Shockwaves Felt By Residents Following Pocasset Mobile Home Park Ruling
Shock and disbelief.
Those are the words used by The Park at Pocasset residents Albert MacDonald, Jim McSharry, and Bill Lytle to describe their feelings when the Barnstable Superior Court handed down its ruling in a case surrounding the sale of the park three months ago.
All three men are members of the park’s resident association, which has been enveloped in a three-year-long legal battle over the park’s sale. Mr. MacDonald, a resident for more than eight years, could not believe what he read until he saw it in print: the court had ruled against the Pocasset Park Association, the residents group intent on purchasing the community, and instead ruled in favor of Crown Communities, LLC, a Wyoming-based company that owns and operates a number of mobile home parks across the country, naming it the rightful buyer of the park.
“Honest to god,” Mr. MacDonald said, “I couldn’t believe what I read. I shook my head and I read it three or four more times.”
Mr. MacDonald, treasurer of the association, board member Mr. McSharry and Mr. Lytle, secretary, sat down with the Enterprise recently to recount the outcome of the legal battle that has dominated their community for three years and still is not over. The group made their point clear: they are not giving up just yet.
All three have been involved since the case’s inception between late 2019 and early 2020. In the early days, they said, residents in the park rallied around the association’s attempt to execute its right of first refusal to purchase the park, but support has waned over the years, due in part to the strain of the lawsuit but also to the erosion of the park’s congenial atmosphere and Crown’s presence and influence.
“They [Crown] came in and basically divided the park with all these great heroic things they were going to plan to do with it,” Mr. MacDonald said.
According to court documents, the association alleged that Crown engaged in unfair practices, citing instances of harassment and coercion from the company using promises of gift cards or a two-year rent freeze. The court ruled against these claims, but the residents maintain that the actions of Crown took a toll on their community. The Enterprise reached out to Crown Communities LLC through its website, Kodiak Property Management, but did not receive a response by deadline.
“Everybody’s divided, everybody’s going in different directions,” Mr. MacDonald said. “What’s a shame is that back before all this happened, everybody was friendly, and everybody helped everybody. It was a family type of thing.”
The park is currently still under the management of owner Philip Austin, who was named in the lawsuit filed by Crown for entering into purchase and sale agreements with both entities. Under his management, the group said, the park has fallen into further disrepair and unrest. The residents’ sense of community has dissolved to the point where even speaking with neighbors feels taboo, thanks in part to the lawsuit but also, they said, to the scrutiny of Mr. Austin.
A few members of the association’s board have been served eviction notices from Mr. Austin in the months and years following the lawsuit. These accounts are corroborated in various court documents and affidavits filed on behalf of the association. The general narrative presented by the association in court documents is that Mr. Austin targeted certain residents, due to their association with the board, which the men say changed the park’s culture to one of intimidation and alienation.
“Has this intimidated people? Yes,” Mr. MacDonald said. “People are more nervous about what’s going to happen and a lot of people are trying to sell out now while they still have the chance.”
The physical state of the park has also gotten worse since the lawsuit, the residents say. Piles of brush have accumulated, for example, posing serious fire hazards that make the residents feel unsafe. But when they raised concerns, they say little was done aside from relocating some of the debris. When contacted, Mr. Austin declined to comment for this article.
“You don’t get anything for your money,” said Mr. McSharry, who has lived at the park for 16 years.
Everything from property appearance to amenities such as gardens are under scrutiny at the park, the group said, which makes the community more tense than it used to be. And while some residents are looking to leave “before the hammer drops,” that is not a possibility for everyone at the park.
Most residents own their trailers and rent the land, but the cost of moving a trailer can be a major financial undertaking that many cannot afford. And even though prices for mobile homes have increased, the price gap between a mobile home and a single-family home in Pocasset is too far to bridge for most.
“Some of us can’t sell,” Mr. Lytle said, “because where are we going to go if we sell? I, personally, am here for the duration. I have no other place to go.”
“Mainly in our park, like everybody, we’re living day to day,” Mr. MacDonald said. “We’re all proud to have what we own. We try to take care of it. And a lot of people... they don’t have two quarters to rub together to fight anything.”
The court’s ruling stated that maintenance and repairs at the park were in excess of $1 million and that Crown is capable of injecting capital immediately to pull the park out of disrepair. But the association members, along with Cooperative Development Institute staffer Nora Gosselin, maintain that the association planned to and is capable of doing everything that Crown would do to improve the park.
The association enlisted the help of the CDI, a nonprofit that assists resident groups in similar situations, in 2020. Nora Gosselin is on the New England Resident-Owned Communities team and has been working with the association over the past few years. She said this is one of “the most contentious and one of the longest” court battles she has seen in her experience with CDI.
CDI helped to obtain a loan, develop budget projections, and petition to gain the required signatures of support—51 percent of resident owners—to trigger the right of first refusal. CDI has worked with 28 communities in Massachusetts and has seen success converting each to resident ownership. Although the court found that the association did not meet this burden of proof in terms of valid signatures, both the association and Ms. Gosselin maintain that they did their due diligence.
“That’s the Cooperative Development Institute practice: working with resident boards, collecting petitions,” Ms. Gosselin said. “We don’t ask people to prove that they are the owner/occupant. We don’t ask for driver’s licenses and that’s one of the things that came up in the case essentially. If they’re accepted by the seller—which they were here, the Austin Trust accepted the petitions and they’re the person that knows the best who lives there because they’re collecting the rent—that shows that…it’s legitimate by our process that has been used dozens and dozens of times.”
In the wake of the decision, the association has filed a motion to amend/alter the judgment handed down by the court and is also in the process of assembling an appeal. But the uncertainty that developed in the wake of the ruling has only increased, putting additional strain on association members.
“We’re still scratching our heads over the judge’s ruling with Crown,” Mr. McSharry said. “We met all the standards; what’s the problem?”
The court’s judgment concluded that the association only gathered 31 valid signatures, below the threshold of 41 required to represent the majority of the park. The association’s motion holds that this conclusion is erroneous and asks the court to reconsider; Crown’s legal response to the motion denies this claim.
The way the ruling is written, Ms. Gosselin said, places a really high burden of proof that does not match the statute allowing residents to exercise their right of first refusal.
“This is not a made-up process,” Ms. Gosselin said. “I think, in the ruling, there are ways where [they] treated the board and the residents like they didn’t know what they were doing or like they didn’t have a team of professionals there.”
The law exists, Ms. Gosselin said, to let residents buy their communities, and the outcome of this case is concerning for its future. Only a handful of states give residents the right of first refusal, Massachusetts being one of them. With that in consideration, Ms. Gosselin said it is a shame to see that rights become more and more difficult to exercise through both financial and legal barriers, especially in a state where the critical need for affordable housing is regularly touted by elected officials on the campaign trail.
Mr. MacDonald said that all the association has asked for is the opportunity to purchase the community, a right afforded to them under Massachusetts General Law, a cause that seemed to be widely supported until, as Mr. McSharry put it, Crown’s “meddling” created animosity. Still, Mr. Lytle said, many people in the park have done their research and believe that a resident-owned community would be more beneficial than the alternative.
“What we see in resident-owned communities,” Ms. Gosselin said, “is that it’s extremely naturally affordable because you’re not going to raise your own rent on yourself.”
The men were unanimous in voicing stark concerns for how steep fees could get once Crown does execute the purchase and sale agreement and begins working on the property. Assessments and property work could increase monthly payments and new costs could be introduced, all of which have residents speculating on how much more they could end up paying each month if a for-profit company takes ownership of the park.
“Whatever amount that it is, I’ve got to come up with it somehow,” Mr. Lytle said.
Despite the unexpected outcome of the Superior Court’s ruling, the unanimous feeling of the group is one of hope and perseverance. They are still in the fight, Mr. McSharry said, but the little people need help. That is why they are sitting in this Dunkin’ Donuts telling their story, to bring attention to what is and has been going on for the past three years.
“People are on hold still, but everybody’s hoping,” Mr. Lytle said. “I actually think our case is national news. I really do. It’s that important to trailer parks across the United States.” The others agreed.
“Everybody wants to make the park right,” Mr. MacDonald said. “It’s amazing what can be done when residents own the park. That’s what everyone’s looking for, praying for.”