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