The document discusses several issues with the title and ownership of properties located at The Mews at Wyckford Commons in Sellersville, PA. Specifically, it notes that (1) the tract of land where The Mews is built was excluded from subdivision plans and never legally conveyed to the developer, (2) the properties at The Mews function illegally as condominiums as there is no valid designation of separate ownership and the land is still owned by another entity, and (3) the title search for a property only went back to 1911 despite earlier issues affecting the validity of ownership history and encumbrances on the land.

1. Real Estate Issues (Partial) – The Mews at Wyckford Commons (Revised x2)
• The first two title policy exclusions for a property on Mews Drive in Sellersville, PA reference restrictions in deeds
for tracts of land that are allegedly several parcels away from the Mews at Wyckford tract (Book 2241, Page 528 and
Book 1324, Page 547). A 2013 title search advised that these restrictions pertained to the Wyckford single homes in
the area of Chadwyck Circle, which is the equivalent of about three city blocks in distance...or approximately 850
feet. But no explanation was provided when asked why they are exclusions in a title policy for a unit in the Mews.
850 feet is, however, the distance of the still-unacknowledged discrepancy between the legal vs. actual positioning of
Wyckford Commons' 66 acres and its related chain-of-title and encumbrance issues. Confirmation was obtained
subsequent to this title search that the parcel described in B1324, P547 (the original Federal Land Bank of Baltimore
tract) is the tract upon which the Mews was constructed. This explains the inclusion of these deeds in said title search
and supports the 850-foot differential that exists; both are due to the unrecorded municipal realignments that occurred
in the early 1900s through the early 1930s. These realignments were done without recorded property transfers/deeds
and therefore create substantial title encumbrance and marketability issues. This is part of the reason why title
companies, county officials, borough employees, etc. will not acknowledge these historic events.
• The restriction noted in Deed Book 2241, Page 528 (also a part of the Federal Land Bank tract) is not included in the
easements/restrictions within the Mews' Declaration of Condominium. The exclusion was written into the title policy
for the aforesaid condominium unit (located in the 100 building of said development), protecting the title insurance
company against any claims made by the insured relating to the aforementioned deed restriction. The deed restriction
in question is a covenant written by AMETEK Inc. prohibiting residential construction on this tract of ground.
• The 100 building in the Mews at Wyckford Commons never received a FNMA certificate of completion after its
construction. An exclusion was written into the aforementioned title insurance policy to protect the title insurance
company against any claims made by the insured stemming from this certificate not being issued. Copies of
Sellersville Borough “Certificate of Occupancy Permits” were located in borough records for the Mews; no permits
were signed for units in the 100 building.
• On the deed of one of the last original purchasers of a Mews unit, the county manually changed the tax parcel number
from 39-008-366-XXX to 39-008-367-XXX. Tax records confirm that 39-008-366 is the original parcel number for
the Federal Land Bank of Baltimore tract noted above (B1324, P547). 39-008-367 was assigned to part of
AMETEK's Plant #2 portion of said tract, which was conveyed in gross and in duplication (+/-36 acres total) to
American Machine and Metals Inc. (AMETEK Inc.) in 1956 (B1324, P555). All 39-008-367-XXX tax parcel
numbers and assessment histories were requested from Bucks County in a 2013 RTKL request, but none were
provided. The tax parcel numbers that the county communicates to the general public for the Mews are tied to 39-
008-366. Note: The 1956 conveyance of this tract was the last until the BCIDA's purchase in 2014. Therefore, it
remained legally under the ownership of AMETEK Inc. from 1956 – 2014. Again, this tract includes the Mews'
eleven residential structures, owned by an unknown “Ridge Group Inc.” (not “Ridge Group Inc., a PA Corp.”)
entity. The relationship between AMETEK Inc. and said entity is undisclosed. Note also that the developer's
chain of title for Wyckford Commons DOES NOT include this portion of the 39-008-366 Federal Land Bank tract,
nor was said tract included in municipal or county approvals for residential development.
• From the 1996/1998 lawsuit filed against the builder/developer of Wyckford Commons (for which settlement
information remains undisclosed): Paragraph 1 of the complaint, which stated that the Wyckford Mews
Condominium Association owns and operates said condo complex, was denied. Paragraph 5, which stated that the
Ridge Group Inc. owns the complex, was affirmed.
• A 1990 lawsuit was filed by a Wyckford Commons resident relating to the overall layout of the Wyckford tract and
corresponding encroachment issues. It was filed against the builder/developer and against the owners of the adjoining
Warner farm on northeastern side of the Wyckford development in Perkasie. In this lawsuit, the builder
acknowledged that the development was constructed with knowledge of the uncertainty of title and related property
boundary issues. An interesting statement was also made by the plaintiffs' attorney: “Plaintiffs are without sufficient
knowledge with respect to the interrelation between Katz-Swerdloff Properties and the Plymouth Group, Inc.
(developer of the Perkasie side of Wyckford).” He also advised that “there is a substantial likelihood that (Plaintiffs)
will ultimately prevail on the merits of this complaint.” And they did. Both the builder and the owner of the adjacent
farm lost to the Wyckford homebuyer. Settlement information was undisclosed.

2. • The Declaration of Condominium for the Mews at Wyckford Commons states (page 2): “'Dwelling Unit' means a
structure designed, sold and occupied exclusively as a residence and located within a Building subject to this
Declaration. For the purposes of this document, each separate Dwelling Unit shall be subject to all of the rights,
privileges, and duties as if each were separately owned, irrespective of whether this is so in fact or not.” This has
been made separate from “Unit” in the Declaration. “Unit” (page 4) is defined as “a portion of the Property designated
for separate ownership...”. “Owner” (page 3) is defined as “the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities,
of fee simple title to any unit...”. “Unit Owner” (page 4) is defined as “the person or persons owning a Unit in fee
simple.” The 14 acres where the Mews was built is owned by The Ridge Group Inc. The Ridge Group Inc., a PA
Corporation (developer of the Sellersville side of Wyckford Commons and not the same entity), bypassed this tract
via legal deed description when it allegedly purchased the property from the previous developer, so no conveyances
made to any subsequent “purchasers” by the Ridge Group Inc., a PA Corporation are applicable to the piece of ground
the buildings were built on, nor to the buildings themselves. With this, “Unit Owners” (as is alluded to above in bold)
have no ownership interest in the “Dwelling Unit,” which is the actual physical home lived in, nor in the common
elements/limited common elements that are located on this specific parcel. Per recorded deeds, however, original
purchasers were allegedly conveyed a “Unit,” which by definition above consists of some “portion of the Property
designated for separate ownership...” The problem with the “Unit Owner” component is as follows: The 14 acres
owned by the Ridge Group Inc. are not designated for separate ownership as they are owned by said corporate entity,
its shareholders, and parent company (all of whom, as stated, remain undisclosed). The only other portion of the
property left is the open space area on the eastern side of the buildings' 14-acre tract across the alleged Perkasie
Borough line. This open space area is the only piece of ground that was conveyed to the Wyckford Mews
Condominium Association. Conveniently, a deed restriction that “runs with the land” (meaning it's permanent)
prohibits association-based ownership of this tract of ground. Said restriction, which was written in the form of a
legal covenant on the deed from the second developer of this subdivision in the 1980s, requires this area to be held in
“single, private ownership.” Therefore, not only was said conveyance invalid, but this tract is encumbered and was
never--nor can it ever be--legally designated for separate ownership by/for “Unit Owners.” The legal descriptions in
the deeds to this area are also purposefully incorrect. Finally, “Owner,” as defined above, pertains to fee simple title.
Fee simple title, however, is also encumbered due to the numerous issues with chain of title and the aforementioned
historic municipal realignment/relocations that began circa 1911 in the Sellersville area. With all these points, the
question arises as to how the word “owner” legally applies to those whose names appear on county-recorded “deeds”
for this property. The answer: In assessment only. The Mews at Wyckford Commons functions ILLEGALLY as
a “Condominium.” (See next bullet point).
• The aforementioned title search for a property on Mews Drive lists the premises as: “Assessed owner of Unit XXX,
Mews at Wyckford Commons,” not simply “Unit XXX, Mews at Wyckford Commons” (which is the legal
description). The addition of “Assessed owner of...” to the premises line effectively removes reference to any legally-
defined real property, which is accurate because THERE IS NONE. A fee simple title requires the inclusion of real
property. Deeds are not applicable to co-operative units for this exact reason. “Assessed owner” is the entity
responsible for paying taxes on a property. Assessed ownership does not legally equate to fee simple ownership.
• Said title search also specifically states that the search pertains only to land records and related events that transpired
after 1911. Abstract companies cannot pick a “start from” date pertaining to the validity of a property's ownership
history and related encumbrances, especially when said search is performed at the direction of an insurance company
for a claim made that is rooted in the issues being ignored.** But then again, rules, regulations, and legality don't
seem to apply to anything that relates to this situation.
** In 2011, a death in the family of the “assessed owner” to which said title insurance policy applies prompted a necessary
move out of state. It was at this time that the environmental issues affecting the property were discovered. The real estate and
title-related issues were not uncovered for another year. In November of 2012, unable to sell the property ethically with
knowledge of these issues, the policyholder submitted an “unmarketable title” claim with the title insurance company who
issued the policy along with vast supporting documentation. The environmental issues were not part of said claim. The
company refused to acknowledge receipt of the information or answer various legitimate questions about the validity of the
title's certification and denied the claim. In 2013, the title company filed a lawsuit against the policyholder for Declaratory
Judgment. The suit was filed in Bucks County, which is one of the entities responsible for the very issues being litigated.
After three years of purposefully drawn-out proceedings and the policyholder's subsequent depletion of funds for legal
defense representation, the lawsuit sits idle in the Bucks County court system and the property is facing imminent foreclosure.

3. Wyckford Commons was declared unfit for human habitation in 2014 due to the still undisclosed environmental
contamination impacting the area. Most residents remain unaware of these issues. Sadly, those who are aware continue to be
told by the “go-to” parties/agencies (all of whom have bloody hands here) that these things are not true, citing lack of
recorded documentation/proof, discrediting any black-and-white evidence that does exist, or using whatever other tactics they
see fit to support their efforts. What's worse is that their responses are apparently being accepted...with no questions asked.
And then there are those residents who have known all along, with lips as tight and hands as red as those already mentioned...
Recent discoveries regarding proof of various subsurface occurrences, structures, and the contents thereof that exist under the
residential subdivision in question (reference #6 on the sixth page of this document) may explain the reasons behind its
myriad property ownership-related issues, but they certainly do not justify/legalize them. The real estate matters discussed in
this document present some serious legal problems, with or without the environmental components involved. However, as
stated before, they are interrelated and compound one another. The bottom-line core concern here, though, is neither. It is
human health, which is an area that affords no room for the kind of bullshit that the entities involved have taken part in. The
criminal events that have occurred here, coupled with the level of deceit and the corresponding decades of calculated efforts
required to sustain this level of secrecy, are in fact “unbelievable”--- but that unfortunately doesn't make them impossible.
These things happened. And they continue to happen. And we continue to let them...
The following information was copied from another blog post regarding approvals for “Selsie Village” (Wyckford
Commons):
Construction of the “apartment” (the Mews) portion of the plans “unblessed.” July, 1978:

4. Plans approved without construction of the Mews. March, 1979:
Entire tract auctioned (with no plans for the Mews) after various environmental-related issues and occurrences at AMETEK
Plant #2. June, 1984:

5. Final approval issued for the development to be constructed on three Perkasie tracts (33-9-41, 33-9-42, and 33-9-43),
eliminating the 39-8-366 Sellersville tract completely. August, 1985:
*The initial 1975 application for development was obtained through a “Right to Know Law” request with the Bucks County
Planning Commission and is pictured below. The notation highlighted in orange was written by said commission when it was
discovered that, among other things, the developer did not have legal title to the Sellersville portion of the development where
the “Mews at Wyckford Commons” sits today (Tax Parcel Number 39008366). It reads, “This tract swapped to U.S. Gauge
for other parcels.” Note, however, that no “swaps” or sales for this parcel were recorded in county records as U.S. Gauge /
American Machine and Metals (AMETEK) already had legal title to this tract of ground.

6. No final plans were ever approved for “Wyckford Commons” to be built where it is located, and no plans were ever
submitted or approved for the construction of “The Mews at Wyckford Commons.” The Mews was completed circa 1991
on the tract that was excluded from subdivision plans in 1978-1979*, eliminated from final approval in 1985, and never
legally conveyed to the developer to begin with. This tract, as has been reiterated numerous times, was used historically as
a uranium mill and industrial dumpsite and houses substantial subsurface contaminants/contamination. It is also part of
the area that was deemed unsuitable for human habitation in the environmental covenant issued in 2014 due to the
severity of said contamination.
*This is reflected in plans for Selsie Village (that were never recorded w/ the county) when the development was under the
alleged ownership of the first developer. In the section of the plans that notes any changes that are made, an update was
listed in 1979 that stated “Delete LR09117.” LR09117 was the route number for Branch Road in Rockhill Township. This
effectively removed portions of the “in gross” conveyances that were made in the historic Federal Land Bank transactions
and Sellersville Estates tract parceling/duplications (for which the developer did not have legal title): Branch Road from the
alleged West Rockhill Township line to Hillcrest Drive, and Branch Road from Nob Hill Drive to Lombard Street. This (a
difference of approx. 850+ feet) placed the 66 acres in accordance with their legally-defined location (between Hillcrest
Drive and Nob Hill Drive) prior to the final unrecorded realignment that occurred after the laying out of the 1920s
Sellersville Estates plan, its revision, and its annex. See last page of this document for screen-shots of the above information.
Additional real estate-related information:
1. Blog entry “One:” https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/first-blog-post
2. Blog entry “Eight:” https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/removed-posts-and-final-commentary
3. Blog entry “Twelve:” https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-information-act-request-
sellersville-borough-1-8-16
4. Blog entry “Fourteen,” depicting an NAICS code assignment to AMETEK Inc. in Sellersville that designates one of
the functions of said location as being “the management of residential co-operative and condominium units:”
https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/naics-2012
5. Blog entry “Seventeen:” https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/93/
6. Blog entry “Twenty:” https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/sellersville-inactive-landfill
7. Blog entry “Twenty-four,” pages 18-24: https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/part-i-of-ii
8. Blog entry “Twenty-five,” pages 1-23: http://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/part-ii-of-ii
Comprehensive information – environmental and real estate:
• https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com
• https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/additional-information
Contact information: https://sellersvilletruth.wordpress.com/contact

7. Photographs of historic newspaper articles obtained with permission from the Mercer Museum Library, Doylestown, PA; Page 3: Doylestown Intelligencer, 7/29/78; Page 4:
Perkasie News Herald, 3/7/79. Screen-shots of map imagery copyrighted in full or in part by DigitalGlobe, U.S.G.S., USDA Farm Service Agency, Google 2016, ArcGIS,
and ESRI. “Fair use” is supported by Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.