|
Legal/Legislative |
deserthomefront | |||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
MHP Conversions |
||||||||||
| This section
contains legal and legislative information on mobilehome park conversions
in California. For those who wish to review a narrative on
conversions, please refer to the Conversion Primer and other reports in
the Info Sources
section. See end of this page for related codes and legislative bills.
Click here for current GSMOL Legal/Legislative Updates. Update on MHP Conversion Cases Two recent legal actions have given hope that the results of the resident survey required in the conversion code can be used by local agencies to deny a park owners' conversion applications. The resident survey is the main issue in the Palm Springs View Estates conversion case now waiting to be decided in the appellant court. (The City of Palm Springs, Sonoma County and Santa Cruz County conversion case articles are included on this page.) City of Palm Springs Current MHP Conversion Case Palm Springs View Estates Current Appellate Court Case
The initial Superior Court
case follows this article. In the
PSVE appeal, the attorney for the City of Palm Springs (appellant)
explains the lower court based its decision in favor of the park owner on
two findings: (1) the city did not have the authority to use the required
resident survey as a basis that the conversion was not bona fide, and (2)
the city’s determination that the revised tenant impact report submitted
by the park owner was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although the appeal court held in favor of the El Dorado park owner, it is significant that the judge opined that the question of whether there should be more protections in the statute to prevent “sham” resident conversions by park owners was a legislative, not a legal, issue. Quickly responding to his opinion, Assembly Bill 930 (Chapter 1143, 2002 Statutes), was introduced and approved after heavy lobbying and debate. An important provision that survived the legislative process added specific provisions for conducting a tenant survey to Code Section 66427.5. As stated in the City’s brief in the PSVE case, the only dispute is a purely legal one of whether or not Subdivision (d) of the code authorizes the city to use the results of the survey during the public hearings to determine whether the conversion is a bona fide resident conversion; or, is the city limited to determining only whether the survey was properly obtained, which is what the trial court held. The appeal argues this second option would make the survey totally irrelevant and it was not the intent of the legislature in adopting AB 930. The lower court’s decision in the PSVE case was apparently based on the legal concept that only a court, not a local public agency, has the authority to determine whether the conversion is a bona fide resident conversion and only after the subdivision is fully approved. Uncodified Section 2 of AB 930 provides the following legislative findings pertaining to the requirement of the applicant to obtain a survey of support of the residents: "It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion, as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153.” At issue is the fact that, because the intent of Section 2 was not included in the code, it may not be relevant. The
legal counsel for Palm Springs Investment Company. L.P. (respondent) in
this and other similar cases repeatedly argue the code only specifies
how the survey is to be conducted and that it does not include a
requirement for the level of resident support. Thus, they say the results
of the survey are not to be considered by the local agency in approving or
denying a conversion application. They also state in this case that the
concept of bona fide resident conversion is not in the code, that the code
does not even define it, and that the language in the uncodified Section 2
of AB 930 is vague and ambiguous. The wording in revised Code Section 66427.5(d)5 clearly specifies that the results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e). The appellant explains that the word results cannot realistically refer to the procedural manner of how the survey was conducted, but can only logically refer to the level of resident support documented by the survey. Therefore, an important question before the appeal court apparently is, “Did the legislature’s modification of the code to require a resident survey actually give local agencies the authority to use the level of resident support in their decisions to approve, condition or deny conversions?” A second question is whether or not the court will accept the uncodified intent of the legislature regarding bona fide resident conversions in Section 2 of AB 930. If the court makes favorable findings for the appellant on either or both issues, it could settle the question of the local agency’s’ jurisdiction in mobilehome park conversions. In the PSVE case, the evidence is clear a majority of residents opposed the
|
conversion and the city used this fact to deny the subdivision application on the basis it was not a bona fide resident conversion. The lower court took the stance that the code does not permit the city to use the survey results, or any other measure of resident support, to justify denial of the conversion on the basis it is not a bona fide resident conversion. The line of reasoning presented by the appellant in citing Code Section 66427.5(d)5, where it specifies that the results of the survey shall be submitted and be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing, would be interpreted by most rational people to clearly indicate the code requires the preferences of the residents to be considered. It is difficult to find another meaning for the words. In the past, however, the opposition has convinced the courts that the state code does not give local government the authority to reject a conversion based on the results of a resident survey. If the court agrees with the appellant’s reasoning and accepts the intent of the AB 930 revision to the code as stated in Section 2 of the bill, the decision in the El Dorado case would essentially be reversed. This would set a legal precedent permitting local government agencies to use the results of the resident survey in evaluating whether or not a proposed mobilehome park subdivision is a bona fide resident conversion in their decision to approve, condition, or disapprove the subdivision. Adoption of Assembly Bill 566 would have given local government the same authority, but, although it passed both houses of the legislature, the Governor refused to sign it.. Hopefully, the outcome of the PSVE case will be favorable and finally concede that the survey results are relevant and can legally be used by local agencies as one consideration in making their decisions. Also, it would clarify that local agencies have some legal jurisdiction in these matters that are primarily governed by the state subdivision codes. The Sonoma and Santa Cruz County cases covered elsewhere on this page should have great influence on the appellate court in the PSVE case. Palm Springs View Estates Previous Superior Court CaseOn September 17, 2007, the owner of Palm Springs View Estates mobilehome park filed a legal action against City of Palm Springs for denying a subdivision application to convert the park to condominium ownership. Palm Springs City Council Resolution Denying PSVE Conversion
Two actions were filed in the Superior Court:
Palm Springs Investment Company, Ltd. vs. City of Palm Springs, Superior
Court Case Numbers INC070629
(Declaratory Relief) A demurrer* to the complaint was filed on October 26, 2007, by the city's attorney, M. Lois Bobak of Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, APC, Costa Mesa. According to the city’s demurrer, the declaratory relief and related issues can only be addressed after a Writ of Administrative Mandate is resolved and was the complaint was either placed on hold or the two cases were combined into a single case. The case argued, INC070631, is a Petition
for Writ of Administrative Mandate.** The
petition basically details the reasons the city did not have the jurisdiction
and authority to deny the conversion application, thus City Council Resolution
21941 should be vacated by the court, and the park owner should be entitled to
extraordinary relief for loss of value and income. *
A
response in a court proceeding in which the defendant does not dispute the truth
of the allegation, but claims it is not sufficient grounds to justify legal
action.
On September 24, 2008, In this case, the court rendered a decision in favor of the park owner, see
PSVE Superior Court Ruling . On August 21, 2009, the Sequoia Appellate Court reversed the superior court decision and remanded the case back to the trial court with directions to enter a new order or judgment consistent with the opinion. The court also ruled that the park owner shall recover its costs. |
The attorneys for the park owner in the Palm Springs View Estates case submitted the results of the Sequoia Appellate Court case as precedent to influence a favorable decision in favor of the park owner. On October 19, 2009, the Sonoma County Office of County Council, submitted a request to the California Supreme Court for the depublication of the appellate court decision giving a number of reasons the lower court erred in its decision and that it would have far-reaching implications across the state. If the court had ruled in favor, the appellate court decision would stand, but it could not be cited as precedent in other cases. Also, the Supreme Court could have taken further action and reviewed the case. However, on December 2, 2009, the request for an order directing depublication of the opinion was denied. Based on the following analysis of attorney Will Constantine, all is not lost because the only issue that Sequoia establishes binding precedent on is that Government Code section 66427.5 preempts provisions of local ordinances that set out guidelines for applying the results of the required resident support survey to a local jurisdiction's duty to approve or disapprove of a conversion application [see subsection 66427.5(d) and (e)]. But, Sequoia is not binding on the issue of whether or not a local jurisdiction
can turn a conversion down based on the results of a resident support survey
since they were not asked to decide that issue. In that regard, the
discussion of the purpose of the resident support survey that is contained
in Sequoia is inconclusive and it is also not binding as it is considered
"dicta"* since the court was not asked to decide that issue.
Santa Cruz
County Conversion Cases The problem with Sonoma County's Ordinance is that it went too far in setting up its own standards for determining what is a "bona fide resident conversion." Also, both Sonoma County and the City of Carson have been focusing on their ordinances and local control too much. What Santa Cruz County did was to comply with Sequoia by repealing their ordinance and setting a new hearing on the conversion to apply the statute directly. The judge ruled that they could do this. Attorney Constantine has always advocated this position since that was the intent when he and others drafted AB 930. Now, even applying the Sequoia appellate decision, the Superior Court in Santa Cruz County agrees. Additionally, two days after the Santa Cruz County Superior Court decision, the same issue went before the Capitola Planning Commission deciding on the conversion application of Surf and Sand Mobilehome Park and the Commission, after hearing both sides arguments on this issue and receiving advice of the city attorney, came to the same conclusion and rejected Surf and Sand's conversion application based on the results of its resident support survey by applying subsection 66427.5(d) rather than their "preempted" ordinance.
More information on conversion ordinances is available at
The County of Santa Cruz Public Hearing on
Conversions.
The County developed a comprehensive ordinance and held a pubic Hearing to
consider adoption of an urgency ordinance
regulating the conversion of mobilehome
parks to resident ownership pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5
(Note: The symbol, §,
is used in legal documents to designate government code "section." In the
conversion of this document to a PDF file, the symbol apparently was
improperly transcribed and is sometimes shown as a dollar sign, $, or as the
number five, 5, or 8.)
El Dorado Final Settlement
State MHP Conversion Code
Assembly Bill No. 930
|
||||||||