Here is an exact copy of the covenant that governed the property that was at the heart of this dispute from the time of the purchase (that was saved from that time) until the two owners were dispossessed of it, & which all obligations Johanna & Heather met, as even Ms. Capalini didn’t dispute :

COVENANT

This land is strictly residential. No commercial allowed. Skyboxes are to be rezzed at least 400 meters up.

You do not need a premium account to purchase land at Belle Terre. You may resell your land. Your land could possibly be reclaimed if tier is past due. Subdividing is allowed within reason.Only one home per parcel attached to the Estate.

Ban lines are not allowed. You may use a security orb to protect your home and surrouding land, but please do not protect the water.

No buildings over two stories allowed. You must maintain as many meters from the parcel boundary as your build as tall. For example if your build is 10 meters tall . You must leave 10 meters from the parcel edge on all sides.

Castles are allowed only in the northern mountain regions, and only on parcels 32768 and larger. And they need to be nice castles. With management having final approval.

Any region added south of terre de reves and east or west of High Island will be strictly island, beach, tropical, or tiki themed. So the builds must match this theme.

Please help keep Belle Terrre a beautiful Estate.

Please IM stormi Capalini, Kadee Tiratzo or TiMeTrAVelleR Wise with any questions, comments or concerns.

I’m flabbergasted by this whole imbroglio, as outlined in the above Alphaville Herald Op/Ed piece, “The Dangers Of Dealing With Private Estate Landowners” placed by Johanna Renfold on May 19th, 2009! Johanna Renfold and Heather Frimon contracted with Belle Terre Estates (or “BTE” from now on) of Second Life (or “SL” from now on) to “purchase” a plot of land which BTE’s governing covenant for the land clearly stated could be resold without mention of any exceptions or stipulations. Then, when Ms. Renfold attempted to sell their land in a perhaps inadvisable fashion (but it should be noted a method that was NOT disallowed by the covenant!), the owner of Belle Terre Estates, one Stormi Capalini, peremptorily decided to eject and ban first Ms. Renfold and subsequently Ms. Frimon from their own land, then seize and resell their land to someone else without providing either a sensible justification for her actions or compensation for the thousands of Linden dollars the two women had expended?? Surely I am not alone in finding this a highly disproportionate and unfair reaction to the matter at hand by Ms. Capalini?! Would not a warning have been a more appropriate response? In any event, Belle Terre Estates had conferred rights upon Johanna Renfold and Heather Frimon when they purchased their lot, as specified in the covenant – a form of a contract – and these rights ought not to have been disregarded willy-nilly, as they apparently had been!

Stormi Capalini appears to be using a claim of “rudeness” on the part of Johanna Renfold as an excuse for her actions, but even if true (and I don’t see any compelling evidence to justify such a claim), since when is “rudeness” grounds to nullify and ignore the terms of an agreed-upon contract, and to violate the rights of another by seizing their assigned property? In the real world (or “RL” from now on), such an excuse would be regarded as laughable to the point of farce were one to exercise it – why should business dealings in a virtual world be any different? If Ms. Capalini couldn’t bring herself to tolerate the presence of Johanna Renfold and Heather Frimon within her estate any longer, she should at least have had the decency to have offered them compensation in full for the price of their land as well as a reimbursement of the unused remainder of their paid-up tier! Further, one suspects that this harsh response on the part of Stormi Capalini may to some degree be due to intolerance for Ms. Renfold and Ms. Frimon as an avowed lesbian couple. (If not, what exactly then did Ms. Capalini mean by her comment that “I don’t understand you two”? What’s so hard to understand? They thought they had purchased land that they had the right to access and enjoy!)

Some have claimed that the actions undertaken by Stormi Capalini and Belle Terre Estates in this matter were not typical of their behaviour in the past – was it possible that Stormi Capalini was having a bad day when all this went down? (Or perhaps, seeing as how she selected “Stormi” as the first name for her avatar, tempestuousness is a personal attribute of hers?) But her advice to Johanna Renfold is telling: “Good luck at your next place…” Good luck in what, finding an honest land-broker the next time to sell her land, one that won’t seize it suddenly & without compensation??! It’s not a good situation when it’s only luck that’s safe-guarding someone from being defrauded! (While I gather that the apparently non-transferable balance of the tier on the plot of land is part of this dispute, in that case at least there wasn’t a claim made that the tier would be transferable to a new owner or owners, but even there it would have been good practice to have advised purchasers in advance of that restriction.)

This case provides shocking evidence of the need for a better system or systems in Second Life to if not ensure fairness in business dealings in SL, then at least provide some means of redress when things go sour. In real life, there are enforceable laws and regulations in most jurisdictions that specify minimum standards for business transactions; alas, in SL, these seem to be almost non-existent. Certainly, one can hope that the people one does business with in SL operate on a basis of honesty, fairness, openess and transparency, and employ a basic truth in advertising approach, but what happens when they do not? And what happens if contracts are involved – and the so-called “covenants” governing lots on estate-owned land are essentially such – and the parties to the contracts fail to honour the terms they’ve agreed to?

The principle of “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware” is a good one to follow, both in real life and in Second Life, and often can give an inkling of which merchants and property management organizations to steer clear of, but it’s not foolproof, and there needs to be a back-up system. (And in this case, if it’s true that this dispute is an isolated incident on the part of Belle Terre Estates, any “due diligence” conducted by Johanna Renfold and Heather Frimon in investigating BTE prior to their land purchase would not have been helpful to them in sending up a red flag!) In Second Life, this is especially true for deals involving land, which tend to involve larger sums of money than is typically the case for purchased goods and services. (An example of how the adoption of a caveat emptor approach falls short in RL in protecting consumers’ interests might be in food safety. If a food manufacturer has had repeated, publicized instances of food safety recalls for its products, then consumers who are aware of such problems might be advised when grocery shopping to select a brand from a different company instead, but if the latter company’s product is nonetheless found to be tainted, the consumer will expect that company to be prosecuted and punished if it’s found to have violated pre-existing standards. Even in a less serious situation, such as a case of false labelling or advertising wherein a product’s packaging purports it to contain one ingredient, but instead it contains another, a consumer can expect to have either a refund or an appropriate substitution made, often with consumer protection branches of government available to step in if needed. There is a presumptive and enforced expectation that consumers will get what they’ve been told they are to get.)

For virtual worlds such as Second Life to gain increasingly in perceived legitimacy, it’s incumbent upon their administrators to take appropriate measures to bring about fair dealing. If such three-dimensional worlds are to ultimately become the successors to two-dimensional E-commerce web sites, as I believe they will become in time, they’ll have to adopt and enforce standards of fair play. This should surely be as important to Second Life’s administrators, Linden Labs, in their quest to persuade real life companies that SL is a valid and viable place to do business, as is sequestering adult-oriented sites within the SL world! While Linden Labs may have an understandable reluctance to become more directly involved in mediating third-party disputes, I believe they should at least state unequivocally their expectation that all participants in SL adhere to a minimal set of guidelines, and spell out what those ought to be. Providing carte blanche to estate land-holders to do as they please, regardless of any commitments or promises they’ve made to renters or “purchasers” is not an ethical stance to take. Linden Labs may regard such estate land-holders as providing them with a significant revenue stream, but in truth, the renters are also paying Linden Labs, albeit indirectly. All are worthy of fair treatment. And perhaps Linden Labs should contemplate disallowing the purported “sale” of estate lands, as such sales are arguably bogus, since Linden Labs regards the estates as retaining all property rights. In a genuine sale, property rights are transferred with a title, not retained by the selling party!

I propose the following as possible methods of alleviating some of the problems I’ve outlined above: the widespread adoption of a “better business bureau” type of organization and official and/or unofficial mediators to resolve disputes, a consumers’ rights body, a central location to log complaints that people can refer to – especially registries of both good and bad landlords and tenants (since tenants ought to honour their commitments to landords also!), and even an in-world law court to hear “civil cases” so people won’t feel the need to resort to real life courts as they’re entitled to if all else fails. (And the bad publicity that can ensue if matters have to be brought before a RL court of law to obtain a just outcome is surely something that Linden Labs and all who care about the Second Life world should seek to avoid.) To advance these developments, I suggest, as and if it proves necessary, that appropriate groups be formed and a petition launched to lobby for such changes, a JIRA initiated, and if all else fails, a boycott be launched. (Imagine the loss of revenue if many renters of estate lands were to simultaneously give up their rented properties until their rights were more adequately protected!) Regardless of how it’s brought about, a “level playing field” that reassures consumers and commercial entities alike that their legitimate concerns will be addressed will be a good thing for all but the deliberately nefarious minority. Let’s ensure that “virtual justice” is a central part of our virtual lives!

Dana, put the personal crap and bias aside and address the issues?

Remember, you are supposed to be a newspaper editor, not a taxi driver.

Welcome to Second Life: Get with the program.

We were happy at BTE. We were so happy that when an entire sim next to our island became available, we were interested in buying it. We im’ed Stormi to ask a few simple questions about what was included and the access rights. But, she was so rude and condescending, that we decided to pass on it and purchase a sim on another estate. We found a sim to purchase and moved our home, and put our island at Belle Terre up for sale. Almost two weeks later, Stormi informs us that tier is non-transferable. About one minute after questioning this policy, I was banned and my land sized by Stormi.

And yes, Stormi did offer me my purchase price back on the land she seized from me. She did this AFTER the Alphaville Herald ran this story. We had a long chat and she asked me right up front if this was about the money. I told her that it wasn’t about the money. I told her it was about informing the public of the unfair practices of dishonest estate owners. She stated that she knew it was never about the money, yet she asked me to clarify this TWICE during our conversation. Later, she goes ahead and offers me my money back, knowing full well that I won’t take it. This was an obvious attempt to buy my silence and to drop the issue, and she made sure she was not going lose a cent before making this ‘token offer’. Its’ obvious that this is ALL about the money to Stormi Capalini. She just wanted to get her ‘offer’ in the record.

We did not have a problem with paying monthly tier. What all this is about is the practice of non-transferable tier, and not informing the buyer up front of this policy. This is bad enough on its own, but when you combine this policy with a mandatory monthly tier, it really makes this into a profit machine for Belle Terre. Our monthly tier was 17,000. Assuming a weekly tier would be 4,250L$, the most one would forfeit to Belle Terre after being surprised by this non-transferable tier policy, would be one weeks tier. Mandatory monthly tier in this case, is just a gimmick to maximize the profit Belle Terre makes when land changes hands. Most people will think monthly tier is unusual, but will not see anything seriously wrong with it. The dirty little secret at Belle Terre Estates is the non-transferable tier and how these two tie together to get your money.

I’ve never read the SL-Newspaper Dana, but if the EDITOR sees nothing wrong with conducting such slanted investigations, I’ll pass. I have to assume the employees writing for it are taught that getting only one side of a story is enough ‘research’ to go to press. If the EDITOR is so quick to jump on the side of the big estate owners, I have to assume its’ not going to be good reading for the common person like me.

The Grown Ups.

When you buy land on a private estate you accept the covenant which sets out the conditions of purchase and which usually states, inter alia, “Purchased land in this region may be resold”. Providing you abide by the rules and pay the tier (something like a property tax) to the estate owner, the land then belongs to the purchaser in perpetuity and may be advertised and resold at any time at whatever price the seller decides. Hence, you are buying an asset that may go up or down in value according to market forces.

Ari Blackthorne.

Whether the tier payment is weekly, monthly, non-transferable etc. is a commercial matter for the estate owner to decide. Most estates transfer any paid-up tier money to the new owner when property is sold. However, Belle Terre Estates does not follow this policy. The point at issue is that the covenant should state clearly if tier money is forfeit upon resale. In our case, we were not made aware of this until we had put our land up for sale. So by making the tier payment monthly instead of weekly and by concealing the fact that it is non-transferable just about every resident is going to forfeit what could be a reasonable sum of money. In an extreme case, if you paid your tier (which in our case was L$17,000) and sold your land the next day, you lose the full L$17,000 to Belle Terre. All we are saying is that this should be made clear on Day One.

Dana Vanmoer.

It’s a pity Dana did not genuinely take the trouble to check the facts.

1. Dana has never once bothered to contact me to seek any clarification concerning the baseless allegations made by Stormi Capalini.

2. Stormi Capalini has alleged, inter alia, that “Johanna caused havoc to the estate” and “was a problem on the estate”. This is totally false and a poor excuse to cover her apparent lack of business ethic. I have never received any message or complaint of any kind from Stormi Capalini or anyone representing Belle Terre Estates to this effect. I challenge Stormi Capalini and you, Dana or anyone else to post any evidence here to the contrary.

3. We decided to sell our island because we had ALREADY purchased a SIM at another estate that better suited our requirements and not because of any trouble or problems at Belle Terre.

4. Stormi Capalini offered to refund the sale price of our island AFTER this article was published in Alphaville Herald.

5. There is no reason for existing residents of Belle Terre to be unhappy or to complain as far as I know. We also had no complaints until our island was stolen, converted and resold by force.