A big thanks to Frank Wodley and COMOCAL for providing this list

Basta – Los Angeles Office
2500 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1111
Los Angeles, California 90057
Tel: 213-736-5050
Fax: 213-736-5055
www.bastaforjustice.org

Basta – Lancaster Office
2807 West Avenue L
Lancaster, California 93536
Tel: 661-718-0599
Fax: 661-718-0977
www.bastaforjustice.org

Stuart Parker
4929 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90010-3817
Phone: 323-931-2999
Fax: 323-937-5770
e-mail: smp@sturatmparker.com

Grover Howe, James Holmes
950 County Square Dr. Suite 107
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: (805)-642-2781
Fax: (805)-642-2647
grhowe@sbcglobal.net

David Pillemer
14724 Ventura Blvd #1009
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: 818-994-4321
Fax: 818-994-3484

Ken Carlson
330 W Arden Ave #110
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818)-956-5972
Fax: (818)-247-0329
e-mail: autotelc@pacbell.net

Richard Harting
3545 Long Beach Blvd #315
Long Beach, CA 90807
Phone: (562)-981-3707
Fax: (562)-981-0101
e-mail rich@hartinglaw.com

Wayne Abb
10999 Riverside Dr #305
North Hollywood, CA 91602
Phone: (818)-760-8035
Fax: (818)-760-3953

John Williamson
5775 E Los Angeles Ave Suite #228
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Phone: (805)-584-8000
Fax: (805)-584-0225

Victor Otten
407 N. Harbor Dr.
San Pedro, CA 90731-3356
Phone: (310)-548-0410
Fax: (310)-548-4813

Moises Bardavid
3600 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2619
Phone: (213)-252-0630
Fax: (213)-252-0631
e-mail: mbardavid@leebardavid.com

William A. Coleman(paralegal)
211 E. Ocean # 241
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (877)-636-4602

Mike Rapkin
1299 Ocean Ave Ste 900
Santa Monica, CA 90401-1058
Phone: (310)-656-7880
Fax: (310)-656-7883

Scott Pinsky
100 Oceangate #1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562)-628-5588
Fax: (562)-628-5589
e-mail spinsky@earthlink.net

Gregory Pyfrom
28030 Dorothy Dr Suite #301
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Phone: (818)-597-7700
Fax: (818)-597-9917

Roger Gordon (Environment Cases)
3580 Wilshire Blvd #1800
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213)-739-7000
Fax: (213)-386-1971

Sabrina Venskus (Environment Cases)
171 Pier Ave. #204
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5363
Phone: 213-482-4200
Fax: 213-482-4246
e-mail: venskus@lawsv.com

Michael Jansen
1301 College St.
Woodland, CA 95695
Phone: 530-668-7600
Fax: 530-668-7640

Ken Carlson
PO Box 2417
Idyllwild, CA 92549
951-659-6043
www.caltenantlaw.com

Scott E. Porter
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
444 South Flower Street
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-236-2600 phone
213-236-2700 fax
213-236-2719 direct
www.bwslaw.com
sporter@bwslaw.com

Fran Campbell
Law Office of Frances M. Campbell, a Professional Corp.
8050 Melrose Ave , 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA  90046
Representing only tenants or owners of mobile homes. We do not represent mobile home managers or owners of mobile home parks.
tel (323) 863-5290
fax (323) 944-0952
www.fmclaw.net
fcampbell@fmclaw.net

Terry Hancock
Directing Attorney for Senior Citizens Legal Services
501 Soquel Ave. Ste. F
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Phone: 426-8824 Fax: 426-3345
thancocksc@aol.com

William J Constantine Attorney At Law
303 Potrero Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060-2741
Phone: (831) 420-1238
WConst1238@aol.com

David Loop Attorney – Specializing in Helping Resident Purchase Their Mobilehome Park
Aptos, California
831-688-1293
deloop1@sbcglobal.net

Terry HancockDirecting Attorney for Senior Citizens Legal Services
501 Soquel Ave. Ste. F
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Phone: 426-8824 Fax: 426-3345
thancocksc@aol.com

Terry Hancock, a tireless defender of those citizens in need, has been instrumental in helping the Alimur Park Homeowners Association fight the conversion process in their park.

Senior Citizens Legal Services first opened its doors in 1972 and since then has continued to defend the rights of seniors in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.

Further Reading:

Santa Cruz Sentinel Op Ed Article 9-02-07
Santa Cruz Sentinel 11-06-07

Just the Facts: The Loftin Firm has experience in a broad spectrum of transactional and litigation matters in California, as well as other areas of the country. The Firm’s main practice areas are in General Real Estate, Real Estate Development, Common Interest Developments, Mobilehome Park creation, conversion and closures, as well as Business Transactions, Estate Planning, Probate and Trust.

The Loftin Firm has experience representing various clients, including but not limited to, individuals, corporations and governmental agencies, in a wide range of litigation matters, from simple landlord/tenant issues to large corporate and class action suits.

The Loftin Firm has over 25 years of experience in the legal field and is one of a handful of firms that has experience in Mobilehome Park development. Our Attorneys are licensed to practice at both the trial and appellate level.

Mobilehome Parks

Over eighty (80) California Mobilehome Parks have been converted by the Loftin Firm from Rental to Resident Owned, as single family condominium manufactured housing communities, planned unit development, non-profit mutual benefit corporation ownership, non-profit public benefit corporate ownership, limited equity cooperative and stock cooperative. Additionally, The Loftin Firm has acted as a consultant to local jurisdictions such as cities and counties in California and within the state of Colorado regarding mobilehome park transactions issues.

The Loftin Firm has also been involved in numerous retail acquisitions of mobilehome parks for investment and development of new or expansions of existing mobilehome parks.

Our Opinion: Sue Loftin is clearly on the side of the park owner-investors. Apparently, in earlier times she represented park residents who were able to purchase their parks and convert them for their benefit. And, of course, this historically reflected the entire concept of MH park conversions, which was embraced by local and state government, and which formed the original basis of the government codes and the financing assistance programs. Of course, the park owners discovered this as a highly profitable way for them to eliminate rent control and with the help of the Sue Loftins and Richard Closes have been successful in modifying the codes and obtaining favorable legal interpretations in the courts.

Her firm’s primary role in the El Dorodo conversion, and in many other parks, is to get the conversion application approved through the city and state mapping process on behalf of the park owners, including the HCD and DRE requirements, while simultaneously getting MPROP funding for low-income residents and other financing for non-low-income, such Cal Vet loans. (This type of financing is a lesser discussed aspect that in reality provides taxpayer funding to make owner-initiated conversions feasible and profitable.) Her legal firm often works along side Richard Close’s legal firm Gilchrist & Rutter.

It is important to realize that Sue Loftin has been very effective in befriending resident populations and gaining their trust to get a majority of residents to support a conversion. Her firm did this effectively at El Dorado.

Here’s how Sue Loftin has been working against the interests of moblihome park residents facing conversions.

Sue Loftin is against AB 566 (see bill analysis here)

These are the major groups against AB 566

  • Law Offices of Gilchrist & Rutter
  • The Loftin Firm, LLP
  • Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association

Sue Loftin is fighting for park owners to force unwanted conversions upon mobilehome park residents

  • Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma
    Sue Loftin files amicus brief in support of Sequoia Park Associates.
  • Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson
    Sue Loftin and Richard Close are the attorneys for Carson Harbor Village owners.

The case is clear. Sue Loftin supports owner initiated moblihome park conversions AND is against any reasonable restrictions that would protect the interests of mobilehome park residents from unwanted conversions.

Star Wars Analogy: Imperial spy. Beware of her Jedi mind tricks.

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

5-22-07
Planning Commission Denies Permit:
A resolution of the planning commission of The City of Carson denying tentative parcel Map no. 27014 for the residential conversion of Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park. View PDF

Further Reading:
Carson City Official Website

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

5-15-07
Ordinance No. 5725:
Ordinance Regulating the Conversion of Mobile Home Parks to Resident Ownership Ordinance amending Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) to establish procedures and requirements for the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership under the State Subdivision Map Act. View PDF
Updates:

10-17-07: Superior Court Dept 21 upholds Sonoma County Ordinance 5725. Court finds ordinance does not exceed Section 66427.5. View PDF

Further Reading:
Sonoma County Official Website
Fair Housing of Sonoma County Website

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

4-17-07
Energency Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance Public Hearing. View PDF

7-17-07
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance 305 enacted. View PDF

Further Reading:
East Palo Alto Official Website

Amount of Lawsuit: $24.8 million

Plaintiff Attorney: Richard Close

Filed: June 4th 2007

Sequoia Park Associates, owners of Sequoia Gardens Mobile Home Park, brings suit against Sonoma County for $24.8 million for imposing a moratorium on park conversion followed by a regulatory ordinance. The case will reach Superior Court Sept. 19. The county law requires park owners to secure the approval of 20 percent of their residents before filing an application to convert and then getting support from more than 50 percent once the application has been processed.
Read Sonoma County Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance 5725. View PDF
Read Sonoma Counties Rebuttal to Lawsuit. View PDF

Updates:

10-17-07: Superior Court Dept 21 upholds Sonoma County Ordinance 5725. Court finds ordinance does not exceed Section 66427.5. View PDF

Further Reading:
Sonoma County Official Website
Press Democrat Article 5-02-07
Sonama News Article 6-14-2007
Sonoma News Article 8-30-2007

Amount of Lawsuit: $23.1 million

Plaintiff Attorney: Richard Close

Filed: June 4th 2007

5-08-07
Santa Rosa enacts mobile home park conversion ordinance 3831 View PDF

7-27-07
Santa Rosa denies lawsuit View PDF

The owners of Country Mobile Home Park in Santa Rosa has sued the city of Santa Rosa, seeking $23.1 million in damages, because the city on May 8th enacted restrictions on condo-style conversions. The ordinance requires that park owners prove their parks meet building codes and that their roads, sewer, water and utility systems are in good condition prior to conversion.

Further Reading:
Press Democrat 06-23-2007

Amount of Lawsuit: $23.9million

Plaintiff Attorney: Richard Close

Filed: September 17th 2007

Lawsuit filed against city of Palm Springs for denying permit to convert Palm Springs View Estates. The lawsuit details the reasons the city did not have the jurisdiction and authority to deny the conversion application, and city council resolution 21941 should be vacated by the court, and the park owner should be entitled to extraordinary relief for loss of value and income. The amount of damage suggested in the complaint for declaratory relief and related issues, as stated: “is believed to be not less than $23,900,000.” View PDF

Updates:

December 13, 2007: The two lawsuits filed by the PSVE park owner will be rescheduled for a hearing in the early part of 2008.

December 14, 2007: The lawsuit filed by the owner of the El Dorado MHP in October 2003 claiming damages of $6 to $7 million from the City may finally be coming to an end. The court trial date set for December 10, 2007 was rescheduled for April 14, 2008. Based on the many previous delays, however, the date could be extended again.

Further Reading:
Palm Springs View Estates Homeowners Association Website

Next Page →