina's acquisition of Lot 3
in July of 1989, what construction occurred both in
Lot 3, as well as Lot 1 and 2, which is the property
of The Landing?
A. On Lots 1 and 2?
Q. Correct.
A. Keith Development built unit 1 and unit 2
first. They poured all their foundations on Lots 1
and 2, and then they started down the waterfront.
Q. And when did Keith Development start the
construction on now The Landing's property?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
33
A. I believe it was '86. It was in the '86-'87
time period.
Q. Do you know what time period Keith
Development fully built out The Landing buildings?
A. When did they finish 11? I believe in the
'92-'94 range.
Q. As part of their construction process what,
if anything, did you observe Keith Development do
relative to the construction? Let me rephrase the
question.
Describe the progress of the construction
work performed by Keith Development.
A. I mean --
Q. First of all, I assume before they built any
buildings, they did some site work up the top of the
bluff; is that correct?
A. Right. They took out the turntable.
Q. The turntable?
A. Yeah, the railroad turntable.
Q. Approximately, what year was that?
A. That would have been '86 or '87.
Q. After they took out the railroad turntable
in '86-'87, what next was done relative to site work?
A. They put in utilities. They put in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
34
foundations. They raised the grade out there. They
started construction on 1 and 2. I believe they sold
those first. And I'm not sure if they built in front
of 1 and 2 first. And I'm thinking now they didn't;
they started with 5 and 6, because you asked me where
that building was.
Q. Right.
A. So there was nothing in front of 1 and 2, I
believe, when they were sold.
Q. I see.
A. And then in some period they put all the
foundations in.
Q. And then, eventually, they completed the
other buildings along the waterfront; is that correct?
A. Yeah. By '94, they should have completed
them all.
Q. Now you said that Keith Development raised
the grade. What are you referring to?
A. The floodplain. They wanted to get the
buildings out of the floodplain. That's what they
told us at the closing, anyway.
Q. That they did what?
A. They had to get the buildings up to get out
of the floodplain.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
35
Q. Okay. I guess my question is -- I'm only
concerned about your observations. Relative to
raising the grade, did you make any observations of
Keith Development raising the grade?
A. Yeah. They had to raise it. I know they
did.
Q. Okay. Why did you know they had to?
A. Well, it was a tricky development site. On
the one hand they were trying to get around the fill
with Commonwealth tide land. And that is why the
buildings go back in the middle. And they were trying
to avoid the problems with the floodplains.
Q. And prior to Keith Development performing
construction, Lots 1 and 2 were located on the bluff;
correct?
A. Yeah 1, 2, and 3.
Q. Okay. I'm talking about Lots 1, 2, and 3,
meaning Borden Light Marina land, as well?
A. Yeah.
Q. Describe the change, then, in the various
elevations on the site.
A. The change was -- do you have the original
-- the change was that the marina was supposed to be
built down to elevation 10 in front of The Landing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
36
Q. Okay. And what was --
A. And Keith was supposed to be up top.
Q. Isn't that what happened, sir?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And in order for the marina to be
built at elevation 10, what site work, if any, was
performed?
A. We repaired the revetment and we dug out
elevation 10 along the water.
Q. And prior to you performing that excavation
work, sir, at elevation level, what was the elevation
level at the marina's property?
A. It ran from 10 to 19, depending on where you
are talking about.
Q. Is it fair to say it was 10 near the water
line and went up to 19 towards the bluff area?
A. Yeah.
Q. And when the marina excavated the site down
to, approximately, elevation 10, what did the marina
do with the fill, if any, that was obtained?
A. What's his name took it. A guy from
Rehoboth.
Q. It was taken offsite?
A. Um-hum.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
37
Q. Why don't you explain the construction
process the marina went through in order to build the
marina?
A. When we started constructing the marina, we
started by -- I think in '86, we started putting the
revetment in -- put in a good chunk of the revetment
perhaps down as far as The Landing pool.
Q. And what was the revetment made out of?
A. Stone.
Q. It was stone revetment?
A. Yeah.
Q. Is that stone revetment still there?
A. Yes. And then we put in that -- we started
with that wall. We put that concrete wall in. We
excavated and put that wall in. We excavated the
first years as far down as the clubhouse.
Q. Okay.
A. I think that -- that would be helpful.
Q. I am going to show you a document which was
marked as Exhibit No. 5 during the deposition of
Michael Lund. And it shows the construction of
various walls.
A. Um-hum.
Q. I am going to ask you to look at Exhibit 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
38
-- look at it without speaking until you're
familiarized with it.
A. Okay.
Q. Have you had a chance to review Exhibit 5?
A. Okay. What's your question?
Q. My question is your son, Michael, depicted
the construction of various wall segments and placed a
year as to when those walls were constructed. Do you
agree with what is depicted by your son, Michael, in
Exhibit 5?
A. It's difficult -- is The Landing pool here?
Q. I thought we did show this on the plan. I
believe that is -- the rectangle in red I believe your
son, Michael, indicated is where the pool is located.
A. Okay. Dan, I don't mean to equivocate here.
This was the first wall, and it goes all the way down
to the clubhouse. And then you got the steel, right.
This was done right away, and then Keith built on top
of it.
Q. What years did your son depict for that
section of wall, sir?
A. He doesn't. This is one half -- early 90's
he said. Oh, Keith did that in the early 90's. The
first section, that's right. The poured wall '89 --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
39
'90.
Q. Who performed that construction?
A. We did the bottom and Keith did the top.
Q. You said you did the bottom. How much of
the wall did the marina construct?
A. You showed me a photograph of that earlier.
You asked me if we built that wall. Yeah.
Q. Let me see if I can get an answer to the
first question. Do you agree with what your son has
depicted on Exhibit 5?
A. Yeah. I mean yeah, that first part was
poured. We poured it. We did the wall. I am
assuming the clubhouse is right here.
Q. You are starting from the northerly side;
correct?
A. Starting from the northerly side, yeah. We
poured it. We built the wall. Keith wanted to build
it up higher, and we gave them permission.
Q. How much higher did Keith build up the wall
in a certain section?
A. If you have the picture, it is a lot easier
to describe with some sort of certainty.
Q. It would be Exhibit 18, John. I am just
trying to find it for you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
40
A. That is over here.
MR. BRENNAN: Let me keep looking then.
There was a four-foot wall that we were looking at.
THE WITNESS: Four feet and they took
it up to eight foot. It is ten feet in the middle --
eight feet in the middle, and they built it up -- this
wall over here. That's what you're asking me about?
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. I am trying to ask you if, in fact, what
your son, Michael, depicted on Exhibit 5 is accurate
to the best of your understanding. If you say "yes,"
that will end the inquiry. If you say "no," I will
ask you, specifically, what you disagree with.
A. I am wondering about over here by 8.
MR. BRENNAN: Maybe that will look
familiar, Dan. I think it is a little unique.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. I will show you what is marked photograph
"E."
A. Yeah, that's it.
Q. You are referring to the concrete wall?
A. That's the first one, yeah.
Q. And that is the wall constructed by the
marina; correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
41
A. Yes, it is right here. Five inches where it
says poured half. He had written "half."
Q. That would be on the northerly side;
correct?
A. That would be correct.
Q. You are indicating that Keith Development,
with the permission of the marina, added onto that
wall; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Once again --
A. Then we did the sheet pile. I remember that
next.
Q. Mr. Lund, I'm going to cut you off because
this is off the record --
[Off-the-record discussion]
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Your counsel's suggestion -- I think it's a
good suggestion -- if you could, looking at Exhibit 5
starting from the northerly end going to the southerly
end, could you please describe for us the excavation
and the construction of the wall?
A. All right. Beginning I guess in 19 -- what
do we got here, '88-'89? We poured that. We put in
the sheet pile. We dug out to that point. I believe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
42
the clubhouse is here, right. Then we started digging
out going down as we grew.
Q. Can you describe the sections, though,
looking at Exhibit 5? Or if it is highlighted in
yellow, that would be fine, too. Any way the record
will indicate what you're saying.
A. I'm saying we built down to the clubhouse.
Q. And that would have been in the late 80's;
correct?
A. Correct. And we dug that out and we built
the clubhouse. And then we started down the
shoreline --
Q. Once again --
A. -- enlarging the marina. I think we had
like three sets of docks out there and the clubhouse.
I believe the clubhouse -- well, it's in front of the
sheet pile.
Q. The wall itself, could you just tell me by
describing the year, the material?
A. This was the sheet pile.
Q. And when was that constructed?
A. That was in '88-'89; that was Nelson Cook
who put that in -- Nelson Cook.
Q. He was a contractor the marina hired?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
43
A. Um-hum.
Q. Now you're on the yellow portion of Exhibit
5 -- the yellow highlighted portion of Exhibit 5;
correct?
A. That is correct. Michael's got here late
90's. I would think that was -- I think that whole
thing was like 2008, I thought. I don't know.
Anyways, so that was sloped until --
Q. Go ahead.
A. Until we put that wall in.
Q. Where it is depicted as shoring wall and
highlighted in yellow, that area was sloped until the
wall was constructed?
A. That's correct.
Q. You believe that wall was constructed where
it is indicating the shoring wall in 2008; is that
correct?
A. I thought so, yeah.
Q. Okay. And then how big a section was that
wall, or where does that wall extend to, sir?
A. Down to the -- yeah, there was sheet pile in
here. Sheet pile, I believe, was like 2002 to 2006.
Q. Where is the sheet pile, sir?
A. Right here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
44
Q. Where it says "sheet pile" on Exhibit 5?
A. He's got black wall.
Q. Block wall?
A. I think it says black B-L-A-C-K. The block
was here.
Q. When you say "here," you mean where the
yellow highlighted area is?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Yes?
A. That ends down to the pool, if this is the
pool. You say that's the pool. A block wall is in
front of the pool. That's the pool area, then there
is the black wall, or the sheet pile wall, and then
there is the poured wall.
Q. The next thing was the poured wall. When
was that constructed, sir?
A. That was constructed in '86-'89, whatever.
Q. Who constructed the wall in '86-'89?
A. Tony Sousa.
Q. And that was at the request of the marina;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did that section of wall that was
constructed in '86-'89 extend?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
45
A. You've got it right here. I don't know. In
front of Building 6. Yeah, it starts right there.
Q. And ends where?
A. Basically, in front of Building 6.
Q. As depicted on Exhibit 5?
A. Yeah, basically.
Q. Okay. What was the next going down, once
again, going southerly what was the next form of
construction relative to excavation and building the
wall?
A. Yeah, the sheeting was down to here, right
-- sheeting. After the concrete. It is difficult for
me to visualize this without knowing exactly where the
docks are. I'm sorry. It is very difficult.
Q. That's okay. And by the way, if your answer
is that you can't tell me when the wall was
constructed, or what it is constructed of, that would
be an answer, too. I am trying to get your best
understanding, sir.
You were, in fact, the person who is making
these decisions for the marina when these walls were
being constructed; correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. In fairness, did that include the walls that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
46
were constructed in 2008 and 2009?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were involved in the decision making
for those walls, as well; correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. There is a section going towards the
southerly end that is highlighted in yellow.
A. Um-hum.
Q. When was that wall constructed?
A. Between 2008 and 2009.
Q. And that is the latest construction work
done along the boundary line?
A. That's correct.
Q. Prior to doing the construction work that
occurred in 2008 and 2009, who did you hire to do the
work?
A. Jimmy Furtado.
Q. And had Mr. Furtado done other construction
work relative to the marina?
A. Yes, he had.
Q. What other construction work had Mr. Furtado
performed?
A. He did the site work as it was moved down
through the years.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
47
Q. When you say "he did the site work," what
does that refer to?
A. Digging out the bank as we moved down.
Q. Furtado Construction did the excavation
work; correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. And did Furtado Construction also do the
erection of the walls?
A. Some of them.
Q. Some of them. Did they do the concrete wall
that was done in 2008 and 2009?
A. They worked down the easement and across
this way. What's his name? Jarabek J-A-R-A-B-E-K.
Q. Is Jarabek an individual? A company?
A. He is -- well, yeah, he is a company. He
does site work, too. Furtado is on one end and
Jarabek is on the other coming together.
Q. Why did you have two contractors performing
the erection of the walls in 2008 and 2009?
A. I'm not sure if Jarabek was just 2009,
because I think we got ourselves in a little problem.
We hired one guy and he doesn't show up. You hire
another, and now you've got two.
Q. Which one of those two didn't show up that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
48
you hired a second one?
A. Furtado was dragging his feet, and then I
talked to Jarabek and -- [inaudible] and let's just
do it. I think Furtado did this part, though.
Q. Which part are you referring to?
A. Over by the pool.
Q. And that is also a concrete wall?
A. Concrete block wall.
Q. Concrete block wall. The work that was done
in 2008 and 2009 relative to the construction of the
wall, who made the decision as to the type of wall
that was going to be constructed?
A. We did.
Q. Meaning the marina?
A. Yeah.
Q. And how did you arrive at a decision as to
the type of wall that was going to be constructed in
2008 and 2009?
A. It was economical and seemed to suit the
site.
Q. Now when you said it was economical, did you
compare it to other types of walls?
A. Yes. Steel had gone whacko.
Q. So the comparison was between a concrete
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
49
block wall and a steel wall; is that correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And what about having a solid concrete wall?
Was that part of the decision-making process?
A. Yes.
Q. How come you didn't do a solid concrete
wall?
A. The cost.
Q. And what estimates did you get for that
section of wall that was built in 2008-2009, for solid
concrete wall, steel wall, and then the concrete block
wall?
A. Do I recall? I don't recall what the
estimates were. I just recall there was a big
difference.
Q. Did you ever receive an estimate for the
concrete block wall that was constructed?
A. You mean for the total job? We finally
ended up time and materials.
Q. Okay. But my question is did you ever
receive an estimate for any section of the concrete
block wall that was constructed in 2008-2009?
A. No.
Q. So no written estimate at all?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
50
A. Just on the price of blocks.
Q. And who gave you a price? Was that Furtado,
or Jarabek, or both?
A. No. It was a company down the Cape, and it
was either -- who was it? Tony Sousa's company made
the blocks -- the interlocking blocks.
Q. And where is Mr. Sousa's company located?
A. Fall River -- no, Swansea.
Q. What is the name of Mr. Sousa's company?
A. I would have to get back to you on that.
Q. Okay. And so you made -- you had a
discussion with Mr. Sousa where he agreed to supply
the concrete block?
A. Right.
Q. Based on a price of material; is that
correct?
A. Right.
Q. And how was that price of material arrived
at? Was it per block?
A. It is per block.
Q. And do you remember what the cost was per
block?
A. Somewhere around -- my best memory today is
46 bucks a block.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
51
Q. Did you ever receive any bill from Tony
Sousa's company for the block supply?
A. Oh, yeah. I think you have them.
Q. I don't believe I do. That is one of the
reasons I asked the question.
MR. BRENNAN: You have what they gave
me.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. One of the questions I did ask, and maybe I
missed it. One of the group of documents that I
requested in Exhibit No. 16, the Request for
Production of Documents, is "Any and all documents
including, but not limited to, contracts, invoices,
and proposals, relating to any construction activities
performed by Defendant within 100 feet of Plaintiff's
property for the period of 1999 to the present."
A. Right.
Q. There is a response here that says response
No. 8 and 9. If you could look through that and tell
me if you see any bills, or estimates from Tony
Sousa's company on the blocks?
A. Yeah. He is Preferred Concrete; that's him.
Q. What year was that? Is that a check for
2005?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
52
MR. BRENNAN: The date is cut off.
THE WITNESS: Nice move, Eddie. I
don't know.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Off the record for a
second.
[Off-the-record discussion]
THE WITNESS: It's not here.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Having gone through what was labelled as
Response No. 8 and 9 to Plaintiff's Second Request for
Production of Documents, do you see any documents that
are relative to the work that was done in 2008 and
2009?
A. I don't -- the question was blocks. I
didn't see the blocks.
Q. So the documents produced, then, there were
no documents evidencing --
A. There wouldn't have been a contract.
Q. Let me finish the question. Having reviewed
the documents that are marked Response No. 8 and
Response No. 9, did you see any documents relative to
the costs of the blocks --
A. No.
Q. -- for 2008-2009; correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
53
A. Yeah. There would have been, I believe,
Preferred Concrete.
MR. BRENNAN: I have the originals of
those. To the extent that check was cut off, I have
that in my office.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Right, understood.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. The only document might in any way be
related to 2008-2009, a check that we can't read,
which is in the amount of $3,480; correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. And does that sound, approximately, what you
paid for the blocks in 2008-2009, that you purchased
from Tony Sousa's company?
A. No.
Q. And Preferred Concrete, is that Tony Sousa's
company?
A. Yes.
Q. So if $3,480 wasn't the cost of the blocks
that were purchased in 2008-2009, what was the
approximate cost of the blocks that were purchased?
A. Got 650 feet? Well take 650 and divide by
four. Wait a minute. 650 divided by four times four.
650 times 46.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
54
Q. Do you want me to do this?
A. You have the pen and the paper.
Q. Going from your memory, sir, what do you
believe the cost is that you paid to Preferred
Concrete for the blocks in 2008-2009?
A. Can I see the pen, since you don't want to
do it?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Counsel is --
MR. BRENNAN: This isn't going to work.
The battery is dead.
MR. SCHNITZLEIN: $119,600.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. The approximate estimate of what you paid
for the block in 2008-2009?
A. No.
Q. Certainly, significantly, more than the
$3,000 number; correct?
A. Oh, certainly.
MR. BRENNAN: Just materials you are
talking about now?
MR. SEIGENBERG: That's all we're
talking about.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. It seems pretty clear this check that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
55
date has been -- unfortunately, we can't read, isn't
the check that went for all of the concrete block that
was purchased in 2008-2009.
So my question is, sir, do you have any
documentation to support the purchase of the concrete
block that was purchased in 2008 and 2009?
A. I don't have the checks here, no. There was
no contract.
Q. Was there anything in writing other than --
did you receive a bill, or an invoice from Preferred
Concrete?
A. I don't think so, but it would have been --
I looked for those. They were only paid when we got
them.
Q. So it is your recollection, sir, that you
had nothing in writing from Preferred Concrete
relative to bill, invoice, or estimate; is that
correct?
A. I don't really recall right this moment.
You've got me a little confused here.
Q. The difficulty I have is that I made a
specific request that you produce certain documents.
I have a trial a week away, and I still don't have
anything in writing from you relative to the purchase
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
56
of concrete block. That's why I'm trying to go by
your memory making this a lot easier.
My question is based on your own memory,
sir, do you recall whether or not you received any
bills, invoices, or estimates from Mr. Sousa, or
Preferred Concrete relative to the block that you
purchased in 2008 and 2009?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Off the record.
[Off-the-record discussion]
THE WITNESS: I believe I did get
invoices. Paid most of them, I believe.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Is it the practice of Borden Light Marina to
retain invoices at least for a few years?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you believe you have copies of those
invoices in your records?
A. I thought you were given them.
Q. I appreciate that. So you think you have
them?
A. I thought you were given them.
Q. Understood. Can you tell me what the
approximate cost incurred by Borden Light Marina for
the concrete blocks that were purchased in 2008-2009?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
57
A. Approximately, $40,000.
Q. Now in addition to paying for the concrete
block, you also paid for the services of Furtado and
Jarabek; correct?
A. Right.
Q. Did you receive any estimate, or contract,
or any other document from Furtado or Jarabek?
A. No.
Q. After the work was performed, did you
receive a bill from Jarabek and Furtado?
A. Yeah.
Q. Once again, looking through Responses No. 8
and 9 I do not see any such bill from Jarabek or
Furtado relative to any work that was performed in
2008-2009. Is there such an invoice that is in the
records of Borden Light Marina?
A. There should be.
Q. And having received those invoices, did
Borden Light Marina then pay the invoices submitted?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know how much Borden Light Marina
paid to Furtado for the work that was done in 2008 and
2009?
A. My understanding it is like $170,000. My
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
58
understanding was we had documents for that amount of
money. My understanding is that you got them.
Q. I appreciate that. I understand that. We
are going to do the best we can with what we have
today.
What did Borden Light Marina pay Jarabek for
the work that was performed?
A. That is part of the 170.
Q. Are you able to break down?
A. Am I? No. Like I say, I thought you got
them.
Q. Without looking at the documents you can't
delineate how much Furtado got paid and how much
Jarabek got paid?
A. No.
Q. Were there any other contractors, suppliers,
or professionals that were hired by Borden Light
Marina relative to the work that was performed in 2008
and 2009?
A. No.
Q. Did you hire a surveyor prior to doing the
work that was done in 2008 and 2009?
A. No.
Q. Did you have a structural engineer review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
59
the -- any aspects of the work that was performed in
2008 and 2009, before the work was performed?
A. Before the work was performed, we dug three
test pits. And some gentleman from the concrete block
company in Wareham came up and looked at it and made
his recommendation and gave us a book on those blocks.
Those blocks were like 60 bucks apiece, and Preferred
-- Tony's were like 46 -- a lot cheaper -- same
design.
Q. So the company on the Cape was $60 a block,
is that correct, approximately?
A. That's my memory.
Q. And Mr. Sousa's company was $46 a block;
correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. My question, though, you indicated that
three test pits were dug. Who dug the test pits?
A. Furtado.
Q. My question was did Borden Light Marina, or
any contractor or professional who was working for
you, did they hire any structural engineer before the
work was done in 2008 and 2009?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
60
A. I don't know if we paid that guy. I can't
tell you. I don't think we paid him. I think he was
a block company engineer trying to sell blocks for the
block company.
Q. Which block company, the Cape?
A. The Cape, yeah.
Q. Okay. But Borden Light Marina, did you hire
any structural engineer before the work was done in
2008 and 2009?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. After talking to the guy down the Cape that
said it wasn't really necessary.
Q. Had Borden Light Marina ever hired a
structural engineer prior to performing any of the
construction of walls that have been described from
late 1980's to the present time?
A. Just Edward Kingman.
Q. And when was Mr. Kingman hired?
A. Probably, 1988.
Q. And for how long did Mr. Kingman perform
structural engineering services for Borden Light
Marina?
A. Two years.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
61
Q. And so from after Mr. Kingman ceased his
employment in 1990, you hired no structural engineers
before any of these walls were constructed; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You indicated that the reason you didn't
hire the structural engineer before the walls were
constructed in 2008 and 2009, is because you spoke to
somebody at the concrete block company down the Cape;
correct?
A. Right.
Q. Who did you speak to at the company on Cape
Cod?
A. I don't recall his name.
Q. Do you know what his professional background
was?
A. No.
Q. What did this individual, who you don't
recall his name, say to you about the construction
project that was planned?
A. He came down. He looked at it. He said it
was a good application for the kind of blocks that he
was selling. And he reviewed the materials in the
three pits and said it was good material. And that
was it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
62
Q. And once again, you don't know what his
qualifications were; correct?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Now you said you dug three test pits. Who,
actually, did the digging?
A. Jimmy Furtado.
Q. Tim Furtado?
A. Jimmy.
Q. And where did he dig the test pits?
A. One, two, three.
Q. Near what buildings, sir?
A. Three, 4, 5.
Q. Do you have the results of those -- strike
that. Is there some document that reflects the
results of those --
A. No. He came out and --
Q. Is there some document that reflects the
results of those three test pits?
A. No, there was not.
Q. Did Mr. Furtado give you a bill for the
digging of those test pits?
A. I don't know if there is a separate bill for
that, but it was like three or four hours.
Q. These test pits were to what, evaluate the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
63
soil?
A. Yes.
Q. Anything else these tests were to evaluate?
A. That was it.
Q. Did you ever make a determination -- strike
that. The block that was constructed, do you know
what grade they were?
A. What do you mean, pounds?
Q. I'm sorry. The block that you purchased in
2008 and 2009, what grade were they?
A. Concrete?
Q. The concrete blocks, yeah.
A. The grade of the concrete I do not know.
Q. Are you aware that the concrete blocks do
have a grade?
A. I never thought about it, but yes, I do know
there is different PSI on concrete.
Q. How come you didn't evaluate the grade of
the concrete block that was going to be utilized?
A. I can't answer that.
Q. Is it fair to say you just didn't think
about it?
A. You could say that.
Q. Now, specifically, what work was Furtado and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
64
Jarabek supposed to perform in 2008 and 2009?
A. Just erect the wall.
Q. And did you have anybody -- strike that.
Was any geofabric installed when these walls were
being constructed?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there a separate cost for the
geofabric?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you purchase the geofabric from?
A. Those are in there. I think the stone is in
there --
Q. The geofabric was purchased from another
company; is that correct?
I didn't see anything like that. It may be
there. I might have missed it, but I didn't see
anything?
[Off-the-record discussion]
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Having reviewed the documents produced in 8
and 9, there are no invoices, bills, estimates,
anything that would document any of the geofabric
purchase?
A. Absolutely not. I don't see any paper in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
65
there past '05.
Q. Nor, did I. So without having the document
in front of you, you can't tell me who the company was
that Borden Light Marina purchased the geofabric from?
A. Some company in Rhode Island suffices in
East Providence on the left-hand side of the road.
Q. Okay. Do you know the quantity of the
geofabric that was purchased?
A. Yeah. We can go through a whole series of
"I don't knows," if you like. Get a stamp. I mean
there is like 650 feet times four, times how deep --
six feet -- eight feet. I think the pieces are eight
to ten feet. There is a ton of filter fabric out
there. And the other bills you don't have is, I
guess, the crushed stone, or three-quarter minus.
Q. You are aware that there is an issue between
the engineers as to the amount of geofabric that was
installed. So I am sure you can appreciate the
significance of the amount of geofabric purchased.
A. I understand that. Believe me, my
understanding was you got these papers.
Q. And when the geofabric was purchased, who
installed the geofabric?
A. Furtado and Jarabek.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
66
Q. Were you present when any of these walls
were being constructed in 2008 and 2009?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did you, or anybody else from Borden Light
Marina, supervise the construction work that was
performed in 2008 and 2009?
A. Merely to the extent I knew that the filter
fabric was important here, and I could go down and
check on that. And as far as I knew, they were doing
it right.
Q. Who made the determination as to the amount
of geofabric that was being installed when these walls
were being constructed in 2008 and 2009?
A. That was on schematics given to me by the
engineer for the Cape company.
Q. The Cape company you didn't hire?
A. Right.
Q. Do you have those schematics?
A. Yeah, some place.
Q. And those haven't been produced, either;
correct?
A. They sent me a book. Do you want the book?
Q. I'm trying to get an idea -- these weren't
documents prepared, specifically, for this job. They
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
67
simply provided you a book; correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And you did calculations based on this book
that was provided to you?
A. Right.
Q. You didn't have a structural engineer, or
any other expert review that; correct?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe you have the expertise to
determine the amount of geofabric that was going to be
installed when this wall was being constructed?
A. I believe, yeah, because it's turned out
that it was correct.
Q. You believe you had the expertise?
A. I didn't say I had any expertise.
Q. That is my question, though. My question is
do you believe you had the requisite expertise to
determine, utilizing this book, the amount of
geofabric that should have been installed when these
walls were being constructed? Yes or no?
A. I thought I did.
Q. Do you think you do now?
A. Well I believe the engineers have kind of
affirmed it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
68
Q. Which engineers confirmed what, the amount
of geofabric installed?
A. No, the amount that was required. I believe
I put in more than they said we needed.
Q. When you say "they," who are you referring
to?
A. What is his name?
Q. Don Leffert and Robert Guay G-U-A-Y. Are
those the two structural engineers you are referring
to?
A. Yeah. The ones our respective parties are
working on. I think they're calling for like six
feet; right?
Q. Are you aware that Don Leffert has
determined that there wasn't the requisite amount of
geofabric utilized? Are you aware of that?
A. Where?
Q. On the walls that were constructed in 2008
and 2009.
A. On the whole thing?
Q. Are you aware that Don --
A. I'm not aware of what he has determined with
respect to this wall.
Q. Okay. So that is why -- you indicated that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
69
it was confirmed by the two engineers. And I was
trying to inquire about your answers, given the fact
that Don Leffert doesn't agree that the right amount
of geofabric was installed.
So knowing that, sir, why do you think Don
Leffert concurred with your calculations?
A. I'm saying that the amount that should have
been installed coincides with what the engineer said.
Q. I understand.
A. And I'm saying the amount I told them to put
in was more than what the engineers suggested.
Q. I see.
A. I am suggesting that, to be perfectly clear,
I wasn't out there all the time. I went down there to
check on it from time to time. Do I believe they did
it right? Yeah. Did I dig it up? No.
Q. Are you aware, sir, that you could have
hired a structural engineer who not only could have
made the calculations, but also could have supervised
the work?
A. Yes.
Q. And I take it the reason you didn't hire
that engineer was economics; that you wanted to save
some money?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
70
A. I felt comfortable with it -- what I had
been told.
Q. So you felt comfortable, but was economics
at all a factor?
A. Sure.
Q. So you wanted to save some money; correct?
A. Right.
Q. Are you aware that two engineers have now
determined that the wall that was constructed in 2008
and 2009, was not constructed properly?
A. No. I mean parts of it, yes.
Q. You are certainly aware that Don Leffert has
given that opinion; correct?
A. I haven't read --
MR. BRENNAN: No. We haven't seen a
report from Leffert. We just know what we have been
told.
MR. SEIGENBERG: I'm just trying to get
his state of mind.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Are aware that Don Leffert opined that the
wall was not properly constructed?
A. The entire wall?
Q. At least sections of it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
71
A. Yes, I understand he has opined. And the
opining relates to near the parking lot. And I
believe -- well, you tell me how many feet near the
parking lot.
Q. As you know, it is not exactly how it works.
I'm just trying to get a sense. Are you also aware
that an engineer from the insurance company has
determined that the wall was not properly constructed
resulting in structural damage to two of the units at
The Landing's building?
A. No, I'm not aware that the damage in unit 4,
would it be, was causally related to the construction
or the installation itself.
MR. BRENNAN: Dan, can we just clarify
are you talking about the AGIS report?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And it's your question to
the witness that that report says the wall was
improperly constructed?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Have you made any determination, or have you
had anyone make a determination as to the amount of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
72
geofabric that was installed in the wall that was
constructed -- in or around the wall that was
constructed in 2008-2009?
A. No.
Q. In addition to the company that you
purchased the geofabric from, you also purchased
crushed stone; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that from?
A. That would be construction materials.
Q. Okay. Are any of those documents produced
here?
A. No.
Q. What was the cost -- approximate cost that
the marina paid for the work that was performed in
2008 and 2009?
A. I have been informed $170,000.
Q. Now if the marina had utilized poured
concrete for these walls, do you have an idea what the
cost would have been?
A. I do not know.
Q. Can you give me any estimate at all?
A. No.
Q. Well, certainly, if the poured concrete was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
73
going to be an insignificant difference, I take it you
would have used the poured concrete; correct?
MR. BRENNAN: I object to the form of
the question.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Let me rephrase it.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. I take it that before you did this block
concrete wall, you reviewed other possible types of
wall; correct? As an example, poured concrete?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And as you've already testified, you didn't
utilize the poured concrete because of the cost. It
would have cost more than the concrete blocks;
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Knowing that the concrete block construction
cost $170,000, do you have an estimate as to what the
poured concrete would have cost?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Are you able to tell me whether it was only
$1,000 more? $100,000 more?
MR. BRENNAN: I object to the question.
It's asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: I don't know what it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
74
would have cost.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Sir, if the poured concrete wall was about
the same cost as the concrete block wall, would that
have been the type of construction you would have
utilized?
A. I don't know. Cost is one factor.
Q. What is the other factor that weighed on
your decision?
A. Where you can locate them.
Q. Okay. And when you say "where you can
locate that," did you make a determination that would
have been difficult to construct a concrete wall where
the concrete block wall was installed?
A. Yeah, it would have been difficult.
Q. Why would it have been difficult?
A. Because you can do the concrete blocks --
you can do a section and close it up that day --
bingo.
Q. Right. Versus the poured concrete would
have --
A. You got an open pit for how many days. You
have got to do sheet piling; shore it up.
Q. And that would have cost money; correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
75
A. Substantial amount of money, yeah. So do I
know the exact number? No.
Q. And I take it that you doing the poured
concrete with the shoring up and things of that
nature, that would have made the project take a longer
period of time; correct?
A. Well, yeah.
Q. And was time a factor in this construction
project?
A. When were we working, October?
Q. Work done in 2008 and 2009; correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And weren't you trying to get this work done
so you could have winter storage?
A. In 2009?
Q. Let's talk about 2008.
A. 2008, we were over here, weren't we? The
timeliness for winter storage wasn't really a factor.
Q. For either 2008 or 2009; correct?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Is it fair to say that the only factor,
then, was the economics because you indicated --
A. And the ease of construction.
Q. When you say -- you indicated earlier that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
76
time was an issue -- was one of the factors. I am
trying to understand why time was a factor, if you
weren't trying to get this done for winter storage.
Can you explain that to me?
A. No. It is not like you are rushing to -- you
are doing it at a time when you are not disrupting the
operation of the marina.
Q. Okay. So time was a factor because it would
have, potentially -- if you used the poured concrete,
it would have, potentially, disrupted the operation of
the marina; correct?
A. Well you need a much bigger excavation, if
you do the poured concrete.
Q. How would that have impacted the marina?
A. Where the wall goes.
Q. I understand.
A. So making a choice to get the wall closer to
the property line, you use block.
Q. Which would give the marina more storage;
correct?
A. Give more space.
Q. So we have economics, more space for the
marina for storage -- those are two of the factors;
correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
77
A. Right.
Q. You also indicated the third factor was
time. And I'm still trying to understand the time
aspect. I appreciate the poured concrete would have
taken a longer period of time to do the construction.
But how is that going to impact negatively the
operation of the marina?
A. The time aspect is if you use the poured
concrete, you have an open-faced wall, or open-faced
ditch for extended periods of time. You've got to dig
it out, then you got to get the concrete truck.
You've got to frame it up with the Rebar, and then
you've got to get the concrete in there. So you got
-- days are going here, right.
With the concrete block, you dig the hole,
you put it in, put the filter fabric, backhoe it
immediately. And then you go and compress it. What
do you call it?
Q. I appreciate it is quicker, but how would
that have negatively disrupted the marina's operation?
A. I am saying during the months of October it
is a good time to do it -- early October -- and get it
done. And yes, would it interfere with winter
storage? Possibly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
78
Q. So that is the answer. The third factor you
considered was the fact that if you did the poured
concrete --
A. No, I did not really consider that.
Q. Okay. You're now indicating to me that --
A. No.
Q. I am trying to get a sense --
A. The sense is you can get the wall closer, if
you use the block.
Q. I got that. Less money?
A. Less money. And you can start and stop it
easier.
Q. Okay. The time -- strike that. The work
that was performed, was it performed in October of
2008 and then October of 2009?
A. I don't really remember when it was done, to
tell you the truth.
Q. And would there be documents that would --
A. If I had the ones that were discussed 10
times now. I am really sorry. I don't know how I can
express that to you. I thought you got them.
Q. The walls constructed in 2008 and 2009, you
did not obtain any Building Permits before the work
was performed; correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
79
A. No, that is correct.
Q. I think you testified that the reason you
didn't obtain Building Permits is because you didn't
think you needed them; is that correct? Actually, let
me strike that question.
Why did you not obtain Building Permits for
the work that was performed in 2008 and 2009?
A. Never thought about it.
Q. Have you ever done any other construction
project, other than the wall projects, that you
haven't obtained a Building Permit?
A. Like the docks?
Q. Anything.
A. The docks, piers.
Q. Now sir, you are certainly aware now that
you were required to have a Building Permit for work
that was done in 2008 and 2009; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And all the other construction work that was
done from say 1990, to the present involving the
excavation and construction of the walls, you were
aware that you were required to have Building Permits
for those construction projects, as well; correct?
A. I'm aware today, yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
80
Q. But you did not obtain any Building Permits
for that work; correct?
A. No.
Q. Now the Building Permit -- strike that. For
the work that was done in 2008 and 2009, you -- when I
say "you," Borden Light Marina filed an application
for a Building Permit after the work was performed;
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. How did that happen? How did that happen
that you applied --
A. The Landing brought it to our attention.
Q. As a result, Borden Light Marina filed an
application; correct?
A. Right.
Q. Who is the Building Inspector in the City of
Fall River?
A. Biscoe.
Q. First name?
A. Michael.
Q. Do you know Mr. Biscoe?
A. Joe.
MR. BRENNAN: There is a Michael
Biscoe, by the way.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
81
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Did you know Mr. Biscoe?
A. I know Mr. Biscoe.
Q. How long have you known Mr. Biscoe?
A. I don't know -- 20 years. He has been
around 20 years.
Q. Do you have a friendly relationship with Mr.
Biscoe?
A. Sometimes.
Q. And when the issue of the Building Permit
was raised by The Landing, did you have a conversation
with Mr. Biscoe as to what you could do?
A. I didn't have any conversations with Mr.
Biscoe. Michael did.
Q. So Michael -- you know Michael went to talk
to Mr. Biscoe as to what could be done; correct?
A. I know that Michael got the Building Permit.
Q. Were you involved in that process at all?
A. No.
Q. Ever hear of a Building Permit being issued
after the work was performed?
A. Expost facto.
Q. Exactly. That BU education is coming out.
A. Evidently, I missed the construction class.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
82
I don't know.
Q. From your experience, did you ever hear of a
Building Permit being issued after the work was
already performed?
A. Have I personally ever been involved in a
situation where it had been issued after the fact?
No.
Q. Has Borden Light Marina applied for Building
Permits for any of the other construction work that
was done relative to the walls expost facto?
A. To the walls, no.
Q. Now my understanding is Borden Light Marina
was issued a Waterways License. I think it was back
in 1988. Does that sound about right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now does the Waterways License in any way
grant Borden Light Marina the authority to construct
walls along the -- approximately along that boundary
line in the bank area?
A. Yeah. It appeared on the plan. It appeared
on the Notice of Intent.
Q. You are saying that concrete walls along the
boundary line were shown on the plan that was
submitted when you applied for your Waterways License?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
83
A. No. It was a schematic.
Q. You are saying the schematic showed walls?
A. Yeah.
Q. You are indicating you filed a Notice of
Intent, as well?
A. Right.
Q. And that wasn't for the Waterways License?
A. Yes, that is for the Waterways License.
Q. And the Notice of Intent included a request
to construct walls?
A. It included the wall on the plan.
Q. Which wall?
A. The wall along the boundary line.
Q. The whole boundary line?
A. Yes.
Q. The Waterways License, how many years was
that good for?
A. Forever.
Q. Forever. And what about the other approvals
that you obtained from DEP? Weren't those permits
allowed for only a three-year period, initially?
A. Five -- I don't know. You have the
documents.
Q. I guess what I'm trying to say is, is it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
84
your position that this excavation and construction of
the walls was done with approval of the DEP and/or
Conservation Commission?
A. Yeah. The Conservation Commission wanted us
to get this wall up.
Q. I appreciate that. But did you have
approval, which would mean written approval?
A. Was it ordered to put it up that approval?
Yeah.
Q. You do?
A. Yeah.
Q. What is the order from the Conservation
Commission?
A. 1994, it was put the wall up. They sent us
--
Q. Who sent you that?
A. The fellow on the Conservation Commission.
Q. And didn't you receive something back in
1994 from DEP advising you that the work was not done
with approval -- certain work was not done with
approval?
A. Can I see that?
Q. Sure.
A. Yeah. This is it. Work is subject to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
85
[inaudible] issued by the Fall River Conservation
Commission. Commissioning department believes a
retaining wall or some alternate...[inaudible]
Q. And aren't they saying that you performed
work -- that is you stabilized the bank --
A. That is what they said.
Q. -- without obtaining the necessary approval;
correct?
A. Right, that is what they said.
Q. You disagree with that?
A. Yes, strongly.
Q. What approval did you obtain from DEP to
perform the work that was done prior to 1994?
A. You asked me what about the stabilizing the
bank. Isn't that the question?
Q. Okay. What approval did you obtain?
A. No. I don't have an answer for that.
Q. Now specifically as part of our Request for
Production of Documents, and in particular which has
been marked as Exhibit No. 16, we asked for you to
produce any and all applications or requests -- strike
that. No. 3, rather. Any and all governmental
approvals received, including but not limited to any
Building Permits, Notices of Intent, etc., obtained
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
86
from or issued by any governmental agency relative to
any construction work performed by Borden Light Marina
Inc. within 100 feet of the Plaintiff's property from
the period of 1999 to the present. And did you, in
fact, produce all those documents?
MR. BRENNAN: Would it be fair to read
our response into the record?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Sure. I'd be happy to
do that, if I can find it. It's already marked as
Exhibit 17, but based on counsel's request Response
No. 13 says, "All of the information requested is
available as public records for inspection and copying
by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant objects to
this request. Without waiving this objection, the
Defendant submits herewith those records responsive to
this request which are in the possession, custody or
control of the Defendant. See attached documents."
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you.
MR. SEIGENBERG: It appears to me from
your response that you did, in fact, despite your
objections by your counsel, you did produce any of
these approvals that were obtained that were in your
possession, custody, or control.
MR. BRENNAN: We didn't go to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
87
Registry and make copies of public records, but we
gave you what we had in our possession.
MR. SEIGENBERG: And not to argue the
point, Ed, but I guess I am. Possession, custody, and
control would encompass documents that are readily
available to you, including from governmental
agencies.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. But when they are
equally available to both parties, then I don't think
one party has to go and make the copies at the public
records where they are both available to. That was
the basis of the -- and as we discussed the other day,
putting together the trial Exhibits, I do have copies
of all of them.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Okay. And I don't
disagree with the points you are making, but I
certainly read the response to indicate that despite
that objection, you did produce everything in your
possession, custody, and control, which include
documents to the governmental agencies. That is what
I was going to inquire about.
MR. BRENNAN: We produced what we had
in our possession. I understand your point "control"
meaning we could go to the Registry of Deeds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
88
MR. SEIGENBERG: That's what I was
trying to get from your client.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Sir, I am going to show you the documents
that were produced by your counsel and ask you are
those documents that I have just provided to you all
the governmental approvals that have been obtained by
Borden Light Marina from 1999 to the present? And if
you want to take a break and confer with your counsel,
that's fine.
MR. BRENNAN: We will go off the
record.
[Off-the-record discussion]
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Did you have an answer to the question? I
asked you if all the documents I showed you are all
the approvals obtained from governmental authorities?
A. As far as I know, yes, you have all the
approvals.
Q. In front of you?
A. I don't know.
Q. "I don't know" is okay.
Do you believe that the excavation work that
occurred of the bank and the erection of the walls
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
89
along this boundary line between the marina and the
land were done with DEP approval?
A. Yeah, as far as -- yeah, most of it.
Q. Most of it. If it is most of it, that would
mean some were not. So the question was all of the
work.
A. No.
Q. Okay. Which work was performed -- and you
agree with me, do you not, that in order to do the
work -- that is the excavation of the bank and
erection of these walls -- you needed DEP approval;
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Which portions of the wall -- which portions
of the bank were excavated and walls constructed
without DEP approval? Why don't we start from the
southerly end?
A. That is the issue now the 600 feet; that was
the DEP approval.
Q. The work that was done in 2008 and 2009, was
that done with DEP approval?
A. I think -- didn't that appear on our Notice
of Intent? It appeared on the roadway on the Notice
of Intent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
90
Q. My question --
A. So that would be a legal question, I guess.
Q. I am just asking your understanding.
A. My understanding is for that work we were
going to put an asphalt driveway and a roadway and we
were going to have retention areas and we were going
to put up a wall, and the wall appeared on that plan.
Q. Which wall appeared on that plan?
A. Right here.
Q. The wall along the boundary line?
A. Um-hum.
Q. My question is -- your answer is you believe
the work was performed in 2008 and 2009, including the
excavation of the bank and the construction of the
wall were done with DEP approval?
A. From that Notice of Intent, yeah. I think
that was reasonable.
Q. So Borden Light Marina filed a Notice of
Intent before any of the work was done in 2008 and
2009; is that correct?
A. Which one is it? Do you know which one it
is? The roadway.
MR. BRENNAN: Can we go off for a
minute?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
91
MR. SEIGENBERG: Whatever you want to
do.
[Off-the-record discussion]
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. The work that was done in 2008 and 2009, was
that done with DEP approval?
A. Well I mean as far as I know that the wall
in 2009, appeared on the plan. To that extent, we had
DEP approval.
Q. What about the work that was done in 2008?
Was that done with DEP approval?
A. No, that was prior to it.
Q. So the work performed in 2008, including the
excavation and erection of the wall was done without
DEP approval?
A. That would be correct.
Q. And you understand you needed DEP approval
for that work; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now let's go in a northerly direction. Is
there any other portions of that wall and excavation
of the bank that were performed without DEP approval?
A. I would have to see -- do you have the
license? Do you have the licenses there? The wall
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
92
appeared on all of the licenses. To that extent, we
thought we were okay, when the licenses were issued.
There is an 8976; there is an 8112; there is an 1848.
Q. You are aware that even if you have a
Waterways License, that you still need to have DEP
approval to do excavation of a bank and erection of a
wall within that bank area; correct?
A. I'm aware.
Q. So my question is were there any other
sections of the wall that were performed and any
excavation work that was performed within that
boundary line?
A. You mean after a permit expired?
Q. That would, potentially, be an example. But
let me try the question again. For example, you had a
Waterways License that was issued in 1988; correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And that Waterways License and the work
described there was good for three years; correct?
A. Five, wasn't it?
Q. Okay, five years. Whatever way you want to
do it. You believe it is five.
A. I don't believe anything. I would rather
see the documents.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
93
Q. My question is any other section of the
wall, other than the wall that was constructed in 2008
and 2009, any other sections of the wall and
excavation of the bank, was any of that work performed
without DEP approval? Yes or no?
A. I don't know the answer to your question.
Q. Who would know the answer to the question?
A. I guess the DEP.
Q. You were the President of Borden Light
Marina during this relevant period of time; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you, in fact, file any applications, or
requests for DEP to have any of these excavations and
construction of the wall performed that is prior to
2008?
A. I don't know.
Q. Can you answer the question yes or no? Then
we will explain your answer.
A. I don't know the answer.
Q. Okay. Anyone else from Borden Light Marina
have the answer to that question?
A. Probably, not. I'm just thinking --
Q. If, in fact, Borden Light Marina did not
apply for DEP approval prior to the work being
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
94
performed, and the work was required to be performed,
can you explain to me why Borden Light Marina didn't
apply?
A. No, I can't explain it.
Q. Mr. Lund, I'm going to show you another
photograph which is a portion of Exhibit 18, and I am
going to have you mark this as letter "H," please.
A. Sure.
Q. The photograph has the date of 1989?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you tell me if that photograph is a fair
and accurate representation of the bank in that area
on or about 1989?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Do you have any recollection what the bank
looked like in 1989? I am referring to the bank
between the property line and extending down to the
water area.
A. You don't have the original?
MR. BRENNAN: Just testify to what you
know, John.
THE WITNESS: What is your question?
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. What the bank looked like around 1989.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
95
A. The bank there looked like that, yeah.
Q. Okay. That's all my question was.
A. All right, yeah.
Q. This bank would have been certainly the bank
that was in front of Building 3 extending down to, at
least, to Building 4. Wouldn't you agree?
A. I think it is.
Q. This photograph marked as "H," that
certainly would depict the bank excavated in 2008 and
2009; correct?
A. No.
Q. In what way does it not?
A. That bank it was further -- it was excavated
more than that. I mean is that what it looked like in
2008 and 2009?
Q. First I was trying 1999.
MR. BRENNAN: 1989.
MR. SEIGENBERG: 1989, right.
THE WITNESS: Now you're asking 2008,
did it look like that?
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Okay, we'll try that. Did it look like that
in 2008, before the work was performed?
A. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
96
Q. What changes had been made to the bank from
1989 to 2008?
A. There was a pathway down here, and this was
overgrown.
Q. The pathway was --
A. Or roadway. This was cleared out up here.
Q. And the roadway was a roadway that was built
by Borden Light Marina; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Lund, I'm going to have you mark this as
"I," please.
A. [Witness complying]
Q. And photograph "I" has a date of "1998." Do
you think that it is a fair and accurate depiction of
the bank on or about 1998?
A. No.
Q. And why is that not a fair depiction of the
bank?
A. Because you can't see the -- there's
concrete block in here someplace, and there is a
roadway.
Q. So by 1998, there was -- is it 1998 on that
photograph? It says "1998."
A. I don't think it does.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
97
Q. So by 1998, a roadway had been constructed,
and there was some concrete there, as well, you're
saying?
A. Yes.
Q. What year do you believe that photograph
depicts the bank?
A. It doesn't show anything. It just shows
black.
Q. You can't distinguish the coastal bank in
that photograph?
A. I mean we must have a better picture of it
someplace.
Q. I am using the black-and-whites your counsel
provided me. Do you see the buildings in that
photograph, sir?
A. Yes, I see the buildings.
Q. That depicts The Landing?
A. Yeah, no question about it. And there was a
roadway that came down here.
Q. You mean towards the beach area?
A. Along the shore.
Q. Has some of the bank been excavated for that
roadway?
A. Yes, down at the end.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
98
Q. You are not able to tell me what year or
approximate years that photograph depicts?
A. It doesn't depict anything is what I'm
saying. We must have a picture in here someplace.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Off the record.
[Off-the-record discussion]
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. I show you another photograph labelled
"1998." Can you label this "J," please?
A. [Witness complying]
Q. There are buildings shown on photograph "J"?
A. That's correct.
Q. What buildings are those?
A. I believe that's 6.
Q. Building 6 of The Landing?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that a fair and accurate depiction of
the bank in the vicinity of Building 6 on or about
1998?
A. The concrete wall, yeah.
Q. Is the answer "yes"?
A. Yeah.
Q. Specifically, what construction work was
done in the area depicted on "J" after 1998?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
99
A. The debris was taken out from in front of
this wall.
Q. The debris, okay.
A. The debris. You can see the concrete pieces
in there.
Q. And what about the rocks that are depicted
on the photograph near the water end?
A. These?
Q. Yeah.
A. That's the revetment.
Q. Are they still there?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And was there also a roadway
constructed along this area depicted on photograph
"J"?
A. Yes.
Q. This is one of the areas that boats are
being stored during the winter; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Here is a photograph that is marked as
"2000." Can you mark that as "K"?
A. I think that's right.
Q. "K" -- mark it as "K."
A. [Witness complying].
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
100
Q. What does that photograph depict?
A. The same as "J" with the debris removed.
Q. Is that in front of Building 6? What
buildings are depicted in that photograph, if you can
tell?
A. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Q. 3 would be over towards the right-hand side
of photograph "K," and 6 would be to the far left;
correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And so between 1999 and 2000, some of the
so-called "debris" was cleared off; correct?
A. Some time between '97-'98, and 2000, yeah.
Q. And the bank that is depicted beyond the
debris going towards Building 3, is that a fair and
accurate depiction of that bank on or about 2000?
A. No, because you can't see the roadway.
Q. Okay. Specifically, what is missing from
the photograph?
A. The roadway.
Q. And where was the roadway?
A. The roadway was along the revetment.
Q. I'm talking about going towards the bank
towards Building 3. You are saying there was a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
101
roadway?
A. In here, yeah.
Q. You have to reference where you are looking
at.
A. There was a roadway going down there.
Q. On the other side of the debris; is that
correct?
A. On the other side of the debris and down
here.
Q. Do you see the bank there, sir, on the
photograph on the far, right-hand side?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is that a fair and --
A. On the top of the bank where the vegetation
what not, yes, I do see that. I agree with that.
Q. Thank you. I am going to show you an aerial
photograph that is indicated was taken in 2007. And I
think we are at "L." Can you mark that as "L" please,
that aerial photo?
A. [Witness complying]
Q. Is that a fair and accurate depiction of the
area The Landing and of the bank in 2007?
A. Yes.
Q. And --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
102
A. I believe it is.
Q. And looking at the middle bottom of the
photograph there is an area that depicts the bank;
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that is the bank that was excavated in
2008 and 2009; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. You are aware that there was a
Preliminary Injunction issued by the Land Court in
2000; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that Preliminary Injunction specifically
-- not specifically, in general states that no
construction work shall be performed by Borden Light
Marina within the easement area.
A. That is correct.
Q. Was there, in fact -- strike that.
You would agree with me that after the
Preliminary Injunction issued in May of 2000, Borden
Light Marina did, in fact, perform excavation work
within the easement area; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, all the excavation work
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
103
-- strike that.
The excavation work, for example, that was
performed in 2008 and 2009, that was within the
easement area; correct?
A. Some of it was, yeah.
Q. And you would agree with me that any of the
work that included excavation of some of the bank and
erection of any walls that occurred after 2000, were
within the easement area; correct?
A. Would you say that again?
Q. Sure. You would agree with me, would you
not, sir, any of the construction work that occurred
after May of 2000, involving the excavation of the
bank and erection of a wall occurred within the
easement area?
A. Much of it did, yeah.
Q. Okay. So my question is, then, given the
fact there was a Preliminary Injunction from the Land
Court preventing any construction within this easement
area, can you tell us why Borden Light Marina
performed that construction work?
A. The first construction work I believe was
putting in the sheet pile between 2002 and 2004. And
at that time, Jackie Dore, who was on the Board, did
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
104
say there wasn't any problem. We could go ahead and
do that sheet pile.
Q. Sir, didn't you try to enter into a
settlement agreement with The Landing in 2002,
relative to that section of wall that was the sheet
pile? "You" meaning Borden Light Marina.
A. 2002 or 2000?
MR. BRENNAN: Dan, you are not
referring to the 2006 agreement; correct?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Maybe I've got my
dates confused.
THE WITNESS: When was the date of the
Order or the Injunction?
MR. BRENNAN: May of 2000.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. So you are indicating --
A. Two years later.
Q. So two years later, you are indicating you
had a conversation with Jackie Dore?
A. With Jackie Dore.
Q. And what was that conversation?
A. Yeah and Joe Castonguay was on the Board.
Q. And can you describe -- tell me what was
said during this conversation?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
105
A. All I can tell you was -- I can't tell you
who said what, but it was like, "Go ahead. You can
continue with the sheet pile, anyway," which we did.
And I think we did it for four years, or three years a
little bit at a time.
Q. They said you could continue with the
sheet --
A. Pile.
Q. So I take it that Borden Light Marina after
2000, had started with the sheet pile wall?
A. After when?
Q. After the Injunction in May of 2000.
A. After that conversation, yes.
Q. Okay. Let me try it again. After the
Injunction of May 2000, and before this conversation
with Jackie Dore and Joe Castonguay, I take it Borden
Light Marina had begun construction of that sheet
metal wall?
A. No, after the conversation.
Q. The reason I asked you that question is
because you said they told you, or there was a
conversation that said you could continue with that
work.
A. Ah, poor choice of words. Good catch. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
106
Q. So there was a conversation with -- and both
these people were on the Board at The Landing?
A. Yeah.
Q. And where did this conversation occur?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Who was present during the conversation?
A. I don't recall that, either. I just
remember that we were given -- you know, it is like
you can continue this. And so we did like 100 feet,
50 feet, 25 feet, over a couple of years. You've got
that stuff.
Q. I've got what stuff?
A. You have the sheet pile stuff in the papers
you have there.
Q. What stuff should I have?
A. You know the one that has the check in the
front of it? I think you have the sheet pile in that
one.
Q. Oh, okay.
A. That's there.
Q. So you can't recall who said what during
this conversation?
A. No. It doesn't go back. It is eight years
ago. No, I don't remember any of the particulars,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
107
except that is why we went forward putting sheet pile
in.
Q. You are saying that is why you went forward
with the sheet piling?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Would you have not gone forward, if you
didn't have this conversation with people at Borden
Light Marina?
A. Probably, not, no.
MR. BRENNAN: People at The Landing.
MR. SEIGENBERG: People at The Landing.
Thank you.
THE WITNESS: That was the previous
dispute, I guess, in 1999 dispute. That had come to
an end.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. You knew the Land Court action was still
pending; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew there was still an Injunction
in effect; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. As an attorney, you didn't think the
Injunction was binding on Borden Light Marina?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
108
A. Saying it was okay. We were the litigants.
I never said I was a good lawyer.
Q. Certainly as a Clerk, you were aware that if
there was, essentially, a Court Order, and you were
going to do something in violation of a Court Order,
that you would request the Court to modify, or to end
such an Order; would you not agree?
A. You are asking what I should have done in
retrospect. You are absolutely right.
Q. Wasn't there in 2002, some written
communication between and the Board with proposals?
Do you recall anything like that?
A. You know more than I do. You got it? Do
you have a written something?
MR. BRENNAN: It was marked at
Michael's deposition.
MR. SEIGENBERG: But before I do that,
sir.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Do you recall any type of discussions,
either written or oral, with The Landing -- members of
the Board of The Landing around 2002, in which there
was an attempt to resolve the ongoing dispute that the
parties had?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
109
A. Refresh my memory.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Specifically, sir, do you recall writing a
letter -- this letter dated October 8th, 2002, which
is marked as Exhibit 7 at Michael Lund's deposition?
A. This is what I remember now.
Q. My question is do you recall writing that
letter, sir?
A. Do I recall? No.
Q. Having looked at the letter, do you
recognize that at all?
A. I have no specific memory of this letter,
but I did remember Dore, and I did remember the
conversation.
Q. Okay. And didn't you in -- would you agree
October 8th, 2002, constitute a proposal to Jackie
Dore relative to performing additional work and
dealing with the Court Injunction?
A. My memory was we got the green light, and
you can do that.
Q. The letter dated -- that letter -- first of
all, do you recognize that signature?
A. Oh, that's my signature.
Q. Would you agree with me that Exhibit 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
110
indicates that you were well aware that there was a
Preliminary Injunction?
A. Yeah.
Q. It also indicates you were looking to have
that Preliminary Injunction, I believe, modified,
which would indicate --
A. It indicates what it indicates. Whatever is
written there.
Q. It talks about -- you indicated in your
letter, referring to the Injunction, this in no way
prevents the parties from coming to an agreement
modifying the Injunction.
A. Right. The green light to me was the
modification. I mean do you technically have to go
back to Court to eliminate the thing? Yeah.
Q. You were certainly aware the Injunction
needed to be modified before you could perform
construction work? Do you agree back in 2002?
A. No. What I am agreeing is the proper way to
handle this is both parties go back to Court, which
wasn't done.
Q. Okay. I am going to show you what's marked
Exhibit 8 of Michael Lund's deposition, which appears
to be a letter from The Landing dated October 10th,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
111
2002, with a counterproposal to your earlier written
proposal. Do you see that, sir?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. You never signed that proposal marked
Exhibit 8; correct, sir?
A. No signature.
Q. Do you recall any other conversations
relative to an agreement with anyone at The Landing in
2002?
A. Just what I related to you.
Q. That conversation that you had with Jackie
Dore, can you tell me whether or not that was before,
or after October of 2002?
A. I don't remember when. I just remember it
was like, it's okay, you can go ahead and do that
wall. So we did it -- 2002, 2003, and 2004, we put in
a little every year.
Q. Other than that one conversation that you
provided us the substance of, can you recall any other
conversations that you had with any representatives of
the Board at The Landing up to and including 2004,
relative to any work to be performed by Borden Light
Marina?
A. No. I mean if you have something specific
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
112
you can ask me about?
Q. I am just asking your recollection.
A. As of right this minute, no.
Q. Do you recall -- were you involved in any
other conversations with Borden Light Marina where you
claim you were given permission, or authority to do
any excavation, or construction of the wall work?
A. Any other, except what I related to you?
Q. Correct.
A. No.
Q. Now let's talk, specifically, about the work
that was done in 2008 and 2009. Did you have any
conversations with anyone at The Landing before that
work was performed relative to the work?
A. No, I did not. Well, I did, I guess,
standing on the bank a couple of times.
Q. When the work was being done?
A. Yeah.
Q. Who did you stand on the bank with?
A. I didn't remember when Daquay says to me,
"Yeah, I met you before." I didn't remember, but he
was there.
Q. He was there. You don't recall the
conversation, do you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
113
A. No.
Q. Certainly, The Landing didn't give Borden
Light Marina permission to do the work that was
performed in 2008 and 2009; correct?
A. No specific, I guess, no.
Q. And when the work was done in 2008 and 2009,
were you aware there was still an Injunction from the
Land Court?
A. Yeah, in the back of my mind, I guess, I
remember.
Q. And can you tell me why Borden Light Marina
went forward with performing that construction work in
2008-2009, despite having no permission from The
Landing to perform the work, or obtaining any relief
from the Injunction issued by the Land Court?
A. I thought the first work we did -- I don't
know who in The Landing wanted us to put an extra
block on the wall as we were building it. So we put
the extra block up. As we were progressing along this
650 feet, The Landing Board members were out there all
the time. They asked us to put another block on that
wall. Nobody was complaining.
Q. Can you recall any other conversations you
may have had with any Board member of The Landing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
114
relative to any construction work performed by Borden
Light Marina?
A. No, not really. Just that day I was out
there.
Q. Sir, I'm going to show you a document we
marked as Exhibit 2 during Michael Lund's deposition,
a deed from Leo Kelly, Trustee to Brian Corey and John
C. Lund dated September 30th, 1986. And that is, in
fact, a deed of the marina property to you and Mr.
Corey; correct, sir?
A. Right.
Q. And in that deed there are some easements
referred to. One, being a visual easement and one,
being a graded-slope easement; correct, sir?
A. This was the visual easement.
Q. Well if you read further, I think it also
talks about the drainage-slope easement.
Can you describe the circumstances that
existed at the time that the easement -- strike that
-- when the deed was executed?
A. The circumstances? We had filed for the
license -- we had gotten a variance for the marina and
for The Landing.
Q. A variance for The Landing and the marina?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
115
A. Right.
Q. Were these joint filings, or cooperative
efforts?
A. Well, we filed it. Claude Market, I
believe, drew the plans. Claude Market -- it's only
25 years ago.
Q. I know. Both The Landing and the marina --
A. What happened, we got an option from EG&G to
buy the 13 acres.
Q. Okay.
A. And those photographs you had there. The
deal was we were given a year, basically. We paid for
an option for a year, and we were given a year to get
whatever permits we needed to build the marina and
housing.
Q. Um-hum.
A. So sequentially, at some point along the
line before the variance was issued, Keith -- we
entered into conversations with Keith.
The original concept as Corey and I had it,
we were going to build a high-rise on the north side
of the property. And we were going to build the
marina at the lower level and The Landing, or whatever
-- whoever we could find to build the housing, we were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
116
going to build it up top.
And the high-rise on the South Park got
moved to the north. And when we entered our
discussions with Keith, we were proposing, basically,
to put buildings along the property line. Keith was
concerned that we would build buildings in his -- you
know, in front of -- and there would be a diminution
in value as a result of building construction of the
houses -- I think we had a commercial building down
there. You got the plan?
There was a commercial building and another
building in front of Building 3. And then the rest of
it, basically, taken up with parking.
Q. There was a commercial building?
A. Yeah, but it was going to be underneath. It
was going to be elevation 19 down.
Keith was concerned that if we, or anybody
we sold the marina land to might build something in
front of him. So he is the one that drew up the
visual easement. We are the ones that said that there
might be HVAC coming out of these buildings. That is
where that came from.
Q. That is the deed.
A. Yeah. So it is directly to the west on Lot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
117
3 to the benefit of 1 and 2.
Q. That is the visual easement?
A. Right.
Q. And how far did you go with your plans to
build a commercial building or high-rise?
A. Well, that certainly got changed around by
the DEP.
Q. Did you actually apply for permission from
the DEP?
A. I don't believe it ever --
Q. You were talking about going to DEP relative
to --
A. Yeah, and some place along the lines they
didn't want to see any buildings down there. So that
was the end of those buildings.
Q. When was the end of those buildings, as you
put it? What year?
A. Some time 1987, '88. I don't know when.
Q. You, obviously, had purchased the marina
property in '86. I thought the option was for a year
in '85, until you got your permits.
A. Right. We had to get the variance prior to
this.
Q. Right, but didn't you also apply to DEP for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
118
permission to build the marina?
A. We gave them preliminary plans, and we filed
the preliminary plans for the Notice of Intent. The
DEP wasn't particularly thrilled with that. They were
kind of searching around what they should be doing
after the Boston Harbor cases.
Anyway, the plan that finally evolved was
the one approved by the DEP. I believe it was '88.
It could have been '89. I think it was December of
'88.
Q. Prior to obtaining the deed in 1986, hadn't
you already received determination, or at least a view
of the DEP that they didn't want you to build that
high-rise and the commercial building?
A. No. It wasn't the high-rise they didn't
want us building. They didn't want us building in
that area in front The Landing at some point.
Q. Was that before the deed in 1986?
A. No, because that is why there was the HVAC
thing in there and whatnot. Yeah, that's why.
Q. Once again, you are saying Keith drew up --
A. Like what are you concerned with, Mr. Keith?
Q. This is a deed that came from Green River
Realty Trust.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
119
A. Right.
Q. How did Keith draw up?
A. That was his language.
Q. That the Trustee of the Green River Realty
Trust inserted?
A. Yeah.
Q. Because Keith was going to be buying the
property from Green River Realty Trust, as well?
A. Yeah, right, right. All he was concerned
about was the building.
Q. Did you have conversations with Mr. Keith
about this?
A. Yeah.
Q. And, specifically, this plan was Keith's
plan, at least as explained to you, was to build the
condominium development on top of the bluff; correct?
A. Yeah, if you look at the plan filed with the
Notice of Intent, yeah. He knew exactly where he
wanted to build it.
Q. Keith related to you that he didn't want the
views from the condominiums obstructed?
A. By buildings.
Q. And do you know why the word "buildings"
weren't used and "structures" were used?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
120
A. No, I don't.
Q. And what is your understanding as to the
meaning of the word "structures" that is contained in
the visual easement?
A. My understanding was buildings. He didn't
want buildings interfering with the view of the marina
and the bay and whatnot.
Q. Do you know why there was an exception in
this visual easement that included picnic tables?
A. No.
Q. Wasn't there a plan to put some picnic
tables towards the top of the wall?
A. We had to have -- we knew we had to have
some sort of public observation areas.
Q. Is that the reason picnic tables --
A. That, I'm assuming so.
Q. Do you recall any conversation in that
regard about picnic tables?
A. No.
Q. I'm confused a little bit because picnic
tables have nothing to do with buildings, obviously.
A. No, they don't.
Q. Do you know there was an exclusion for
picnic tables, if you thought the word "structure" was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
121
going to mean "building"?
A. No.
Q. But you would agree with me that the
overriding intent was to not have the view The Landing
obstructed, correct, so they could see the bay?
MR. BRENNAN: Object to the form. You
may answer.
THE WITNESS: No. It was the marina
operation that he wanted unobstructed.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. What were the circumstances relative to that
graded-sloped easement? Why was that included?
A. He said he had a problem with floodplain
compliance.
Q. Keith did?
A. Yeah.
Q. Specifically, the language says for
construction and maintenance of a drainage system?
A. Which is in place.
Q. And what drainage system -- do you know
what drainage system was being referred to in the
easement?
A. He was putting pipe down the middle of that
easement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
122
Q. So Keith's plan was to put a drainage pipe
down the middle that 25-foot easement; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so he wanted that easement preserved so
he could have that drainage pipe; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it also goes on and talks about -- and
for construction and maintenance of a sloped, graded,
erosion and flood protection barrier. What were the
circumstances that caused that language to be
inserted?
A. The Conservation Commission didn't want him
draining towards the ocean or towards the water.
Q. How is that related to the language in the
easement?
A. He didn't want the water from our side going
to his side; that is the only sense it makes.
Q. But what do you base that on, just your
common sense, or based on conversations?
A. He told us he needed that easement, or
whatnot, to comply with the floodplain thing.
Q. Okay. So he needed a sloped barrier;
correct?
A. Sloped barrier.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
123
Q. And you would agree with me that based on
the construction that The Landing has performed, that
20-foot wide easement area has now been --
sloped-graded easement has now been eliminated?
A. The sloped-graded easement has been
eliminated.
Q. Well there is no slope; right?
A. It is sloped to the extent that it is not
going back to The Landing.
Q. Let me try it a different way. You would
agree with me, based on the excavation and
construction of the wall, there is no longer any
sloped-graded erosion and flood protection barrier?
A. No, I wouldn't agree with that.
Q. Okay. And what constitutes the
sloped-graded erosion and flood protection barrier?
A. It is sloped in various places.
Q. What portions are sloped?
A. Well --
Q. Let me withdraw the question. Hasn't,
essentially, what has been accomplished is there is
vertical retaining walls throughout the -- along the
boundary line?
A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
124
Q. So given that there is vertical walls, how
does a sloped-graded erosion or flood protection
barrier still exist?
A. Well I would suggest that the impermeable
wall is more protection than loose dirt. So erosion
control barrier -- there is more of an erosion control
now than there was with the dirt sitting there.
Q. That's based on your opinion?
A. Yeah.
Q. Anyone else's opinion?
A. Yeah, an engineer.
Q. Which engineer is that? Robert Guay again?
A. Yeah.
Q. And can you tell me what use, if any, The
Landing can make of that 20-foot easement area now,
the fact that now you have a vertical wall?
A. They have the right to go out and fix the
drainage system.
Q. Which drainage system?
A. The one that they have in place.
Q. That is in the easement?
A. Yeah, the pipe.
Q. My understanding is you pretty much
excavated the whole easement area almost to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
125
boundary line. So what portion of the pipe is now in
the easement area?
A. There is pipe in the easement area.
Q. Where? Near what building?
A. Underneath the catch basin that goes along
the entire water front.
Q. Near what buildings? All the buildings?
A. It starts in the middle of 3, and it goes to
the south side of 11.
Q. All those drainage -- how did you describe
it? What did you call them?
A. Drainage pipes.
Q. They are all located on The Landing
property; correct?
A. No.
Q. How close to the boundary line did you
excavate?
A. The closest was right up to it.
Q. Right. Where it was right up to it, how
could The Landing utilize its sloped-graded erosion
flood protection barrier?
A. Barrier -- I don't know the answer to that.
Q. Okay.
[Recess; 1:10 to 1:20 p.m.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
126
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. You indicated you don't know the answer to
that question. Do you know of any use The Landing
could make of its graded-slope easement?
A. It's slope-graded erosion control easement.
It was given the right to put in drainage. As far as
I know since 1994, when the Keith Development company
made all its corrections to the system, it has worked
properly. So the drainage is working properly.
The erosion control -- I would suggest to
you that the vertical-face walls you are looking at
are much better than a sloped area. So everything The
Landing is granted in that easement is functioning and
working.
Q. I appreciate that. But that 20-foot area,
how can The Landing utilize the 20-foot area?
A. It is utilized.
Q. And for what purpose? Can they walk on
that?
A. No.
Q. And the drainage goes where, through the
wall? Is that your understanding?
A. Yes, some of it. My understanding is --
Q. You agree --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
127
MR. BRENNAN: Can he finish? You did
ask him his understanding.
MR. SEIGENBERG: You're absolutely
right. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: My understanding is there
is supposed to be a berm, basically, on the property
line, which Keith Development Corporation put up.
They were instructed to do so, I guess, in '94.
They were also instructed to fix their catch
basin so that they actually caught water. They were
told to tie in the downspouts, which they tied into
the drainage system. And they grouted the drainage
system, which wasn't working properly. And since then
in '94, the drainage system has worked terrific. I
don't think The Landing has spent two cents on the
drainage system since 2004.
Q. Now the work you did -- the work the marina
did in 2008-2009, that was to expand the winter boat
storage; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And to also provide access from the
southerly end of the property down to the --
A. No. We already had the access.
Q. Had it been constructed, though?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
128
A. It was a lot smaller. It was like a
car-way, if you will.
Q. So the reason for the excavation and
construction of the concrete block wall was an
economic reason for The Landing; that is, to allow
additional boat storage; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much -- the area that has been
excavated in 2008-2009, how much did the marina
realize --
A. In the area?
Q. No, in boat storage fees?
MR. BRENNAN: I'm going to object to
that. It's confidential business information, and I
will instruct the client that he need not to answer
that. It is a confidential proprietary business.
MR. SEIGENBERG: I appreciate that.
For the record, to the extent the witness continues
not to answer this question, I will bring it up with
the Trial Judge. I certainly I believe it is germane
so the Judge can understand the economic motive for
the marina to do as they have done.
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. From 1998, to the present, have you ever had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
129
an impact -- strike that -- have you ever had an
expert go out to the property to evaluate the impact
on the coastal bank based on the excavation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have an expert evaluate whether
or not the work performed on the coastal bank required
MEPA approval?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe it required MEPA approval?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. It is totally urbanized -- a former railroad
yard.
Q. And who told you that by being totally
urbanized, it doesn't require MEPA approval?
A. No one.
Q. This work that was done in 2008 and 2009,
part of it included an excavation -- included the
excavation of a portion of the guest parking area
utilized by The Landing; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did the marina have any discussions with
The Landing prior to that excavation work?
A. No, not that I'm aware of. I didn't. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
130
shouldn't say nobody did. I didn't.
Q. Okay. And did you have -- before this
excavation work that was done in 2008-2009, did you
have a surveyor go out and determine where the lot
lines were?
A. I believe there were stakes out there.
Q. So you relied on the stakes that were put
there; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Why did you not have a discussion with
representatives of The Landing prior to excavating a
portion of their guest parking area?
A. I wasn't part of that.
Q. So that was Michael's decision?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Would you have handled it differently?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection. You can
answer that.
THE WITNESS: Looking backwards?
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Right, looking backwards.
A. I don't know what I would have done.
Q. Okay. Can you recall any other conversation
that you had with any member of the Board of The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
131
Landing relative to any of the excavation work, or
construction of the wall?
A. Just that day I was out there a couple --
Paul -- what is his name? I can't recall any specific
conversations, no.
Q. Okay. Could you recall any specific
conversation you had with any member of the Board of
The Landing relative to any of the activities that
were -- activities meaning storage of boats, operation
of the marina?
A. Conversation with the lighting, I believe.
Q. Nothing else that you can recall?
A. Maybe, you could help me with that. My
memory was that lighting...
Q. Other than a conversation about lighting,
you can't recall anything else that you had
discussions with any member of the Board of The
Landing; correct?
A. I'm trying to think. I only went to one of
the sessions with you.
Q. Your best recollection, sir.
A. As I sit here today, my best recollection is
I haven't, except I did go up to whatever his name's
house and saw the light.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
132
MR. SEIGENBERG: With that, I have no
further questions.
MR. BRENNAN: Just a couple.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRENNAN:
Q. Mr. Lund, are you aware that your son,
Michael, has retained a gentleman by the name of Peter
Rosen, who is a coastal geologist?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall that he retained Mr. Rosen
back in March, or April of this year?
A. Some time -- I wasn't there. Yes, he did
hire someone.
Q. You haven't met Mr. Rosen?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Do you understand that he has been listed on
the witness list at trial to testify as a coastal
geologist?
A. Yes.
Q. Now from 2002 -- strike that. You worked on
some portion of the retaining wall in 2002; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
133
Q. And 2003?
A. Yeah. Do you have the Order of Conditions,
or the Superseding Order someplace?
Q. That hasn't been marked as an Exhibit, or
used here today. But --
A. It was the subject matter of the appeal by
The Landing.
Q. There was a Superseding Order of Conditions.
I believe there were five Order of Conditions in all.
But my question to you is it would be fair
to say that Borden Light Marina worked on portions of
the retaining wall from 2002 through 2009?
A. 2002 through 2005, and then yeah, after,
right.
Q. Did the marina do some work during each one
of those years?
A. Yeah.
Q. And at any time in 2002, did anyone from The
Landing at South Park tell you to stop work, or that
your work was unauthorized, or that your work was
violating a Preliminary Injunction?
A. No.
Q. In 2002?
A. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
134
Q. How about in 2003?
A. No.
Q. 2004?
A. No.
Q. 2005?
A. I'm not sure that there was any work that
year.
Q. 2005?
A. Well, five, six -- I'm not sure about five,
six, seven.
Q. Not sure what?
A. Well my memory is two, three, four, and
seven, eight, and nine.
Q. Okay. During the years that you do recall
work being done on the wall, do you have any
recollection of anyone from The Landing at South Park
telling you the work must stop, or it was
unauthorized, or violation of an Injunction?
A. No.
Q. At any time during the years when work was
conducted subsequent to 2002, did you ever observe
members, or unit owners of The Landing standing out
and watching the work take place?
A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
135
Q. Did any of those people ever tell you to
stop work?
A. No.
Q. Would it be fair to say that you observed
people from The Landing observe the construction
activity during each year that the construction
activity took place?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. Now can you describe a little bit for the
record what type of construction equipment is used in
the course of constructing, let's say, the sheet metal
piling wall? How was that done?
A. You rent an air hammer and a compressor and
you bang them in. You get a crane. You lift up the
hammer and bang them into the ground.
Q. That is for the sheet piling?
A. That's for the sheet pile.
Q. How about the block building? I'm sorry,
the block walls. How do they get constructed?
A. The same with the sheet piling. You need a
backhoe to do some prep before you put the piles in,
and you need a backhoe to prep for the blocks to be
put in, and you need a crane to lift the blocks and
put them in place.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
136
Q. And is there any question in your mind that
the Board of Trustees at The Landing at South Park was
fully aware this work was taking place?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Objection; form.
BY MR. BRENNAN:
Q. You can answer.
A. No, there was no question. You can hear the
hammer.
Q. Now directing your attention back to prior
to the construction of the condominium at The Landing
at South Park. When the site work was being done at
the top of the bluff for the condos, was the elevation
changed at all?
A. Well they added something to keep it out of
the floodplain. I don't know what the elevation --
what was it 25 --
Q. Do you recall what the elevation at top of
bank was before the site work was done?
A. The elevation was around 19.
Q. And looking at the -- looking at the Exhibit
that was marked at Michael Lund's deposition No. 5,
can you see the various buildings are the grades set
forth on that Exhibit?
A. Yeah.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
137
Q. And, for example, Building No. 3 what is the
slab grade?
A. 25.44.
Q. And do you understand LAG to be Lawn Area
Grade. Do you know what that means?
A. I didn't know that until right now.
Q. Does each building have a slab and an LAG?
A. Um-hum, yeah.
Q. Are you aware -- or strike that. Any of the
material that was excavated from Lot No. 3, which is
the marina lot, do you know whether or not any of that
excavated material was deposited on top of the bank?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall, Mr. Lund, for each Chapter 91
Waterways License that you obtained, did you record
that license at the Fall River Registry of Deeds?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you do the same for each Order of
Conditions that you received from the Conservation
Commission?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall if the filings with the
Conservation Commissions utilized the same plans that
were filed with the Chapter 91 Waterways License
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
138
application?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Objection; form.
THE WITNESS: Objection; form.
BY MR. BRENNAN:
Q. And your answer?
A. The original plans filed with the
Conservation Commission were the original submittal
with the DEP. Sometimes the Waterways made some
changes, but there was never -- in all the years,
there was never anything significant.
Q. So I want to make sure I understand whether
or not the Waterways plans that were filed with your
license application under Chapter 91, were those the
same plans that were filed with the Conservation
Commission?
A. Yes, those were the same plans.
Q. Now you were questioned about the drain pipe
for the Landing at South Park being within a 20-foot
easement area. And your testimony was it goes down
the middle of the 20-foot area; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Do you know where it is?
A. Well, it moves. I eluded to that earlier
when I said that the pipe changed in order to avoid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
139
fill Commonwealth tide lane. So when you get to the
pool area, you will see that that pipe comes in
underneath the pool, comes out the other side, and
swings into the middle of Building 6.
Q. Are you aware of any plan that shows the
as-built of that drainage pipe that The Landing at
South Park is?
A. I don't know if they ever filed one.
Q. Do you know how large the pipe is?
A. I believe it is a foot in diameter.
Q. Twelve-inch pipe?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Is your understanding of the -- strike that.
May I see the document that has the easement set forth
in it?
Mr. Lund, are you aware of a document
captioned a "Nonexclusive Easement"?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your understanding of what that
document is?
A. Do you want to show it to me?
Q. I don't know if it's here. Do you recall
the document?
A. A Nonexclusive Easement was the erosion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
140
control and drainage easement; right?
Q. What is your understanding of what the
marina can use that 20-foot easement for?
A. Anything that doesn't interfere with what
was given to them. It can't interfere with the
drainage pipe.
Q. Is the marina at this time interfering with
the drainage pipe?
MR. SEIGENBERG: Objection; form.
THE WITNESS: No. It is functioning.
BY MR. BRENNAN:
Q. Are you aware of any erosion issues on the
Landing at South Park property?
A. No, no, there weren't erosion issues.
MR. BRENNAN: I have no further
questions.
MR. SEIGENBERG: I just have one or
two.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SEIGENBERG:
Q. Mr. Lund, the work that was done in 2008 and
2009, one of the members of the Board -- strike that.
If you had -- if your construction company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
141
had arrived onsite and was beginning the excavation
order, and if someone from The Landing -- one of the
Board members came up to you and said, "Hey, stop.
You can't do that work," would you continue performing
the work, or would you have stopped?
A. I would have stopped, but I don't recall
that happening.
Q. You would have what?
A. Stopped.
Q. At any time any member of the Board of
Governors -- Board of Directors of The Landing had
told you to stop this work, you would have stopped?
A. Um-hum.
Q. That's your answer?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay.
MR. SEIGENBERG: Nothing further.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay.
(The deposition was concluded at 1:42 p.m.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
142
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSCOUNTY OF BRISTOL
I, LINDA M. THOMAS, Certified Shorthand Reporter
and Notary Public duly and qualified in and for the
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS do hereby certify there
came before me the deponent herein, namely JOHN C.
LUND, who was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth
and nothing but the truth concerning the matters in
this cause.
I further certify that the foregoing transcript
is a true and correct transcript of my original
stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am neither attorney or
counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the
parties to the action in which this deposition is
taken; and furthermore, that I am not a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
parties hereto or financially interested in the
action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my Notarial Seal this 2nd day of November
2010.
LINDA M. THOMAS, RPR, RMRCSR No. 129293NOTARY PUBLICMy Commission expires July 21, 2017.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
143
PLEASE NOTE:
THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THISTRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THECERTIFYING REPORTER.
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E
I, JOHN C. LUND, do certify that Ihave read the foregoing deposition and that, to thebest of my knowledge, said deposition is true andaccurate.
JOHN C. LUND
DATE
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of
, 2010.
DATENOTARY PUBLIC
WITNESS SIGNATURE
My Commission expires:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LINDA M. THOMAS COURT REPORTING
144
ERRATA SHEET
In accordance with the rules of procedure
governing depositions, you are entitled to read and
correct your deposition.
Accordingly, please carefully read your
deposition and, on this errata sheet, make any changes
or corrections in form or substance to your deposition
that you feel should be made. PLEASE DO NOT MARK THE
TRANSCRIPT.
After completing this procedure, sign at the
conclusion of such changes/corrections (if any) and