Barnstable Superior Court Rules On Pocasset Mobile Home Case
Almost three years after being filed, a lawsuit over ownership of the Pocasset Mobile Home Park has been decided. A Barnstable Superior Court judge recently handed down a decision in favor of Crown Communities, LLC, ordering the park’s current owner, Philip Austin, to execute a purchase and sale agreement with Crown for the park.
The court’s decision ultimately voids the PSA (purchase and sale agreement) Mr. Austin, a trustee of the Charles W. Austin Trust, made with the Pocasset Park Association after it sent notice to the trust of its intent to execute its statutory right of first refusal and purchase the park.
After 15 witness testimonies, 43 exhibits taken into evidence and a tour of the park, the court issued a 15-page decision, which was reviewed by the Enterprise. In it, Judge Michael K. Callan explains that the association “lacked sufficient support (and authority) to exercise lawfully its right of first refusal and to purchase the park.” Judge Callan also ruled against the association on its various crossclaims, rejecting its claim that Crown engaged in “scare tactics” with residents or “acted wrongfully or illegally in any way.”
Walter B. Sullivan of Sullivan & Comerford in Norwood, one of Crown’s attorneys, said Crown “is grateful to the court for its thoughtful judgment confirming its contractual rights to acquire The Park at Pocasset.”
“Crown is a well-respected owner and operator of manufactured housing communities throughout the United States and looks forward to working with all the parties to restore the Park at Pocasset to its status as one of the finest manufactured housing communities on Cape Cod,” he wrote in an email.
Thomas W. Aylesworth, an attorney representing the association, did not respond to requests for comment. The Enterprise was able to speak with one member of the association, who was not prepared to comment on the ruling at this time.
Case Background
The lawsuit was initially filed by Crown on February 20, 2020. Months prior, on November 15, 2019, Crown entered into an all-cash PSA with the Austin Trust. Five days later, Mr. Austin gave notice of the sale to all park residents.
According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140 Section 32R—around which this entire case seems focused—Mr. Austin would be required to notify all residents if the sale would result in a change of use for the property; otherwise, he’d only be required to send notice of a sale if 51 percent of residents requested that information. A change of use is not the case here, but, absent any requests, notice was sent to residents anyway, according to court documents. Several residents, fearing disruption to their housing situation, became alarmed at this news, the decision says.
“This apprehension and alarm was not occasioned by any acts or omissions of Crown or its agents,” Judge Callan wrote. “Rather, in the court’s judgment, some of the residents were reasonably apprehensive about the unknown.”
Things moved quickly in the weeks and months following that notice. What started as an informal meeting group of residents in early December 2019 became a registered nonprofit organization within the commonwealth by the 23rd of that month. On January 2, 2020, a PSA signed by the president of the association, Justine Shorey, was delivered to Mr. Austin, asserting the residents’ right to purchase the park, along with a list of signatures that the association’s former attorney Philip Lombardo said represented more than 51 percent of the park, as required by law.
After receiving the PSA, Mr. Austin also entered into an agreement with the association in January 2020, prompting Crown to file its complaint the following month.
Court Findings
The court, however, found that the petition did not contain the requisite number of signatures and that Mr. Lombardo’s assertion was unproven, with Judge Callan writing that “the Association has not met its burden of proof.” To be valid, the petition needed at least 41 signatures from owners living in the park to represent the required 51 percent of residents. Forty-nine signatures were submitted; of those signatures, the court found that four were duplicated (from the same unit), five were subtenants (not owners), five were owners but did not live in the park, and four more freely rescinded and withdrew their approval. That left the association with only 31 signatures of support from resident owners.
“No effort was made by any of the signature gatherers to verify whether the park residents who were asked to sign the petition were owners or simply tenants, subtenants, or guest residents at the park,” Judge Callan wrote in his decision, adding that those gathering the signatures acted “modestly aggressive” by repeatedly visiting homes to solicit support.
In forming the association, residents of the park worked with a nonprofit called the Cooperative Development Initiative (CDI), which provided the association with assistance in its effort to exercise its right of first refusal and a loan of $100,000, which was used to retain Mr. Lombardo’s counsel. A CDI employee testified that CDI, both generally and in this case, provides guidance—in this case, the form for gathering signatures—but does not oversee the signature-gathering process firsthand. CDI did not respond to requests for comment.
Judge Callan noted that “the Association has a functioning, well-meaning board of directors,” but because the association was unable to prove that it had the authority under Massachusetts General Law to assert a right to purchase the park, the PSA between the association and the trust was not valid.
Looking Ahead
In his decision, Judge Callan addressed the physical elements and history of the park, touching upon its previous court-ordered receivership and failed septic system.
“Although it is a pleasant and homey ‘slice of the Cape,’” he wrote, “it has fallen into some level of disrepair and has a massive and expensive backlog of deferred maintenance and requires numerous much-needed upgrades. An immediate injection of capital and a more professional level of management is necessary before the park slides any further into disrepair.”
It is unclear what will come next for both the park and Crown, a company focused on acquiring and managing mobile home communities. According to its website, Crown operates 11 communities in seven states.