Millionaire Slammed for Blocking Seniors From Enjoying the Beach on Martha's Vineyard

A care facility on Martha's Vineyard has criticized a wealthy property owner for supposedly preventing its elderly and disabled inhabitants from accessing the beach.

Melinda Loberg, who has been living for many years in the renowned Massachusetts island has initiated legal action against Havenside -a nonprofit organization associated with the Island's Episcopal churches and the Diocese of Boston - on May 12.

Havenside is a retirement community located directly behind Loberg’s $5 million waterside property; however, an intense legal battle ensued when older inhabitants reportedly crossed onto the homeowner’s territory to reach Vineyard Haven Harbor.

Nevertheless, the care home maintains that they have consistently possessed the right to utilize the 13-foot passageway on the northern part of her property for accessing the shoreline.

Currently, Lucinda Kirk, who manages properties for Havenside Corporation, stated to JWtimurnewsthat Loberg's lawsuit is merely an attempt "to seize control of the senior community on the island."

Most of Havenside's inhabitants are disabled and elderly individuals who should be able to 'reap the numerous health advantages of salty breezes and tranquility,' she stated.

In her lawsuit, Loberg stated that upon purchasing the house in 1992, she wasn’t informed about an alleged easement giving senior residents certain rights of way—this omission sparked the recent neighborhood conflict.

Pushing back, Kirk stated to JWtimurnews: "The legal action initiated by our neighbors ought to be recognized as nothing more than an attempt to seize property from Island Seniors."

The Lobergs aim to include our easement within their beachfront property seemingly without considering the impact on Havenside’s 36 residents.

Our neighbors are trying to overwhelm us with higher legal expenses to claim our property using false legal arguments.

A number of Havenside's inhabitants not only reside in the low-cost housing units but also face mobility challenges and/or ongoing health issues, as mentioned by the spokesperson.

Kirk added: "Havenside possesses an adjacent easement that grants Senior residents beach access. This ensures the safest and most convenient method for our Residents to reap the numerous health advantages offered by sea breezes and peaceful surroundings."

'Havenside’s concern is not financial; rather, it revolves around maintaining secure and fair access to the shoreline for our elderly residents.'

The legal document went on to indicate Loberg stressed that she had been utilizing the land for three decades, rendering null any previous assertions made by the corporation regarding ownership. Additionally, she pointed out that all access rights had been revoked prior to Havenside assuming control of the property.

Havenside stated that the information is incorrect and asserted that they have held an easement in the area since 1890. Vineyard Gazette reported.

The particular region claimed by the senior center was one where the Loberg family removed the pre-existing plants, as per the documents. They also got rid of items such as tires, bottles, car mats, and big pieces of asphalt before planting Parcel 2A with grass.

After the cleanup, the pair opted to put up a 170-foot fence across the disputed zone—blocking entry for over twenty years, as the lawsuit alleged.

Havenside mentioned their intention to obtain access to the beach by mowing the lawn between the fence and flowerbeds to build an entrance gateway, as stated further in the document.

Following their notification to Loberg about the intended actions, the company dispatched a tenant named Frank Rapoza to the location with 'tools.' The purpose was for him to 'erect' the fence, as stated in the legal complaint.

Loberg immediately became tense upon seeing him standing in her driveway, prepared to start his work. She warned that she would call the police if he tried to proceed with installing the gate.

With that, Rapoza left the premises, but shortly thereafter, Loberg got a phone call from him threatening to come back and put up the gate," the lawsuit stated.

"In reaction to the telephone conversation, the Plaintiff put up a 'No Trespassing' sign along the property boundary close to the Havenside Property," the document stated.

A representative from Havenside subsequently contacted Loberg and asserted that Rapoza was not affiliated with Havenside or its board, emphasizing that any claims suggesting otherwise had never received authorization.

On July 14, 2024, Loberg, who previously served as a Tisbury select board member, met with Havenside to address the matter. However, according to her lawsuit, ‘the representatives were unwilling to consider alternate proposals and steadfastly maintained the presence of the claimed access easement.’

A few weeks later, the company proposed to revoke the easement in return for a monetary compensation, however, Loberg rejected this coercive proposal outright.

In October of the same year, Havenside submitted a Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent (NOI) to the local Conservation Commission as stated in the lawsuit. The document was seeking permission to carry out enhancements on the plaintiff's property within what they claimed to be an access easement.

In that document, Havenside incorrectly stated they were the property owner, neglecting to properly complete Section 3 where they needed to identify the actual property owner if different from the applicant, as mentioned in the statement.

In February, the Lobergs stated that they found individuals from Havenside, which included Mr. Rapoza, unlawfully entering their property and damaging their fence with the intention of installing a gate.

Loberg subsequently contacted the police, who requested the group to leave; however, they chose not to forcefully evict them, stating that it was a 'civil dispute.'

The legal action also featured an image of Rapoza, said to be the 'manager of Havenside,' along with an unidentified individual reportedly 'damaging part of the plaintiff’s fence and setting up a gate.'

A formal statement was submitted to the authorities as part of the case documentation.

The lawsuit stated, 'Mr. Rapoza then came back and completed the installation of the gate.' It also noted that Havenside has installed signs at the entrance of Loberg’s property indicating that residents can use this area as their entryway to the beach.

The document stated that Loberg feels "harassed and intimidated by the behavior of Havenside's tenants" and consequently "does not feel secure on her property due to their actions."

She has insisted that neither 'Havenside, its guests, tenants, nor invitees' should be permitted to enter her property and that they cannot gain any easement rights over the Plaintiff's Property for accessing Vineyard Haven Harbor.

A preliminary hearing took place on May 20, with the subsequent one scheduled for June 16, as stated in the documents.

Kirk mentioned that Havenside is in the process of securing a pro bono attorney to represent the residents in their efforts to obtain access to the waterfront.

JWtimernews reached out to Loberg's lawyer for their input.

Read more