According to the pleadings of court case filed by Wesoloski Carlson, P.A, attorneys for plaintiffs (linked below): “This action arises as a result of the illegal and unconscionable acts to illegally evict the Plaintiff and approximately 5000 other residents of the Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park (“Li’l Abner”).” Li’l Abner consists of 900 homes located in the City of Sweetwater [which is a suburb of Miami, FL]. “The 5000 residents of Li’l Abner constitute close to 30% of the population of Sweetwater.” “The residents of Li’l Abner have paid anywhere between $20,000.00 to $200,000.00 for the purchase of their respective mobile homes.” Apparently, some of those “mobile homes” are more aptly described as HUD Code manufactured homes. MHProNews previously reported on this developing case at this link here. The case is styled number “Filing # 213224894 E-Filed 12/19/2024 with the IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL.” is on behalf of “OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES AT LI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK, Plaintiff(s), v. CREI HOLDINGS, LLC, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, , CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, a Florida general partnership, d/b/a LI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK, CITY OF SWEETWATER, a Florida municipal corporation, and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a subdivision of Florida, Defendant(s). The pleadings state that the “CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND OBJECTION TO CHANGE OF USE UNDER FLA. STAT. §723.061.”
Per their pleadings: “The CREI Defendants knew or should have known the statements made were false.” “As a direct and proximate result of the false statements and concealments of material fact by the CREI Defendants, Plaintiffs justifiably relied on those false statements, remained in Li’l Abner and continued paying rent they otherwise would not have paid, as well as being forced out of their homes during one of the worst rental markets in US history.”
Part I – According to a thread on: Facebook WPLGLocal10 are the following remarks.
They shed light on why anyone associated with the manufactured housing industry ought to be concerned about what is occurring at Li’l Abner, or any other circumstances that are similar to that developing situation where residents face eviction when in several instances they were led to believe that they had some measure of security in their tenure so long as their lease (site fee) payments were made and rules were being followed.
“I CAN’T EVEN SLEEP AT NIGHT” – Residents of the Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park in Sweetwater continue to pack up as they face an uncertain future.
A lot of things I don’t understand, but the one thing I don’t get is how people don’t know that buying a mobile home doesn’t make the land your, come on everybody knows that the land owner can sell anytime and there’s no law to prevent it
Lissette Amores my thought too and they gave them plenty of notice to vacate. It’s sad but that’s what happens when you lease the land.
So sad, what Miami is coming to.
Omg spending $100,000 on a used mobile home on land not owned. That is so sad that they couldn’t see it was a bad investment. Whomever sold it to her should be the one getting the bad karma. Anyone considering a mobile home park should not purchase in dade or broward unless you are purchasing the land there are no guarantees the park won’t be sold.
It’s an incredibly sad situation and that there is no affordable housing here
This! These people purchased 1970’s mobile homes for over $100,000. CRAZY! A mobile home is like a car it should depreciate. I looked on realtor.com after I heard the park was closing and so many homes listed in this park for well over $100,000 these agents should be held accountable.
Lisa that is absolutely awful.
May karma curse those displacing people for greed
Part II – Per the Wesoloski Carlson, P.A. law firm’s website that has launched the case against the defendants in this legal action is the following.
Wesoloski Carlson, P.A. is deeply committed to the Miami community. We believe in giving back and contributing to the growth and well-being of the community that has supported us throughout the years. Our legal expertise extends beyond the courtroom and negotiation table; we actively participate in local initiatives and support various local causes.
Included in the experience of Erik Wesoloski, J.D., per their website are the following.
-
Facilitating over 1500 commercial and residential real estate transactions valued at over $1 Billion
-
Representing numerous clients in real estate litigation matters successfully at the circuit and appellate level
-
Advising startup companies on incorporation, joint venture agreements, and key officer employment agreements.
-
Negotiating complex bank loan work-outs valued above $100 million.
-
Advise hundreds of foreign clients on the legal structuring of their real estate acquisitions and holdings in the United States
-
Negotiating complex bank loan work-outs valued above $250 million.
Part III According to local media as shown are the following.
According to Ground News, WSVN 7 and NBC Miami (NBC 6) both lean left.
1) ‘This is very frustrating’: Sweetwater mobile home residents seek legal action as eviction threat looms – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports
Mobile homeowners of Lil Abner in Sweetwater are taking legal action after, they say, management did not follow proper eviction procedures. A letter dated Nov. 12 was sent to the 6,000 residents threatening them with eviction from their homes. Residents said they are worried about where they would be able to afford to go if they have to leave. Attorneys David Winker and Erik Wesoloski are giving them a fighting chance by representing them…”
2)
Sweetwater mobile park residents join class action lawsuit as fight continues to keep homes
Nearly 200 residents of Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park in Sweetwater have signed onto a class action lawsuit as they fought against being vacated from their homes. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of some of the residents against the city of Sweetwater and Miami-Dade County. In November, 900 mobile homeowners got notice that the mobile home park will permanently close on May 19. A development company overseeing the property’s transition wants to conve…
3) More specifically, NBC 6 said the following.
A lawsuit was filed on behalf of some of the residents against the city of Sweetwater and Miami-Dade County.
In November, 900 mobile homeowners got notice that the mobile home park will permanently close on May 19. A development company overseeing the property’s transition wants to convert the property to affordable government-subsidized housing.
“This situation is very complex,” said one resident, Miguel Gonzalez. “We’re making this transition with my family, there are six of us, and we came from New York here. We spent our savings to have a better life in Florida. It’s very cold in New York”
Gonzalez moved to Li’l Abner the last week of October – the next week, they got a notice to vacate by next May.
“We understand that this is not our property, but eight or 15 days later to receive a letter is frustrating for us,” he said. “So wanting to say that we want to stay here would be ideal, staying here for the next 20, 30 years. I don’t know if that’s possible, but it would be ideal for everyone.”
So far, 190 mobile homeowners have signed up for the class action lawsuit. It asks a judge to declare the evictions improper.
It alleges that the landlord didn’t follow the law by first giving notice to the homeowners association and the right to first refusal. Florida law prohibits a rent increase 90 days prior to giving notice, but rent was increased within that time frame, the lawsuit alleges.
It also alleges that the city and county didn’t follow proper procedures by failing to do studies to ensure there was somewhere for people to go.
“It’s something very unfair from the owner, from the administration … from the mayor, commissioners, because they knew this was coming,” Gonzalez said.
The group managing the relocation transition for neighbors here says 117 tenants have already relocated and another couple hundred or so have indicated they plan to move.
There are financial incentives for tenants to leave. The amount depends on how quickly they do it.
“We have a heartfelt understanding of the difficult times the residents of Lil’ Abner Mobile Homes are facing. However, we have been working tirelessly to find resources and possible solutions, from the creation of a resource center to charitable organizations,” said Sweetwater Mayor Jose “Pepe” Diaz. “We remain committed to assist the residents and will stand alongside them throughout these difficult times.”
The company representing the mobile home park said in a statement that all decisions related to the property were made in compliance with local regulations and requirements.
Part IV: From the filed pleadings obtained by MHProNews are the following.
MHProNews Note: while a reasonable effort has been made to ‘cut and paste’ the text of their case into the editing software for this post, the copy of the filed case pleadings linked here should be considered for any important references that require precise accuracy.
OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES ATLI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK, Plaintiff(s),
v.
CREI HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATEINVESTMENTS, GP, a Florida general partnership,
d/b/a LI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK, CITY OF SWEETWATER, a Florida municipal corporation, and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a subdivision of Florida, Defendant(s). ______/
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND OBJECTION TO CHANGE OF USE UNDER FLA. STAT. §723.061
Plaintiffs, set forth on Exhibit A, individually on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), hereby sue Defendants,
CREI Holdings, LLC, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, THE CITY OF SWEETWATER, and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, and allege as follows:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL CASE NO. CLASS REPRESENTATION
INTRODUCTION 1. This action arises as a result of the illegal and unconscionable acts to illegally evict the Plaintiff and approximately 5000 other residents of the Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park (“Li’l Abner”).
- Li’l Abner consists of 900 homes located in the City of Sweetwater.
- The 5000 residents of Li’l Abner constitute close to 30% of the population of Sweetwater.
- The residents of Li’l Abner have paid anywhere between $20,000.00 to $200,000.00 for the purchase of their respective mobile homes.
- The duties owed to owners of mobile homes renting land in mobile home parks are meticulously set forth under Florida law because mobile homeowners can easily be taken advantage of by owners of mobile home parks in which their homes are situated. This is because of the unequal bargaining power in the relationship where, despite its name, the homes are not mobile so the homeowners cannot just pick up and go if they are dissatisfied with the park owner and operator’s maintenance and management of the property.
- The CREI Defendants knew or should have known the statements made were false
- As a direct and proximate result of the false statements and concealments of material fact by the CREI Defendants, Plaintiffs justifiably relied on those false statements, remained in Li’l Abner and continued paying rent they otherwise would not have paid, as well as being forced out of their homes during one of the worst rental markets in US history.
- On November 12, 2024, the CREI Defendants, caused to be delivered to all residents of Li’l Abner the “Eviction Notice” attached as Exhibit B (the “Eviction Notice”), in an attempt to evict the mobile home owners in violation of Florida law. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FLA. STAT. § 723.061
- Fla. Stat. § 723.061 provides a specific methodology for the eviction of mobile home owners from a mobile home park when the owner of the park proposes a change of use: (1) A mobile home park owner may evict a mobile home owner, a mobile home tenant, a mobile home occupant, or a mobile home only on one or more of the following grounds: . . . . . (d) Change in use of the land comprising the mobile home park, or the portion thereof from which mobile homes are to be evicted, from mobile home lot rentals to some other use, if: 1. The park owner gives written notice to the homeowners’ association formed and operating under ss. 723.075-723.079 of its right to purchase the mobile home park, if the land comprising the mobile home park is changing use from mobile home lot rentals to a different use, at the price and under the terms and conditions set forth in the written notice. a. The notice shall be delivered to the officers of the homeowners’ association by United States mail. Within 45 days after the date of mailing of the notice, the homeowners’ association may execute and deliver a contract to the park owner to purchase the mobile home park at the price and under the terms and conditions set forth in the notice. If the contract between the park owner and the homeowners’ association 5 is not executed and delivered to the park owner within the 45-day period, the park owner is under no further obligation to the homeowners’ association except as provided in sub-subparagraph b. b. If the park owner elects to offer or sell the mobile home park at a price lower than the price specified in her or his initial notice to the officers of the homeowners’ association, the homeowners’ association has an additional 10 days to meet the revised price, terms, and conditions of the park owner by executing and delivering a revised contract to the park owner. c. The park owner is not obligated under this subparagraph or s. 723.071 to give any other notice to, or to further negotiate with, the homeowners’ association for the sale of the mobile home park to the homeowners’ association after 6 months after the date of the mailing of the initial notice under sub-subparagraph a. 2. The park owner gives the affected mobile home owners and tenants at least 6 months’ notice of the eviction due to the projected change in use and of their need to secure other accommodations. Within 20 days after giving an eviction notice to a mobile home owner, the park owner must provide the division with a copy of the notice. The division must provide the executive director of the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Corporation with a copy of the notice. a. The notice of eviction due to a change in use of the land must include in a font no smaller than the body of the notice the following statement: YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE FLORIDA MOBILE HOME RELOCATION TRUST FUND, ADMINISTERED BY THE FLORIDA MOBILE HOME RELOCATION CORPORATION (FMHRC). FMHRC CONTACT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION. b. The park owner may not give a notice of increase in lot rental amount within 90 days before giving notice of a change in use.
- Defendants, CREI HOLDINGS, LLC and CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, have violated Fla. Stat. § 723.061(d) by failing to give the written notice to the homeowners’ association formed and operating under ss. 723.075 723.079, namely Li’l Abner Mobile Park Homeowner’s Association Inc., of its right to purchase the mobile home park. 6
- Defendants, CREI HOLDINGS, LLC and CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, have also violated Fla. Stat. § 723.061(d) by raising the lot rental amount within 90 days before giving notice of a change in use. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FLA. STAT. § 723.083
- Fla. Stat. § 723.083 Governmental action affecting removal of mobile home owners— provides: No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners.
- Defendant Miami-Dade County has taken official action approving the change of use which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in Li’l Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.
- Defendant City of Sweetwater has taken official action approving the change of use which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in Li’l Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083. 7 CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS
- Pursuant to Rule 1.220, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs named on Exhibit A bring this claim as a class action because: (1) the members of the class are so numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable – the number of homeowners being wrongfully evicted by the Defendants exceeds 900, and it would be impracticable to bring individual claims on behalf of more than 900 homeowners; (2) the claim or defense of the representative party raises questions of law or fact common to the questions of law or fact raised by the claim or defense of each member of the class – as set forth more fully above, the Eviction Notice, which was sent to all homeowners, violates county and state law equally for each member of the class, and each member is similarly affected by the Defendants’ wrongful actions; (3) the claim or defense of the representative party is typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class – Ms. Hernandez’s claims with respect to the Eviction Notice and the actions threatened affect each of the class members in an equal way; and (4) the representative plaintiffs can fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class – they have all been long-term tenant of Li’l Abner and her claims are typical of the each member of the class, who, likewise, are mobile home owners subject to the Defendants’ wrongful actions.
- The class is defined as all homeowners of Li’l Abner who have been targeted by the Defendants wrongfully for eviction and who received the Eviction Notice.
- Attempts to obtain voluntary compliance by the Defendants have failed. As such, mediation would be futile. In the alternative, based on the exigency, if the Defendants agree, this Complaint shall serve as a demand for mediation. 8
- All conditions precedent to maintaining this action have been satisfied by Plaintiffs or otherwise have been waived by Defendant. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO FLA. STAT. § 723.061 (the CREI Defendants)
- Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 30.
- This is a claim for declaratory relief brought pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida Statutes.
- On November 12, 2024, the CREI Defendants sent the Eviction Notice to Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs are in doubt about their rights and/or status with respect to whether the Eviction Notice and the actions it threatens are violative of Fla. Stat. 723.061.
- As a result, pursuant to Section 86.021, Florida Statutes, the Court has the authority to determine the rights, status or other equitable and legal relations between Plaintiff and the Defendants with respect to the Eviction Letter.
- The Court should review the Eviction Notice and determine that the Eviction Notice threatens to violate Fla. Stat. § 723.061, Florida Statutes.
- Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are in an actual, practical and present need for judicial declarations.
- The declarations in question deal with a present ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts.
- The privileges or rights of Plaintiffs and the proposed class are dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts.
- Plaintiffs have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law. All antagonistic and adverse interests are before the Court by proper process, or can be added by class treatment, and the relief cited is not the giving of legal advice by the Court or the answers to questions propounded from 9 curiosity.
- Plaintiff requests, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.111, Florida Statutes, that the Court advance this matter on the calendar. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an order determining that the Eviction Notice and the actions it threatens violate Fla. Stat. § 723.061; awarding costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and providing such other and further relief the Court deems proper. COUNT II DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO FLA. STAT. § 723.083 (THE CITY OF SWEETWATER and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY)
- Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 30.
- This is a claim for declaratory relief brought pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida Statutes. 44. Defendant, Miami-Dade County, has taken official action approving the change of use which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in Li’l Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.
- Defendant, City of Sweetwater, has taken official action approving the change of use which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in the Li’l Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.
- Plaintiffs are in doubt about her rights and/or status with respect to whether Defendants’ official actions are violative of Fla. Stat. § 723.083, which requires that prohibits such 10 action without Defendants “first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners.”
- As a result, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.021, the Court has the authority to determine the rights, status or other equitable and legal relations between Plaintiffs and Defendants with respect to their actions regarding the evictions.
- Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are in an actual, practical and present need for judicial declarations.
- The declarations in question deal with a present ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts.
- The privileges or rights of Plaintiffs and the proposed class are dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts.
- Plaintiffs have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law. All antagonistic and adverse interests are before the Court by proper process, or can be added by class treatment, and the relief cited is not the giving of legal advice by the Court or the answers to questions propounded from curiosity.
- Plaintiffs request, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.111, Florida Statutes, that the Court advance this matter on the calendar. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an order determining that the Defendants have taken official action which violates Fla. Stat. § 723.083; awarding costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff, and providing such other and further relief the Court deems proper. 11 COUNT III INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CREI DEFENDANTS)
- 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 30. This is a claim for injunctive relief. On November 12, 2024, the Defendants sent the Eviction Notice to Plaintiffs. If an owner of a mobile home park intends to sell the property for a change of the property’s use, the owner must comply with the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 723.061. Defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 723.061. Plaintiff has a clear right to permanent injunctive relief on the basis that the Eviction Notice and the actions it threatens violate Fla. Stat. § 723.061. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and must seek injunctive relief in order to prevent the Defendants from relying on the Eviction Notice as a proper, legal notice of eviction and proceeding with the actions threatened in the Eviction Notice. Irreparable harm will arise should the Court not enjoin the Defendants from proceeding pursuant to the Eviction Notice, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding pursuant to the Eviction Notice; require the Defendants to abide by all applicable laws and ordinances, including, but not limited to, Section 723.061, Florida Statutes; to award costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and to provide such other and further relief the Court deems proper. COUNT IV INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (THE CITY OF SWEETWATER and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY)
- Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 30.
- This is a claim for injunctive relief. 12 63. Defendant, Miami-Dade County, has taken official action which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in the Li’l Abner Trailer Park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.
- Defendant, City of Sweetwater, has taken official action which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in the Li’l Abner Trailer Park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.
- Plaintiffs have a clear right to injunctive relief on the basis that the Defendants are violating Fla. Stat. § 723.083.
- Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and must seek injunctive relief in order to prevent the Defendants continuing to take official actions in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083. 67. Irreparable harm will arise should the Court not enjoin the Defendants from proceeding pursuant to the Eviction Notice, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court quash any and all official actions taken by Defendants in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083, enjoin Defendants from taking any official action which violates Fla. Stat. § 723.083, to award costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and to provide such other and further relief the Court deems proper. COUNT V INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS TO OBJECTION TO CHANGE OF USE IN ACCORD WITH FLA. STAT. §723.061 (CREI DEFENDANTS)
- Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 30.
- This is a claim for injunctive relief. 13 70. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of the November 12, 2024 Eviction Notice, the Plaintiff Class filed their objection to the proposed change of use and sought Administrative relief due to the Defendants’ various violations of Florida Statute §723 with Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation [“DBPR”].
- Plaintiffs respectfully submit that given the above stated facts there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law as the property rights of the Plaintiff Class is being threatened by the Defendants violations of Florida Statute 723 and their attempts to illegally evict the Plaintiffs.
- Accordingly, the threatened injury to the Plaintiffs in losing their homestead and being left homeless, far outweighs any threatened harm the injunction may cause to the Defendants. And the injunction, if issued will not disserve the public interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an injunction on the evictions for violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.061; awarding costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and providing such other and further relief the Court deems proper. COUNT VI INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CREI DEFENDANTS)
- Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 30.
- This is a claim for injunctive relief.
- Defendants are demolishing certain trailers in Li’l Abner without a permit and without using proper asbestos remediation and dust control methods.
- Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and must seek injunctive relief in order to prevent the Defendants continuing to cause harm by demolishing certain trailers in Li’l Abner without a permit and without using proper asbestos remediation and dust control.
- Irreparable harm will arise should the Court not enjoin the Defendants from proceeding 14 with the demolition.
- Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits and the public interest favors granting of an injunction to avoid further damage to the public. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that the Court enter a temporary injunction against any further demolitions of trailers, to award costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and to provide such other and further relief the Court deems proper. COUNT VII VIOLATION OF FDUTPA (CREI DEFENDANTS)
- Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 30.
- Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). The provision of the Act shall be “construed liberally to promote the protection” of the “consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in . . . deceptive[] or unfair practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” See Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2).
- Fla. Stat. § 501.211(1) provides that “[w]ithout regard to any other remedy or relief to which a person is entitled, anyone aggrieved by a violation this part may bring an action to obtain declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates this part and to enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate this part.” See Fla. Stat. § 501.211(1). 82. Although not specifically enumerated in the statute, “There are three elements that are required to be alleged to establish a claim pursuant to FDUTPA: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.” See Borchardt v. Mako Marine Int’l, Inc., 2009 WL 3856678, *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2009) (quoting KC Leisure, Inc. v. 15 Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)); see also Kia Motors of American Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
- During the period of January 1, 2024 to November 12, 2024, Defendants CREI HOLDINGS, LLC and CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP through conversations with, and in prospectuses provided to, residents of Li’l Abner, represented, that there were no definite plans for redevelopment of Li’l Abner.
- Defendants’ representations as set forth in the previous paragraph were deceptive and unfair when made, in violation of FDUTP.
- At the time Defendants made those representations, Defendants possessed both actual and constructive knowledge that these representations were false.
- Defendants made the representations set forth above with the knowledge and intent that Plaintiffs would rely on them.
87. In actual reliance on Defendants’ representations, Plaintiffs did remain in their leases and not seek alternatives, and as a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, suffered and continues to suffer damages, in the form of increased rent payments, down payments, future increased mortgage payments, all the incidental and consequential damages associated with moving and others.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendants specifically declaring that Defendants’ conduct complained herein violates FDUTPA and cannot be used as the basis to terminate Plaintiffs’ lease agreements and enter judgment for actual damages, and related relief including prejudgment interest and the cost of this action against Defendants, together with reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 501.211(1)-(2) and 501.2105, as well as for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper. …
Part V – Trade Media and Association Coverage of Issue
1) MHProNews published the following that was “Uploaded” and published on 12.5.2024.
2) It may be a coincidence, but the next day Frank Rolfe and Dave Reynolds linked “Mobile Home University” (a.k.a.: MHU) published the following. Note that Rolfe and Reynolds are known to be regular readers of MHProNews, per sources deemed reliable.
- Originally released by Yahoo! Finance on November 22nd, 2024
- Commentary made on December 6th, 2024
Preview:
Residents of Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park in Sweetwater, Florida, were recently notified that they’ll need to find somewhere else to live and quickly. The community of more than 900 mobile homes, together housing roughly 2,000 to 3,000 people per the mayor’s estimate, will close in May 2025 to make way for new affordable and workforce housing.
Mobile home owners usually own the home but rent the land it stands on. The land owner in this case, CREI Holdings, says it will provide a financial incentive of $14,000 to residents who leave by January 31, 2025. Those who leave by March 31 or April 30, will receive $7,000 and $3,000, respectively,…
Our thoughts on this story:
Yes, this is the same story from last week, in which a giant 900-space mobile home park is being torn down to build apartments. The fact is that mobile home park lot rents average $300 per month in the U.S while apartments average $2,000 per month. And you can stack apartments three stories high while mobile homes can’t be stacked. As a result, every mobile home park in America has a constant risk of redevelopment into apartments. And why not? Mobile home parks have great locations on major streets with easy access to water, sewer and electricity. Plus, city government hates their existence and would do anything to get rid of them, including granting any zoning a developer wants. The only thing holding back redevelopment is the amount of lot rent the mobile home park charges. In this case, the amount of lot rent was too low to not make redevelopment the better option. But it seems crazy that nobody has figured out yet that LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT. It’s not rocket science. Articles such as this one would be much more productive if they explored this key issue and figured out what the lot rent should have been for none of this to have happened.
You also have to love the pathetic response from the Mayor:
“My administration and the city commissioners are diligently exploring every available resource while we continue to stand by our community to help these troubling times and transition.”
Talk about a “Kamala word salad”. It’s similar to Teddy Roosevelt’s classic “we shall endeavor to persevere” – which means absolutely nothing.
It should be noted that some of the ‘facts’ cited by “Frank and Dave” are apparently incorrect. It should also be noted that while Rolfe and Reynolds are popular in several parts of manufactured home community (MHC) professional circles, that posting their remarks (or that of others for that matter) should not be construed as representing the views of MHProNews or our management. Quoted statements reflect the stated stance of those who made them.
3) MHProNews and our MHLivingNews sister site have previously reported the concerns, including potential legal, economic (as in overall profit potential for a business model), and moral flaws with the thinking of Rolfe and Reynolds in reports like those linked below that go into detail into the duo’s statements with analysis.
4) Note that per left-leaning Bing’s AI powered Copilot, MHProNews has “the most comprehensive coverage” of all media, mainstream or trade media, on the developing Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park saga. Note too that the inquiry that sparked that remark didn’t ask the question who had the best coverage, Copilot offered that observation on its own.
Copilot, MHProNews in articles, downloads, and reporting that includes https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/manufactured-home-industrys-other-image-campaign-unpacking-tenants-continue-to-protest-as-demolition-begins-at-sweetwater-mobile-home-park-mhi-and-fmha-res/ and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/807918137-Lil-Abner-Mobile-Home-Park-Case-PleadingsFiled-Complaint-vs-CREI-Holdings-Stillwater-MiamiDade-ManufacturedHomeProNewsMHProNews.pdf among others and Frank Rolfe and Dave Reynolds via MobileHomeUniversity.com appear to be the only trade media or Manufactured Housing Institute linked associations, including the Florida Manufactured Housing Association (FMHA), that have published or remarked on the ongoing legal, moral, and other controversies involving the Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park in Stillwater, FL at this time, is that correct? Is there any other manufactured housing linked blogger or publication that has provided the case filing documents or other information? Correct, confirm or clarify and link the results. Also, explain why this sort of behavior that is alleged in the case filing can be harmful to the interests of honest and ethical manufactured housing professionals.
This type of behavior, if proven true, can be harmful to the interests of honest and ethical manufactured housing professionals because it undermines trust in the industry. It can lead to increased scrutiny and regulation, which can affect all professionals, not just those involved in unethical practices. Additionally, it can create a negative public perception of manufactured housing, making it harder for ethical professionals to attract and retain residents. …”
Note that MHProNews has added the logos in the above to clarify that the inquiries where by this writer for MHProNews and the response was from AI powered Copilot.
5) Note too that Copilot doesn’t mention MHInsider, MHReview, ManufacturedHomes.com’s so-called news blog, or George Allen’s so-proclaimed EducateMHC or Community-Investor blogs or trade media. Despite the fact that several (perhaps all?) of those sources at various times attempt to describe themselves as the best source for news or information, they are often void or lacking in relevant insights, facts, or information on often important topics for the manufactured home industry. By contrast, MHLivingNews and MHProNews strive to provide the most robust and objective news and views that can help outsiders and insiders looking in to better understand why manufactured housing is underperforming during an affordable housing crisis. The superior nature of coverage by MHProNews may explain why this publication seems to have a wide dominance over rivals that include the Manufactured Housing Institute’s (MHI) apparently inferior and routinely lacking ‘news’ coverage. In looking back at 2024 or before, the report linked below gives statistical and other insights on the superiority of coverage, traffic, and reader engagement.
6) That noted, Copilot’s reply was arguably missing a point that sparked this following up Q&A (chat).
While I tend to agree with your statements, even if the allegations are successfully defended by the defendants, isn’t the negative media coverage harmful to the interests of honest and ethical manufactured housing firms? For example, remarks posted on Facebook at this link by people who seem to be members of the general public could be indicators of how this can tarnish the industry, right? https://www.facebook.com/NBC6SouthFlorida/posts/nearly-200-residents-of-lil-abner-mobile-home-park-in-sweetwater-have-signed-ont/1126375895523402/ Restated, isn’t it in the best interests of the industry’s honest and ethical professionals to condemn problematic and predatory behavior when it occurs, so that there is a clear line of demarcation between so called predatory operators vs. honest and ethical businesses?
It’s indeed in the best interest of the industry’s honest and ethical professionals to condemn problematic and predatory behavior. By doing so, they can help establish a clear distinction between themselves and those who engage in unethical practices. This can foster a more transparent and trustworthy environment, ultimately benefiting the industry as a whole.
Would you like to explore more about how ethical practices can be promoted within the manufactured housing industry? …”
7)
You asked about exploring ethical practices in the manufactured home industry and you observed before that “MHProNews seems to have the most comprehensive coverage,” correct? Is it fair to say that exposing apparently bad behavior in the manufactured housing industry is one tool that MHProNews and MHLivingNews use to separate the problematic actors in the industry from the more honest and ethical companies and organizations? For example, in the case of the Li’l Abner matter, it is unclear if CREI is or isn’t a member of the Manufactured Housing Institute or the Florida Manufactured Housing Association. That said, isn’t there an argument to be made that the Institute and FMHA should condemn bad behavior when they spot it? Isn’t that part of the Protect-Educate-Promote mantra that an good umbrella style trade association should use to safeguard the public and the interests of honest and ethical firms in the industry? Restated, when FMHA or the Manufactured Housing Institute and their allied bloggers and trade media fail to point out what’s wrong in such a matter, aren’t they on some level failing the industry and its ethical professional members? Correct, confirm, and clarify as needed and linked results.
Yes, it’s fair to say that MHProNews and MHLivingNews use their platforms to expose bad behavior in the manufactured housing industry as a way to distinguish between problematic actors and more ethical companies and organizations. By highlighting unethical practices, they aim to protect consumers and promote transparency within the industry.
Regarding the Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park case, it’s unclear if CREI is a member of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) or the Florida Manufactured Housing Association (FMHA). However, there is a strong argument that both the MHI and FMHA should condemn bad behavior when they spot it. This aligns with the “Protect-Educate-Promote” mantra that a good umbrella-style trade association should follow to safeguard the public and the interests of honest and ethical firms in the industry.
When trade associations like the FMHA or MHI fail to address problematic behavior, they risk failing the industry and its ethical professional members by allowing unethical practices to go unchecked. This can harm the industry’s reputation and undermine the efforts of honest professionals.
Does this help clarify your concerns? …”
Note that the two links Copilot provided above are as shown below.
8) Additional video from local mainstream news are as posted below.
9) An evidence-based argument can be made that Rolfe, Reynolds, and those who make arguments like theirs are often mistaken on humane as well as profit levels. It is not only profitable, but proven that some manufactured home community (MHC) operators who make an effort to respect resident rights and can develop new properties and/or sites profitably. See the reports linked below for details.
10) MHProNews and our MHLivingNews sister site along with our broader efforts via the mainstream Patch plans in 2025 and beyond to report and provide evidence-based arguments that manufactured homes are a viable and proven option for solving the affordable housing crisis and that the predatory firms in the industry should be denounced as needed while honest and ethical firms and genuine trade association efforts like that of MHARR should be elevated. MHProNews will begin the year reminding professionals that there ought to be an effort to organize and successfully launch a new post-production trade group that is focused on protecting-educating-and promoting the industry and its residents/potential customers. Let’s close on this note. MHInsider, ManufacturedHomes.com/blog, MobileHomeUniversity, MHReview, George F. Allen, EducateMHC, Community-Investor, Manufactured Housing Institute, Florida Manufactured Housing Association have all apparently failed to properly report on the Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park and similar controversies. Meanwhile, MHProNews and MHLivingNews have most comprehensive and balanced coverage of mobile and manufactured home related issues. Who says? AI powered Copilot among an array of industry pros and others who vote with their feet (okay, web browsers and smart phones, etc.) day by day. Thanks for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for manufactured home “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” ©
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Related References:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.’
