ST. CROIX — A group of homeowners on St. Croix recently filed a civil lawsuit in Superior Court against the leadership of the Peppertree Hill Landowners’ Association, alleging improper governance, election irregularities, and unauthorized takeover of Association affairs.
The lawsuit, brought by 67 property owners subject to PHLA’s governing authority, seeks to invalidate the control of a group of individuals accused of unlawfully seizing power over the board and refusing to step down after a legitimate election held in March 2024.
Plaintiffs are also asking the court to confirm the results of that election and compel the current group to hand over Association assets, bank accounts, and documents, according to the 25-page lawsuit filed in Superior Court on July 21 by attorney Kevin D’ Amour.
The plaintiffs allege that they, as property owners, did not duly elect PHLA’s former board of directors.
Ana “Anita” Davila, one of the defendants, is accused of improperly appointing herself as the Association’s president. Plaintiffs allege five other defendants identified as former PHLA board members — Junia John-Straker, Carmen Corcino, Shelby Gaddy, Ronald Phillip, and Jessica Gallivan — facilitated Davila’s unauthorized control of the Association.
At the heart of the lawsuit are events that unfolded on May 5, 2022. That was when several board members, led by Davila, who served as vice president at the time, allegedly conspired to reduce the number of board seats to nine from 15. Plaintiffs claim the move was aimed at consolidating power and avoiding democratic accountability. One board member present at the meeting, plaintiff John Paul David, asserted in the lawsuit that no such vote occurred to reduce the number of board seats. Plaintiffs claim the minutes of multiple meetings from late 2021 through mid-2022 were fabricated to retroactively justify the board’s actions.
Further, the lawsuit alleges that duly elected officer Teresa Moses, a plaintiff, was improperly removed as a signer on the Association’s bank accounts without any formal vote, and that new signers were added outside the rules outlined in PHLA’s bylaws.
Plaintiffs allege widespread procedural violations tied to the annual general meeting on June 26, 2022, during which attendees attempted to elect new board officers. Plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to provide 30-day notice of proposed bylaw amendments and violated rules requiring that all members be notified of and allowed to attend meetings. Instead, ballot materials were sent only to members current on dues. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants included candidates on the ballot whose terms had not expired, omitted other eligible candidates entirely, restricted write-in options to four candidates despite 13 board seats being up for election, failed to provide blank ballots, and improperly disqualified voters over dues disputes.
The election was halted due to an inability to tabulate votes, as the meeting location lacked electricity and a portable light failed after sunset. The board allegedly agreed to reconvene the meeting and complete vote tabulation, but plaintiffs say no such meeting occurred. Despite this, Davila and her allies are accused of proceeding as though they had been elected, ousting dissenting board members and assuming full control of the Association’s operations.
Since the disputed 2022 meeting, plaintiffs claim the defendants have held no proper annual or quarterly meetings, as required by PHLA bylaws. Meanwhile, they allege the Association’s corporate status was revoked for nonpayment of franchise taxes in August 2022, blank checks were issued without the required dual authorization, contractors were paid without membership approval, and financial transparency vanished as roads deteriorated and infrastructure crumbled. PHLA mail, phone lines, and basic communication systems reportedly fell into disrepair. Defendants also allegedly froze bank accounts and withheld financial access from plaintiffs, while continuing to collect dues from all members.
Soon after, plaintiffs formally requested a transfer of authority and documentation from the outgoing board. But according to the lawsuit, Davila and her group refused, postponed scheduled meetings without explanation, and attempted to maintain control — even after PHLA's own administrator turned over documents and blank checks to the new board. In one case, Davila allegedly instructed the issuance of an $89,705 check to a vendor — despite lacking authority and board approval — using checks obtained through unofficial channels.
The lawsuit includes two counts: a request for declaratory judgment affirming the March 2024 election and bylaws interpretations, and a request for injunctive relief barring the defendants from further acting on behalf of PHLA.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the March 2024 election valid; enjoin Davila and her allies from acting as PHLA board members; order the immediate transfer of bank accounts, documents, and control; freeze PHLA financial accounts from unauthorized use; and award attorney’s fees and other costs.
