California MHP News

Refreshed: Tue, Jul 26, 2016 – Published: Thu, Jan 28, 2016 – What you are seeing in the image below are thousands of documents titled "Investigative Report" which are from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) filed against Kort & Scott Financial Group DBAs. This information is available through a Public Information Request which we have filed for all of the KSFG parks that we are aware of in the State of California.

Complaint Types: Non Receipt of Title, Non Transfer of Title, Unlicensed Activity, Substandard Housing, Unlawful Use, Misrepresentation, Illegal Advertising, Breach of Contract, etc.

This is only a small portion of the requests and pertains mostly to one mobile home park, Royal Oak Manufactured Home Community in Davis, California which was sold by the KSFG DBA in 2015. It appears that KSFG were forced out of this park by the continual violations by the HCD, each one costing Kort & Scott Financial Group $2,000. In one set of these documents, Hart King, Attorneys at Law, acting on behalf of the KSFG DBA state this...

Dear OL Ombudsman Coordinator: We represent Davis Group, LP, the party subject to the above 11 citations. On April 22, 2015, we wrote to the Division of Codes and Standards Deputy Director requesting on behalf of our client, stating our objections to all of the Citations, and requesting an Informal Hearing. We have recently been advised that the Hearing Officer desires to hold 11 separate hearings as opposed to one single hearing even though the alleged violations are all similar. As a result, Davis Group LP has decided, for business and financial reasons only, that it is more sensible to pay the civil penalties. Among other reasons, the costs of preparing for and attending 11 separate hearings, which would include the hourly and travel expenses of counsel, expert witnesses and percipient witnesses, would far exceed the amount of the civil penalties, and it would take valuable personnel away from their jobs for an extended period of time.

We are therefore enclosing 11 checks from the Davis Group, LP, $2,000.00 each, covering each citation payable to the Department of Housing and Community Development, and requesting that the 11 Informal Hearings be taken off-calendar. Please confirm that this has been done at your earliest opportunity.

Please be advised that the payment of the civil penalties cannot and should not be considered an admission of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Davis Group for any of the violations appearing in the Citations or under any other law. The Davis Group is simply making the $22,000 in payments for business reasons, and continues to deny all liability under the Citations for, without limitation, the reasons stated in my April 22, 2015 letter to the Deputy Director.

We will have many questions for the HCD Division of Codes and Standards Deputy Director as we continue to "crunch the data" and provide summarized, filtered results for public consumption. Our first question for the Deputy Director of Codes and Standards would be:

Why haven't you taken this ‘Preponderance of the Evidence’ to the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California?

Mon, Jul 25, 2016 – If you purchased your mobile home in a KSFG owned, and SCM managed mobile home park, and you did not handle the transaction with an ethical Licensed Real Estate Broker or an HCD Licensee, there is a possibility that you are without the Title (or its equivalent) to your mobile home after purchase.

In addition to contacting the HCD, contact the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) regarding the purchase of your mobile home from Sierra Corporate Management or one of its affiliates. Be sure to have all purchase documentation ready. You can call the DBO at 866-275-2677 or 916-327-7585 and they will assist you with your complaint.

Sat, Jul 23, 2016 – We are currently tracking 500+ mobiles homes in the KSFG/SCM inventory. We have acquired sales information for the KSFG/SCM mobile home parks and will post additional data once vetted.

BHPH 1/3 Evict 2/3 Auction 3/3 Sell Turnover

Note: 3 Step Process – Step 1: Eviction, Step 2: Auction, Step 3: For Sale

Fri, Jul 22, 2016 – Listed in this article are the typical expenses for California site-built home owners vs. mobile home owners along with reasons for losing your home.

Concerned mobile home owners and residents in California, along with supporting advocacy groups, are working diligently to create balance, and are pursuing a proposed solution.

Wed, Jul 20, 2016 – The question of “How much is a lease worth to KSFG/SCM?” has arisen many times. We've crunched the raw data and have added a new column to our SCM Space Rent Calculator showing your "Lease Value" or what you will pay for your Space Rent for the duration of your lease. The Lease Value also gives us an all-in starting point for the total value of the Lease Receivables.

The financial incentives (e.g. $1,000.00) being offered by KSFG/SCM to sign a Long-Term Lease Agreement are a pittance compared to the estimated value of the Lease Receivables.

KSFG/SCM Lease Incentive Letter from Abe Arrigotti

Dear Residents,

I am pleased to send out an invitation to those residents who are currently not on a long-term lease the following offer:

$1,000.00 paid to you directly in a check! Please note, a long term lease must be executed in order to receive the check and will be mailed within two weeks of your signature on the lease agreement itself.

Under the long-term lease, the park is giving up my rights to increase your rents arbitrarily at any time, and you are relying on its inherent stability to greatly reduce the chance of any startling, unexpected rent increases.

Tue, Jul 19, 2016 – California MRL: With respect to trees on rental spaces in a mobilehome park, park management shall be solely responsible for the trimming, pruning, or removal of any tree, and the costs thereof, upon written notice by a homeowner or a determination by park management that the tree poses a specific hazard or health and safety violation.

Bruce E. Stanton, Esq. The earliest attempt at circumvention by some park owners includes an amendment to rules and regulations attempting to require homeowners to trim trees on mobilehome spaces so that they do not become health and safety hazards. It is GSMOL’s position that such amendments to rules and regulations are still a violation of 798.37.5(a).

MHPHOA AAI It is the MHPHOA's position that such amendments to mobile home park rules and regulations, rental agreements and/or lease agreements are a direct violation of California MRL §798.

Mon, Jul 18, 2016 – Over 75+ reviews and complaints from Sierra Corporate Management residents, SCM employees, buyers and sellers of mobile homes, City Council Members and other officials. These are mobile home parks in California managed by Sierra Corporate Management (SCM) and owned by a Kort & Scott Financial Group KSFG) named business entity.

Sun, Jul 17, 2016 – From the 2016 California Mobilehome Residency Law Frequently Asked Questions: Rents, Fees and Taxes, 6. Security Deposit

Resident Question: Can the park charge first and last months’ rent plus a 2-month security deposit?

MRL Answer: Normally, when a mobilehome owner is accepted for residency in a mobilehome park and signs a rental agreement, charging first month’s rent and a 2-month security deposit are permitted. (Civil Code §798.39) After one full year of satisfactory residency (meaning all rent and fees have been paid during that time), the resident is entitled to request a refund of the 2-month security deposit, or may request a refund at the time he or she vacates the park and sells the home. (Civil Code §798.39(b))
2016 California MRL FAQs

Submit your request for a security deposit refund in writing to Sierra Corporate Management today! The MRL specifically states that SCM must refund your deposit after one full year of satisfactory residency. Do not wait until you vacate the park and/or sell your mobile home.

Fri, Jul 15, 2016 – California is the only state in the nation with independent professional judges dedicated to ruling on attorney discipline cases. The State Bar of California investigates complaints of attorney misconduct. If the State Bar determines that an attorney's actions involve probable misconduct, formal charges are filed with the State Bar Court by the bar's prosecutors (Office of Chief Trial Counsel).

The independent State Bar Court hears the charges and has the power to recommend that the California Supreme Court suspend or disbar attorneys found to have committed acts of professional misconduct or convicted of serious crimes.

Also, it can temporarily remove lawyers from the practice of law when they are deemed to pose a substantial threat of harm to clients or the public.
The State Bar Court of California

Fri, Jul 15, 2016 – The MHPHOA.com would like to respectfully remind all attorneys representing mobile home park owners and practicing law in the State of California, you do have a Rules of Professional Conduct that you must adhere to. If you violate these Rules of Professional Conduct, you may be subject to disbarment.

What is Moral Turpitude

Moral Turpitude is a phrase used in criminal law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. Turpitude means a corrupt, depraved, degenerate act or practice. Moral turpitude generally refers to conduct that shocks the public conscience.

Disbarment – California Business and Professions Codes §6106 and §6107

• 6106. The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.

  If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.

• 6107. The proceedings to disbar or suspend an attorney, on grounds other than the conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, may be taken by the court for the matters within its knowledge, or may be taken upon the information of another.
  California Business and Professions Code Section 6100-6117

CIMT – Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Crimes Against Property: Accessory Before the Fact in Uttering a Forged Instrument, Attempted Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Forgery, Encumbering Mortgaged Property with Intent to Defraud, Extortion, Forgery, Making False Statements of Financial Condition, Malicious Trespass, Obtaining Money by False Pretenses, Uttering a Forged Instrument

Example: Elder Financial Abuse

Thu, Jul 14, 2016 – Did you lose your mobile home in an Unlawful Detainer Eviction Lawsuit filed by Kort & Scott Financial Group (KSFG) dba Sierra Corporate Management (SCM)?

If you feel that your mobile home was taken from you unfairly and you have documentation to support your claims, you may be able to recover up to $75,000 of your losses through the MHRF.

Wed, Jul 13, 2016 Updates – In January 2014, my sister Vanessa and her husband Larry, purchased a mobile home here in Arrowhead Mobile Home Park. They paid in full before moving in, $18,000 for the mobile home, and $599 for the title. They also had to pay rent on the property which was approximately $900 a month, plus utilities. The mobile home was in pretty bad condition and needed a lot of repairs before they could move in. Larry had to put flooring in the hallway and both bedrooms, he had to drywall much of the interior to put in walls, and had to do some basic rewiring. Then Trudy, the park manager, told them they had to paint the exterior, so they had to buy a few gallons of paint…

I AM NOW HOMELESS! – Read Robin’s Story

Sun, Dec 27, 2015 – My name is Robin, I am a 51 year old disabled female. I have MS and other health related challenges. I am now homeless because of fraud taking place at Arrowhead Mobile Home Park located at 201 East Arrow Highway in Glendora, California 91740, 626-963-2295.

I just lost my mobile home along with four others all in one year. Trudy Jacobs, the park manager for Sierra Corporate Management, stole everything in my home, she threw away my parent's ashes. This lady is going to jail, these people bully everyone, I'm not afraid, I'm homeless because of their fraudulent activity.

I can't cry anymore, it's justice time. Anyone who would like to add to this case, please call Detective Houser at the Glendora Police Department, 626-914-8250.

Mon, Jul 11, 2016 – DO NOT SIGN a Kort & Scott Financial Group (KSFG) dba Sierra Corporate Management (SCM) Forbearance Agreement until you have sought professional and/or legal advice. Signing an SCM Forbearance Agreement waives your homeowner’s rights and releases KSFG/SCM from any and all past, present, and/or future liabilities, claims, disputes, controversies, suits, actions, causes of action, loss, debt, damages or injuries (collectively referred to as “claims”), matured or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, known and unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which TENANT may have against PARK.

Sat, Jul 9, 2016 – On Wednesday, July 6, 2016, a San Diego civil jury awarded 10 households of the Terrace View Mobile Home Park $58,389,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against the Park owners, Tom Tatum & Jeff Kaplan.

The case involved charging unreasonable rents and other illegal practices causing residents to lose their homes.

At the time of trial, 100 of the 200 spaces at the Terrace View Mobile Home Park were empty or abandoned due to the park owners' practices.

This is the first phase of 49 homes that are part of the lawsuit. The case was tried by James Allen and Jessica Taylor of San Diego based firm Allen, Semelsberger & Kaelin.

Allen Semelsberger & Kaelin, LLP
San Diego Mobile Home Lawyers
600 B Street, Suite 2400, San Diego, California 92101
619-544-0123, 800-895-5053, https://www.asklawgroup.com/

Terrace View Mobile Home Estates
13162 Highway 8 Business, El Cajon, California 92021

• Filing Date: 2013-07-12 – Class Action Lawsuit Filed by Residents
• Case Title: Aranda vs. Terrace View Partners LP
• San Diego Superior Court Case Number: 37-2013-00057526-CU-PO-CTL
• Status Phase I: 2016-07-06 – Plaintiffs Won Class Action Lawsuit
• Damages Awarded: $58,389,000

Complaint Summary

1. Nuisance
2. Breach of Contract
3. Illegal Change of Use
4. Negligence
5. Intentional Interference with Property Rights
6. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
7. Breach of Statutes
8. Breach of Unfair Competition Law
9. Breach of Warranty of Habitability
10. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
11. Elder Financial Abuse

    Eleventh Cause of Action for Elder Financial Abuse by all Senior Citizen Plaintiffs

    120. Defendants took, appropriated, obtained and/or retained or assisted in taking, appropriating, obtaining and/or retaining Senior Citizens' mobilehomes by refusing to approve prospective purchasers of Plaintiffs' mobilehomes, and by raising rents to unreasonably high levels. As a result Senior Citizen Plaintiffs were harmed and have been deprived of their right to sell their homes in the Park and have had to either walk away from their home or to sell them to Defendants for almost nothing.

    121. Defendants' actions and/or conduct alleged herein was done for a wrongful use, with intent to defraud and/or by undue influence by preventing Plaintiffs from selling their mobilehomes in place in the Park, or keeping them there at reasonable rent levels.

    122. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions and/or conduct were likely to be harmful to Plaintiffs and would prevent Plaintiffs from being able to sell their mobilehomes in place in the Park and would result in Defendants taking the financial investments Plaintiffs have in their mobilehomes in violation of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Defendants' actions and/or conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm. Plaintiffs seek all damages allowed under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act and all other remedies otherwise provided by law (including, but not limited to, rescission) to compensate them for the harm proximately caused by Defendants.

    123. Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs' right to sell their homes in place and the effect raising rents to unreasonably high levels would have on Plaintiffs' ability to sell their mobilehomes. Defendants deliberately interfered with the sale of Plaintiffs' homes by the actions alleged herein. Defendants subjected them to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. Defendants consciously inflicted economic and personal hardship upon Plaintiffs by interfering with the sale of their mobilehomes which was despicable and Defendants' conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and/or malice. Defendants' conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

12. For Rescission and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Fri, Jul 8, 2016 – In recognition and appreciation of their obligations to clients, customers, the public, and each other, REALTORS® continuously strive to become and remain informed on issues affecting real estate and, as knowledgeable professionals, they willingly share the fruit of their experience and study with others.

They identify and take steps, through enforcement of this Code of Ethics and by assisting appropriate regulatory bodies, to eliminate practices which may damage the public or which might discredit or bring dishonor to the real estate profession.

REALTORS® having direct personal knowledge of conduct that may violate the Code of Ethics involving misappropriation of client or customer funds or property, willful discrimination, or fraud resulting in substantial economic harm, bring such matters to the attention of the appropriate Board or Association of REALTORS®.
National Association of REALTORS® – The Code of Ethics

Thu, Jul 7, 2016 – Very few mobile home PARK OWNERS provide housing – they only provide a “space” or rented bare lot with hookups upon which the mobile home is placed. In the vast majority of cases, the resident obtains financing and BUYS the mobile home from the previous owners and agrees to pay rental for the bare lot underneath. This combination of home ownership and land rental provides unique opportunities for seekers of affordable housing. It also has unique risks that the homeowner often discovers long after they have purchased the home.

Some park owners practice predatory evictions where the park owner can confiscate the home by abrupt increases in demands for rent along with abrupt demands for expensive maintenance, and high utility bill estimates. Park residents suddenly find these combined expenses exceed their capacity to pay. Utilities are legally considered part of rent and cannot be challenged separately – residents are required to pay up or be deemed late on “rent”, leading towards eviction and potential confiscation of the home.

Fri, Jul 1, 2016 – When a mobile home is abandoned, Kort & Scott Financial Group (KSFG) dba Sierra Corporate Management (SCM), are required by California Civil Code Section 798.56a and California Commercial Code Section 7210, to follow certain procedures regarding the possession and sale of the abandoned mobile home. These mobile home sales are performed via a NOTICE OF PUBLIC SALE in the local newspapers, see actual recent examples in the article.

• Auction Location: Mobile Home Park Management Office
• 09:59 AM – Persons Present: Sierra Corporate Management (SCM) Park Manager (1), SCM Representative (1), Possible Unnamed Participant(s).
• 10:00 AM – Five (5) minute introduction which includes public auction information and instructions.
• 10:05 AM – SCM Park Manager opens bidding at $500. SCM Representative raises hand.
• 10:05 AM – No other bidders. SCM Representative wins bid at $500.