If pluralistic solipsism is true, then 'exists relative to' is not a transitive predicate. A exists relative to B and B exists relative to C do not entail A exists relative to C. This is also the way it is in Kip Fine's "fragmented reality", as well as the 'ontologically ineffable objects' of previous posts.
Now, I would emphasize that some (properties or objects?) are (ontologically) contextual. (We know this from the Kochen-Specker theorem.)