Tussle in Ipswich over 1660 bequest

The certified letter that arrived on Susan MacDonald’s stoop July 3 was ominous: Sign this lease for your land, it said, or ‘‘quit and deliver up...the premises now held by you as a tenant, and remove your private property.’’

The memo had been sent by her landlords, a group of four men who reign over Little Neck, an insular community of 167 residences overlooking the meandering Ipswich River.

The trouble is, the ‘‘private property’’ the letter referred to is MacDonald’s seasonal cottage, which she and her family retreat to each summer.

‘‘I was shocked,’’ said MacDonald, an ophthalmologist who lives in Concord with her husband and two children during the school year. ‘‘The proposed lease is untenable. It would take away our rights as homeowners and nearly double our rents.’’

The private scuffle between landlord and tenant has erupted into a public furor, pitting homeowners who believe their investment is in peril against parents concerned about ill-equipped classrooms.

Since 1660, when local resident William Paine bequeathed ‘‘the little neck of land at Ipswich’’ to the education of the town’s children, the landlords — known then and now by the medieval English term ‘‘feoffees’’ — have been managing the 27-acre property. They are supposed to collect enough rent each year to cover the property taxes and make a substantial contribution to the schools.

In the early years of the trust, the land was rented out for pasture. But by 1906 the feoffees had divided the property into lots for a cottage colony. Today, 143 seasonal cottages and 24 year-round homes dot the landscape, boasting sweeping views of Crane Beach and Plum Island.

Paine’s will dictates that any income from the Little Neck land ‘‘is to be and remaine to the benefit’’ of Ipswich schools. Despite this mandate, district records show that the schools have not received any money from the feoffees in 12 of the past 30 years.

Until 2002, when a town committee released a report critical of the feoffees’ management of Little Neck, the annual contributions — when they were made — ranged from $2,500 to $100,000. In 2002, the payment jumped to $282,970 and has increased steadily since then. This year, the feoffees contributed $588,000.

‘‘Still, there is a question as to whether the distribution is what it should be,’’ said Edmund Traverso, a member of the School Committee.

‘‘The town assessor says that the Little Neck property is worth more than $31 million. . . . If that valuation is accurate, then the feoffees are giving us a return of less than 2 percent on our assets.’’

According to Traverso, Ipswich residents have not spoken out because they were afraid of offending their Little Neck friends and neighbors. And town leaders didn’t complain as long as the property taxes were paid.

But today a growing number of couples with young children are settling in Ipswich — and they want more money for the schools to replace aging textbooks, offset athletic fees, and upgrade classroom computers. So the feoffees are raising the rents, from $5,000 to $9,700 for the seasonal cottages and from $5,500 to $10,800 for year-round residents.

Under the proposed lease agreement, a portion of that rental income — roughly $4,300 per cottage — would be set aside to cover the cost of a state-mandated wastewater disposal system that was installed last year. The Little Neck tenants say they are being treated unfairly, noting that the new lease would be good for only three years, offering them little security against future increases.

They have received no response from the feoffees, according to Tom Allen, president of the homeowners’ group. The organization is considering legal action, he said.

‘‘We have been left with little choice,’’ said Allen. ‘‘They have refused every attempt we have made to communicate with them.’’

The feoffees — who are appointed for life and name their own successors — regularly meet behind closed doors in their lawyer’s office in downtown Ipswich.

They have rebuffed attempts to make their business decisions more transparent. In recent months they have rejected several requests from the Board of Selectmen for a meeting — even a private one — and have refused to return to the negotiating table with their tenants. The two parties had been trying to hammer out a lease agreement with the help of a mediator, but the feoffees abruptly broke off all communication with their tenants in May, Allen said.

Neither the feoffees — Donald Whiston, Alexander Mulholland, Peter Foote, and Selectman James Foley — nor their lawyers responded to requests for comments.

Inundated with pleas for assistance from Little Neck homeowners, selectmen in September voted to reinsert themselves as feoffees, a role they have not played since 1912 even though an act passed by the Legislature in 1756 states that three ‘‘eldest’’ selectmen would serve as joint feoffees.

‘‘As a board, we decided that’s what we needed to do in order to get a discussion going,’’ said Pat McNally, the board’s chairman, who, with selectmen Edward Rauscher and Elizabeth Kilcoyne, joined the feoffee panel Sept. 25. But more than a month later, there’s still been no discussion.

Last month, McNally asked Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett whether the feoffees’ meetings can be private.

As town officials await word from Blodgett, the School Committee is pressing to revise the trust document, a move that could change the membership of the feoffees and force the panel to conduct business publicly.

Under the proposed new trust, the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen would appoint the feoffees, with each of the seven members serving five-year terms.

To avoid any conflict of interest, no resident of Little Neck would be allowed to serve as a feoffee. The town manager, school superintendent, and members of the town’s School and Finance committees would also be banned from appointment to the panel.

A probate judge must approve any changes to the trust document, a process that could take months, Traverso said.

In the meantime, the clock is winding down for the Little Neck homeowners, who face an order to abandon their homes by Jan. 31 if they do not sign the proposed new lease.

‘‘We are cautiously optimistic that we’ll be able to reach a fair agreement that will benefit the schools while still protecting the homeowners’ interests,’’ said Allen, head of the tenants group. ‘‘Our hope is that we can avoid a lawsuit.’’