The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from the growth of mushrooms, standing water, insomnia, falls, backed up plumbing, soft spots in the floor and even “extreme rhinitis” experienced by a household dog. Faced with such disparate claims, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Superior Court had correctly denied the residents’ request that the claims be tried in a class action. The plaintiffs then filed their unsuccessful appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the arguments made by HKC at the trial court level that the individual plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit lacked the requisite elements of a community of interest, numerosity and a commonality of claims. The Court further found that common issues of fact did not predominate over individual claims of property damage, personal injury and emotional distress, adding that there was no likelihood that the Court or the parties would substantially benefit from proceeding with the case as a class action.

In California, class certification is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382 which provides, in part, ‘[W]hen the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or many may sue…for the benefit of all.’ (See, Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th, 723, 731.

The Court of Appeal followed Fireside Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 1069, 1089, which held that “Class certification requires proof (1) of a sufficiently numerous, ascertainable class, (2) of a well-defined community of interest, and (3) that certification will provide substantial benefits to litigants and the courts, i.e., that proceeding as a class is superior to other methods. …In turn, the ‘community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.”

The result for the HKC client is that instead of facing a class action that could have included potentially hundreds of residents with a wide-ranging array of claims, the park owners now can defend against the specific claims of a handful of individual plaintiffs.

Congratulations to HKC’s Robert Coldren, James Morse and Rhonda Mehlman for the victory at the trial court and the affirmation by the Court of Appeal.

Topics Include:
Owner financing – Avoiding the Safe Act Mine Field
After Guggenheim: New life in MHP property rights protection from city over regulation
Insurance – Maximizing coverage, minimizing costs
Should you be buying homes in your park?
Subdivisions and closure and other exit strategies… KNOW YOUR OPTIONS!

Attendees Will Receive:
Residency Docs Discount
No cost Property Tax Review
No cost Telephone Consultation

To register please download and fill out Legal Breakfast Registration Form

The rent increase that had previously been granted, and challenged in Court, was for $45.00 per month spread over three (3) years. Brentwood contended, rightfully so, that the increase was less than 50% of what had been requested and the actions of the City’s Rent Review Commission were arbitrary and capricious. The San Diego Superior Court agreed with Brentwood and judgment was entered in favor of the park. A writ of administrative mandamus was issued compelling the City to rehear the rent increase application and provide a rent increase that was in compliance with the evidence provided at the hearing.

The Application of Brentwood was officially submitted in January 2010. Thus, over the course of two (2) years, Brentwood has expended significant time, money and attorneys’ fees seeking a reasonable rent increase. The Resolution adopted on January 19, 2012 finally accomplishes that goal. Ironically, the Rent Increase Application may well be the last discretionary Rent Increase Application that will be presented to the City’s Rent Review Commission. In 2011, the City of Chula Vista, in one of its more rational moments, amended its rent control Ordinance to provide for full vacancy decontrol. In simple terms, each time there is a change in tenancy at any mobilehome park within the City, the park owner is permitted to adjust the rent at that space to market. This author is unaware of any park owner throughout California that would not utilize that ability to adjust rents in the park on a gradual basis as tenants come and go. Because most mobilehome parks have a turnover rate of 8-10 percent per year, most parks should be able to adjust rents over time in a fashion that allows net operating income to keep pace with inflation, increases in costs and provide a reasonable rate of return. The ability to adjust rents to market on turnover is, ordinarily, a sufficient disincentive for park owners to undertake the tremendous amount of time and expense needed to pursue a Rent Increase Application.

Congratulations Brentwood on your success!! The park’s tenants are dramatically better off since the improvements were made to the park. The capital invested to upgrade the park was the basis of the Rent Increase Application. A renewed clubhouse, an entirely new and upgraded/reinforced utility system and improved amenities throughout the park are dramatic evidence of how efficient park operators keep up their park which are, of course, dependant upon reasonable revenue streams.

C. William Dahlin handled the Rent Increase Application and subsequent litigation which was finally concluded in January 2012.

1. Listen! When an employee expresses dissatisfaction with his job, listen carefully.  Employees who are unhappy at work often will talk to co-workers and sometimes even upper management about their plans for the future.  Often times, these comments take the form of seemingly simple griping but other times there are nuggets of truth which reveal actual plans which may include the possibility of opening a competing business. 

2. Know your IP.  The first step in protecting IP is to know IP exists and what is most important to your business.  Any organization that does not know what information is most important to it cannot construct or implement proper safeguards. 

3. Implement reasonable security measures. Some of the most obvious preventive measures can be the most effective.  Locks on doors, encrypted passwords on computers and limited handling of confidential hardcopies are easy, cost-effective steps to take to protect the integrity of IP.  A good IT professional can establish and enforce protocols that will monitor the use of information, routinely store and back up information, and limit any destructive intent by a departing employee.

4. Don’t be fooled by ethical obligations.  Most industries follow ethical standards to protect sensitive client information such as credit card numbers, the identity of minors, etc.  However, those standards offer no protection to the unwary business and sometimes as even the most trusted employees succumb to temptations.

5. Know exactly what information your employees can access.  Even at the highest management level, someone must know what everyone in the organization can access through computers and other data collection systems.  This simple information allows management to control that access and evaluate attacks against its integrity.

6. Document as much as possible.  It is relatively unusual for a disgruntled employee to destroy or take vast quantities of sensitive data or information. However, there are almost always behaviors that begin to appear when an employee is expecting to leave. These signs should be documented and reported to management so that they can take appropriate action quickly.

7. At termination, lock down all access.  While obvious, it is important to change passwords and keys to locks, as well as seek the return of cell phones, laptops, pass cards, and parking permits, etc.  Cancellation of all memberships in industry organizations should be done as soon as possible. Soon-to-be former employees should not be allowed access to computer systems or hard copies of files.

8. Damage control.  Following termination, it is important to contact clients to inform them about the transition and to make it as seamless and painless as possible.  Revisions to the company website, updates to profiles such as LinkedIn or Facebook, and press releases to local and industry publications should also be considered. 

There is no magic wand to wave to prevent a key employee from abusing their access to IP.  However, a business with proper checks and balances can minimize any detrimental effect from the departure of a key employee.  The end of an employment relationship does not have to be the “end of times.”

Both partners have been asked to participate in two educational programs:

Tuesday, April 10, 1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. “Key Legal Issues for Communities”

Find out about the simple steps you can take now to protect your community from potential legal liability problems as panelists provide guidance on a number of key community legal issues. Come join this session to get answers to your most pressing questions.

Thursday, April 12, 11:15 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. “Fair Housing/2012″

Presented by Rob Coldren and Bill Dahlin of HK&C, this workshop will cover the changing landscape of Fair Housing rules and enforcement faced by manufactured housing communities today. Changing a manufactured housing community from “55 and older” to “all age” is a critical and ongoing compliance and “cost of doing business” concern. Come hear the experts discuss the pros and cons of keeping or changing a communities “age based” designation and the questions you should consider. We will also cover issues presented by “testers” and what can be viewed as housing discrimination. Learn about and explore the overlap and distinctions between ADA and Fair Housing compliance for the manufactured housing industry and short-term rental RV parks which are increasingly facing issues that were traditionally long-term residency issues.

For more information, please contact Hart, King & Coldren at 714-432-8700 or visit show website at www.congressandexpo.com.

Mr. Britt specializes in real estate, land use and environmental law. Prior to joining Hart, King & Coldren, Mr. Britt worked for another Southern California firm where he primarily practiced Environmental Litigation and helped participate in a successful defense of a lawsuit by a Fortune 500 company that alleged ground contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Mr. Britt has also spent approximately two years working as an attorney for the National Rifle Association, helping to protect the use of traditional lead-based ammunition.

Mr. Britt earned his B.A. degrees from the University of Southern California and his J.D. from Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California. He may be reached at 714-432-8700 x. 336 or via email at email hidden; JavaScript is required.

Cavalier filed an application for a subdivision map so the park could convert to resident ownership. A subdivision allows the park owners to sell the lots to the tenants at fair market value. The law also allows for rents to be raised to market value over time on lots which have not yet sold.

These “conversions” are protected by state law which limits the scope of the local governments’ review of such applications. Sadly, state law has not stopped cities that are politically motivated from attempting to block subdivisions. The Oceanside City Council voted to deny the applications because a majority of residents opposed the subdivision.

Cavalier filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court, challenging the City’s decision. On November 4, 2011, Superior Court Judge Stern reversed the City’s decision and held that the City could not deny the subdivision application based on resident opposition and that the City had to comply with government code.

Cavalier is owned by a large group of family investors, managed by Brian Alex with support of Lillian Chang. These long-time owners will hopefully very soon be able to realize the value of their investment and, in the process, help other owners in Oceanside do the same.

Lillian kindly expressed her appreciation for the work of Mark Alpert and the guidance of Rob Coldren. We appreciate their confidence in Hart, King & Coldren. However, there have been “bumps in the road” to get to this point. We know that progress is only made because park owners are willing to risk precious, limited resources in an effort to protect their property rights. The next time you see Brian or Lillian at an industry meeting, be sure to congratulate them and thank them for their efforts!

For more information please contact myself or Mark Alpert at HK&C at 714-432-8700 or via email at email hidden; JavaScript is required or email hidden; JavaScript is required.

The final resolution, once agreed upon, was concluded in less than one month. Congratulations to this property owner for a successful resolution.

For more information, please call Rob Coldren or Bill Dahlin at 714-432-8700 or they may be reached via email at email hidden; JavaScript is required or email hidden; JavaScript is required

Most importantly, the repeal is a victory for the Reed family that owns the park. After learning of the decision to repeal, Ron Reed said, “This has been extremely hard on the Reed family for the past 30 years. When we bought the property, we didn’t ask for rent control. I feel like the Reed family finally got their good name back. We were made to look like villains in the media, even though we treated our tenants very well. We were not the worst people. I can’t say enough about Rob Coldren, Mark Alpert, Bill Dahlin and John Pentecost and the whole team at Hart, King & Coldren. Their skills were instrumental in obtaining this victory for us and I hope it paves the way for other park owners in the same dilemma.”

The real credit belongs to Ron and Randy Reed and family, who have persevered through years of battles with the City of Capitola. Ron Reed helped build Surf and Sand Mobilehome Park decades before rent control was adopted, only to have his property confiscated in the name of affordable housing. We don’t believe for a minute that the politicians who have politically exploited rent control for votes will simply go away, but the example of Capitola demonstrates how those decisions can backfire politically and economically.

Surf and Sand Mobilehome Park is represented by Rob Coldren and Mark Alpert of Hart, King & Coldren.