Kier v. Belcher

28 Fla. Supp. 2d 86
CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida
DecidedMay 16, 1988
DocketCase No. 86-916CA
StatusPublished

This text of 28 Fla. Supp. 2d 86 (Kier v. Belcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kier v. Belcher, 28 Fla. Supp. 2d 86 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

W. LOWELL BRAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for nonjury trial on March 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1988, upon the plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory Judgment for Unconscionable Rent against the defendant, DOUGLAS H. BELCHER, d/b/a CLUB WILDWOOD MOBILE HOME VILLAGE. Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks a declaration that the rents charged [87]*87in Club Wildwood for the years 1982 through 1988 are unconscionable and further seeks a declaration of plaintiffs’ rights pursuant to Section 723.033, Florida Statutes, Section 723.004(4), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 86, Florida Statutes.

The Court, acting as the trier of fact and having heard the testimony, reviewed the exhibits, heard argument of counsel and considered the applicable law, hereby makes the following findings:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Club Wildwood Mobile Home Village is a rental mobile home park in Hudson, Florida, with 478 occupied lots offered for lease, governed under the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes.

2. The Defendant, DOUGLAS H. BELCHER, is a general partner of Club Wildwood, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, which owns and operates Club Wildwood Mobile Home Village.

3. The mobile home park was purchased in 1978 for a purchase price of $1,100,000.00. At the time of the purchase, there were approximately 70 developed lots and approximately 30 occupied mobile homes. The clubhouse, swimming pool, and other park amenities were substantially complete at the time of the defendant’s purchase. Subsequently, additional sums were expended to expand the complete the park.

4. In 1978, the mobile home park began a sales program whereby prospective purchasers were promised orally and in writing that future lot rental increases would be based on the percentage increase in the Cost of Living Index. A subsequent sales program stressed that rental increases would be based on the percentage increase in the Cost of Living Index or actual operating costs of public records, such as taxes, utilities, etc.

5. During this sales program, the remainder of the mobile home park was completed and the park obtained 100% occupancy in 1982.

6. In 1984, after reaching 100% occupancy, the park owner placed a $4.2 million, interest-only, shared-appreciation, balloon mortgage on the mobile home park property. The funds received from this note were withdrawn by the park owners and were not utilized for repairs, renovation, development, or improvement of the mobile home park.

7. The refinancing created an interest burden of $114.21 per month for each lot in the mobile home park. If the park were to maintain a positive cash flow, the interest burden created by the refinancing necessitated lot rental increases irrespective of lot rents charged in [88]*88comparable mobile home parks, the park owners’ cost of operating and maintaining the mobile home park, or any other legitimate bases for establishing lot rents.

8. The mortgage included an 18% equity-participation payable to the mortgagee upon maturity of the note in 1996.

9. From 1982 through 1986, the park owners’ cost of operation and maintenance increased $22.11 per lot per month. During the same time period, the plaintiffs’ lot rents increased $67 per lot per month. Additionally, there have been no major capital improvements, renovations, or additions to the mobile home park during this period.

10. The percentage increases in lot rents in Club Wildwood Mobile Home Village have grossly exceeded the percentage increases in the Consumer Price Index, published by the United States Government, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

11. The challenged rents include those in effect for the years 1982 through 1988 as follows:

Inside Lot Comer Lot Small Large Waterfront Waterfront

1982 $114 $119 $124 $139

1983 134 139 144 159

1984 146 151 156 171

1985 168 173 178 193

1986 181 186 191 206

1987 189 194 199 214

1988 197 202 207 222

12. For each of the name plaintiffs to this action, the wheels and hitch to their mobile home have been removed. The mobile home is also tied down as required by state law. Many of the plaintiffs have constructed permanent improvements to their homes.

13. The mobile home owners in Club Wildwood Village have invested over $14 million in their homes and improvements, including screened porches, carports, storage sheds, etc.

14. The cost of moving and relocating a mobile home and its appurtenances would be approximately $10,000.00, with resulting damage to the home decreasing value of the home after the move.

15. There are no available parks to which the mobile home owners could move their homes since the parks in the vicinity of Club Wildwood Village are closed to mobile homes not purchased from the park owner.

[89]*8916. Mobile homes in Club Wildwood Village are currently selling for $3,000 to $12,000 less than their fair market value because of the current level of rents in the mobile home park.

17. The disputed lot rental increases were unilaterally implemented by the park owner by issuance of annual notices of lot rental increases. The plaintiffs had no opportunity to bargain with the defendant prior to implementation of the lot rental increases in question. This is true for all residents of the mobile home park, regardless of the parties’ age, education, intelligence, financial position, business acumen, etc. at the time the increases were implemented. The plaintiffs had no meaningful choice but to pay the lot rental increases, or bear the burden of attempting to relocate their mobile home, or sell their homes at large losses.

18. The parties have mediated the lot rental increases for 1985, 1986, and 1987, pursuant to Sections 723.037-038, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes has scheduled mediation for the 1988 lot rental increases for April 25, 1988. Since the parties have been unable to amicablly resolve their dispute over lot rents in the past, the Court finds that mediation of the 1988 lot rental increase post-trial is a useless act and not a statutory condition precedent to maintenance of plaintiffs’ action for the 1988 lot rental amount.

19. Club Wildwood Mobile Home Village competes for tenants within a market which is primarily limited to western Pasco County. Within that market only one other mobile home park, Colony Cove, is truly comparable to the subject park.

20. Club Wildwood is a highly desirable residential park which could have justifiably charged rental fees which ranged from 30% to 50% above the average of fees charged by Pasco County parks, with the higher premium charged in the early years of the present decade.

21. The defendant’s appraiser’s adjustments in comparable rents based upon differences in utilities and services supplied is adequately supported and is accepted by the Court. The Court finds inadequate evidence to support the specific adjustments made with rsepect to location, amenities, appearances, etc.

22.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Appel v. Scott
479 So. 2d 800 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
State v. De Anza Corp.
416 So. 2d 1173 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Phillips v. State, Through Dept. of Transp.
400 So. 2d 1091 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc.
398 So. 2d 865 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Pearce v. Doral Mobile Home Villas, Inc.
521 So. 2d 282 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Stewart v. Green
300 So. 2d 889 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
Spencer v. HOWARD, WEIL
543 So. 2d 547 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Steinhardt v. Rudolph
422 So. 2d 884 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Ashling Enterprises, Inc. v. Browning
487 So. 2d 56 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Peacock Hotel, Inc. v. Shipman
138 So. 44 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Fla. Supp. 2d 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kier-v-belcher-flacirct-1988.