More than 90 residents as well as the management of Oakland Park had their day in court last week ? likely the first of many.

Tuesday, July 04, 2000

More than 90 residents as well as the management of Oakland Park had their day in court last week ­ likely the first of many.

Now both sides will wait up to 90 days for the decision of the Honorable Judge Joseph F. Wieners on Wednesday’s matter, a request from the defense asking for a summary judgment or that the judge dismiss all of the residents’ actions against Oakland Park Inc.

The group of 90-some residents filed their complaint in November, alleging that the mobile home park owners had included unreasonable rules and regulations in their lease agreement. The residents also included in their complaint allegations concerning the park’s storm shelter, water drainage, rental charges, late and maintenance fees as well as retaliation by park management.

The two sides have a long history of disputes, which started shortly after Oakland Park Inc. purchased the mobile home park from Leighton Nelson’s Wheel Estates.

Wieners made no decisions Wednesday, but now has to decide whether to dismiss the case, and, if not, whether the complaints filed by the residents are a matter of law, to be decided by a judge, or a matter of fact, to be decided by a jury.

Judging by Wednesday’s courtroom session, if the case proceeds it will be as a combination of both of both law and fact.

"We brought the motion to dismiss initially because they hadn’t come up with any more proof," defense attorney Jeffrey Kritzer said. "You can’t rest on a complaint, there needs to be enough evidence upon which a jury could find in their favor. We didn’t think they had that."

Attorney Brandon Lawhead, representing the residents, asked that the court deny the summary judgment on all counts. Lawhead added that he would be submitting his own summary judgment on the issues of the storm shelter and rent equalization, because both complaints that are in the process of being resolved at the park.

"We think they are asking that our claims – on the storm shelter and rent equalization – be found baseless," Lawhead said. "Although something is finally being done by the park, we still want to make the point that our complaints were valid. There’s no question that they violated some of the laws."

During the hearing Lawhead addressed the general behavior of the park corporation, accusing the park’s owners and management of intimidating the residents, many of whom are older people.

"This park has taken the attitude that ‘we’re a $50 million corporation, it’s our way or the highway,’" Lawhead said in the courtroom. " This corporation threatens and then backs down when they’re called on it."

Wieners questioned both attorneys closely before gathering up the pile of papers in front of him and retiring from the chambers. Now he must decide whether the complaint or perhaps only portions of the complaint should continue further. If there is to be a jury trial, both lawyers requested that it be scheduled in February or March.

"We hope the judge will at least narrow the issues and focus the lawsuit a little more so we don’t have to go to trial on every issue," Kritzer said after the hearing.

The attorneys also said they would be attempting mediation of the case once the judge’s decision becomes known.