Mobile home owners fight land rent increase

Public Record, The, Aug 04, 1995 by Hercules, Neil

PALM SPRINGS -- The residents of the 377-space El Dorado Mobile Home Park are still fighting to get the space rent charged them reduced by the owners of the El Dorado Mobile Home Park.

In this civil case, filed in the Palm Springs Superior Court, the homeowners association claims that El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. purchased the park April 1, 1986 for $7,500,000, financing it with promissory notes totaling $7,360,000.

In 1988, the new owners under a hardship filing got a $65.17 monthly increase in the land rent for each mobile home space.

But in 1989 El Dorado got an award of $179.46 per month following the filing of a writ to vacate the earlier rent awarded.

Later in the year the homeowners appealed the decision, asking that the rent increase remain at $65.17, claiming that in the hardship review that El Dorado was using its so-called: "purchase money" as a money pass through.

In other words, interest paid on the promissory notes was being claimed as an operating expense.

The owners of the park continue to bill each homeowner for $114.29, which is the amount needed, they claim, to bring the payments up to the original award of $179.46, after subtracting the $65.29 being paid now.

Since the increase was granted back in 1989, the park owners have reportedly sought to collect approximately $8,000 from each renter of the spaces, the attorney for the H.O.A. claims.

The attorney, Charles Prawdzik of Palm Desert claims that "residents have been forced to pay the defendants excessive charges to accomplish the sale or transfer of their respective mobile homes." In order to make some sales, the owners have had to make pre-payment agreements with the prospective buyers.

Prawdzik asks that the park owners reinstate $578,142 to the ledger, listing that amount as purchase money and not as allowable operational expense.

Damages are sought, according to the proof, as well as civil penalties for each violation of any city ordinance, restitution of the excessive rent to each selling resident, and treble damages of $2,500 for each senior citizen for pain and suffering.

The case was taken all the way to the California Supreme Court, but it declined to review a writ by the California Court of Appeals (4th district).