[nagdu] Update on CA Guide Gog User being harassed by HOA,

[Karl W Mundstock]

Good day all

Sorry to bother everyone with this, and I never speak up on this list –
mostly because you all know so much more than I at this point – but I need
to get the word out about this situation.

 

Guide Dogs of America is picking Tucker up tomorrow to board him due to the
stresses of the intimidation, harassment and discrimination going on at what
supposed to be my “safe place”

I want to make clear, GDA is picking up tucker to be boarded BY AGREEMENT
AND CONSULTATION with me. We all feel this situation is potentially
dangerous for Tucker and his well being comes first.

 

I have contacted NFB officials outside California as I am getting no
response from my own state officers. I am prepsred to move forward with
legal action but I need advice and possibly help. I just want to get this
story out there in the hopes some one, somewhere can lend a hand.

All the best,

Karl and Tucker

 

My story follows:

 

Good Day,

My name is Karl Mundstock; I am a recent returnee to my childhood home in
the Yucca Valley area. 

 

In late December 2013/early January 2014 I was approved for application to
live in the Apache Mobile Home Park, located at 56254 Twentynine Palms
Highway, Yucca Valley, CA, a 55+ resident-owned mobile home park in order to
buy a home, my first. Special circumstances applied that would qualify me
for residency despite not meeting the age requirement; specifically that I
am visual and hearing impaired and I use a guide dog for mobility.

 

The condition of the lot/space on which my home sits was represented to me
by both the park and the seller prior to sale as requiring minor repair,
which I did not worry about at the time. After my application was approved I
moved forward quickly with the sale. Before you ask; YES, I had what I
thought were reliable "eyes on the ground" to assist me in my due diligence
process and to advise me of the overall condition of both house and lot
prior to sale. These park sources also misrepresented the condition of the
lot to me. The seller of the house was more concerned about due diligence on
the house, its attachments and related structures and mentioned the same
need for repairs to “the driveway” when asked.

 

Not knowing what would become the shocking facts beforehand despite my
inquiries and requests for detailed descriptions, I went ahead with the
purchase and moved into my new home on 30 January 2014 only to discover the
lot/space is bare dirt, unimproved, hazardous for mobility, degraded and
neglected by the park due to alleged legal action with previous home owner;
said legal action having concluded seven years prior (!) in October 2007. I
have researched this online through public records open access on the San
Bernardino County Court site and indeed there was a court case. However no
current action is pending regarding this case, and hasn’t been since 2007. I
don't understand, therefore, why the park has delayed work on this lot,
especially after the sale of the home.

 

Recent rainstorms have further degraded the lot on which my home sits,
causing my home to sink, lose stability and become unleveled after I had
paid to have it straightened and leveled in February 2014. My lot is clearly
in a substandard condition. I have taken date stamped pictures and video of
the February/March rainstorms as the further damaged the lot/space.

 

I cannot make the improvements and repairs I require to safely navigate my
home and surrounding lot until the park makes repairs to their property;
repairs for which they are legally responsible. The board president and
other board members made verbal promises to me regarding when and how my
space would be restored to a livable condition, promises which I could not
get in writing because they refused and kept changing what they promised to
fix. Park management has also refused repeated requests for me to meet with
their governing board privately regarding the condition of the lot, the
promised remediation, accommodations required and the timetable for same.
The one public board meeting I attended and attempted to voice my deep
concerns I was shouted down. The mob rules here, apparently.

 

I did not and could not have altered the property to such a decrepit state
in such a short time. The condition of the space was represented to me by
the park as "driveway in need of repair" and "possible tree removal
required". Minor repairs about which, again I had no worries. Promises of
detailed rehabilitation of the lot have been verbal and subject to change,
on one notable occasion multiple times within one 24-hour period.

 

I have been told by park management that the condition of the lot is an
issue "between buyer and seller". It is true that the condition of the home,
its attachments and associated structures are indeed my responsibility. But
I'm not talking about the home, its attachments and associated structures. I
am talking about the land on which they sit, which is park property, which
is their responsibility.

 

I have contacted Housing and Community Development’s Mobile Home Ombudsman
office and they are sending me paperwork to initiate a complaint. This
complaint was filed on March 13th, 2014 via US Mail; I have not heard
anything from HCD since. I have contacted the Riverside HCD Inspector’s
office and I arranged an inspection of the lot. This inspection did not meet
their criteria for immediate action; I am not currently in danger of death
or severe injury as a result of the condition of this lot. I have available
for review a number of still photos and much video dating from my arrival up
to the past February 27-March 3 storms, illustrating the damage occurring on
the lot as it happened. I am hoping the park will see reason but they are
moving much too slowly. The board withheld work on the lot until the title
was officially transferred, and then made excuses for further delay. To my
knowledge this is not how the process normally occurs when a lot must be
prepared for a new owner, whether the home is an in place purchase or
whether bringing in a new unit. They allowed me to spend 675 dollars on a
releveling job when they knew the lot underneath my home was not properly
configured and had deteriorated over the seven year occupancy of the
previous owner. 

 

My issue also with the home seller as far as the home is concerned due to
his misrepresentation and failure to disclose the true nature of the issues
with the lot, home and park management. There are a number of very severe
issues withthe home that, had they been known would again have influenced my
decision to buy. I ask the seller be separately held liable for failure to
disclose. I will have ample evidence of this non disclosure, including an
inspection report I describe later in this letter. 

 

As a new homeowner my main issue, however is with the park, the horrible
condition of the lot and their unwillingness to fix it in a manner that my
guide dog and I can use it. The park has more than enough money; in fact
they have consistently run in the black for the past year/years, have
hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings and are collecting 10 dollars
from every tenant every month in order to help pay for sewer improvements
that have yet to occur.

 

I have resisted running to a lawyer as I wished to exhaust all other means
of resolution first; regrettably however, it really is time to consider
legal action. The governing board of this park have no legal grounds to
force me to pay the same rent as other residents for what is clearly a
substandard, unsafe, and unequal lot. I have not even begun to research the
potential ADA/California Civil Code violations related to disability
discrimination; my concerns have focused mainly on state HCD and MRL
violations.  I am one person, on a fixed income and every penny I saved is
sunk into this trap into which I have apparently fallen. I had a savings
plan that would have gotten me pack to good as soon as the home was paid off
next year, but now due to insurance claims, repair costs and the loss of
income due to interference by park management, especially the board
president, in my attempts to bring qualified contractors out to assess the
damage can only be described as nothing short of banana republic
intimidation tactics.

 

Time is critical. 

 

As of March 3, 2014 my house has begun to sink and shift into the lot.
Damage to my home has occurred as a result. The park has ignored my repeated
requests to address this issue as is their obligation under California
Mobile Home Law, Civil Code 798.83, which states in its entirety:

 

        In the case of a sale or transfer of a mobile home that will

remain in the park, the management of the park shall not require

repairs or improvements to the park space or property owned by the

management, except for damage caused by the actions or negligence of

the homeowner or an agent of the homeowner.

 

The park is attempting to force me, a new homeowner, to take responsibility
for their ill-maintained lot and their issues with the previous owner;  said
action obviously a contradiction of the above civil code.  I submit that
ignoring my repeated requests for maintenance and otherwise not providing
said maintenance up to and including my requested and agreed upon reasonable
accommodation is the same as telling me I have to pay for my own repairs.
The park’s failure to act, in effect requires me to pay for the damage to
the lot myself.

 

 

This situation is out of control and I will soon be rendered homeless by the
park’s negligence.  

 

I can provide a tour of the property, supporting documentation including
still photographs of the damage to my home and video of the recent rains
washing away the lot from under my home as it happened. I appreciate your
kind and prompt attention to this matter.

 

Sincerely,

Karl W Mundstock

56254 Twentynine Palms Highway

Space #19

Yucca Valley, CA

(510) 717-7763 mobile

karl.w.mundstock at roadrunner.com

 

 

Addendum, 1 April 2014:

Every contractor I have hired to observe and report on the condition of the
park’s property has been contacted by current park management who have
consistently and repeatedly interfered with the process of obtaining
information. The board on March 14th agreed to have a local mobile home
contractor, Merriman’s of Yucaipa, CA, to inspect both home and lot in order
to produce two quotes: one for the cost of fixing the storm damage to my
home and to repair their lot and a second quote to estimate the cost of
moving the unit to a properly configured available double wide space within
the park. The board was supposed to initiate this request. They did not
accept responsibility for doing so; I did.

 

The result of that meeting was that Merriman’s owner himself came out,
talked about the house damage, and stated for the record that the original
single wide lot on which this home sat was sound. This he said while
standing on a part of the lot that had been eroded by the storms to the
point where holes were present between the lot and the edging of the
drainage culvert. He also asserted the “soundness” of the original lot
despite the facts that the entire lot had been reconfigured to fit a double
wide unit, including requiring the utility boxes to be moved, the original
asphalt driveway to be ripped out and trees being cleared (stumps were not
removed, leaving a vector for future termite infestation). Mr Merriman was
shown clear evidence to that effect. He continued to insist there was no
erosion damage, despite the numerous videos and photos I possess of the
storms creating the damage in real time.

 

On March 27, unbeknownst to park management, I contracted an independent,
ASHI-Certified inspector to observe and report on the condition of the home
and what might have caused the buckling and rippling of my walls. This
observation was requested on top of my request to outline the state of the
home in order to establish what the seller did not disclose to me as
required by law; a separate issue on which I will act as soon as possible.
The inspector’s report confirmed evidence of erosion under the home,
confirming that the most likely cause of the damage to the home as a direct
result of the storms was likely to have been caused by erosion of park
property; to wit, the lot.

 

Other problems with the home, undisclosed to me by the seller and detailed
in the independent inspector's report, again are separate but I believe
actionable issues that should be incorporated into any legal action.

 

The problems I face here are considerable. I have contacted the Guide dog
school from which I received my guide and discussed this situation. While we
agreed that life happens and stress is an everyday part of life, the stress
currently and increasingly inflicted upon me by current park management,
including; harassment, bullying, public humiliation, libel and continued
neglect of park property have made my home unstable, unsecure and unsafe for
my guide. On Wednesday or Thursday of this week - April 2nd or 3rd - the
guide dog school will arrange to pick up my guide dog and take him to be
boarded until this unprecedented situation is resolved. If/when this occurs
I will have no other recourse but to file a lawsuit against the park. This
will endanger many innocent folks whose rents and income will be adversely
impacted by any legal action, as the cost of such action will inevitably be
passed on to these residents.

 

Again, I am confident and have been assured that California law supprts my
claims and protects me from the actions of this park's managing board. This
park’s management, by contrast only has wild accusations, the wildest of
which is that I “own a shotgun and threatened to use it” on board
management. This slanderous assertion is absurd and not true.

 

I have attempted to send pictures and video of the damage from the storms of
late February and early March to persons interested in looking at my case
but the files are simply too large. I sent copies on SD card to my insurance
company, with whom I filed a claim as any homeowner would. My claim was
denied; the insurance company specifically cited the condition of the lot –
park property – as the likely cause of the damage and, as such, was not
covered under policy.

 

I have consulted with attorneys working with the Golden State Manufactured
Homeowners League ( http://gsmol.org/ ); Bruce Stanton from San Jose, CA and
David Loop from Aptos, CA. Both have assured me that, despite my naïveté in
allowing park board members to talk me into a purchase without inspection,
California law protects me against both park's and seller's
misrepresentations. I have their correspondence available, but the net
result of our conversations is that the applicable law in this case: CA
Civil Codes 798 and 799, being Mobile home residency Law, and laws governing
condominiums and common interest developments, will guide this case and
ultimately form the basis for a successful lawsuit(s). In the case of the
seller, his failure to disclose required transfer documentation falls under
civil code 1102.3a.  California Tenant/Landlord law may also be applied. If
my service animal has to be removed from my home for its safety you may
potentially add ADA and CA Civil Codes 54, 54.1, etc. governing access and
equal treatment of blind persons using guide dogs.

 

Park management has consulted multiple attorneys; Richard Ghan in Yucca
Valley and Michael Mihalek in Riverside, and both have advised the park to
settle. I also have consulted multiple attorneys specializing in homeowner
advocacy and mobile home law as mentioned previously and have been advised I
have cases against both seller and park based on the merits. 

 

The park continues their childish games; they proffered an offer to me that
would have had the park buy me out, transfer me to another home for sale
within the park, and sign a hold harmless agreement regarding Space #19. I
was prepared to accept this; however the board, meeting today, 1 April 2014,
could not even decide to make a decision. They want the residents to decide
this very serious matter for them. Truly, this governing board cannot act in
the interests of their shareholders. 

 

I have previously attempted to contact the seller to work with him towards a
resolution regarding his non disclosure liabilities. I emailed, called and
wrote to him by certified mail. He has refused the letter and is otherwise
uncommunicative. 

 

The park has let this problem fester for seven years with this home’s
previous owner; it now wants to pass the problem on to me.  By both seller
and park management, information was withheld from me that would have
influenced my decision to buy this home, despite my not having gotten a
formal inspection prior to purchase. I am assured I am protected by
California law, even in this case.

 

I believe now that legal action is my only remaining avenue to bring this
park’s mismanagement to light, not only for myself but for the many innocent
folks who will surely be negatively affected by this management’s actions
and the resultant legal action brought as a consequence. I am ready to move
on this right now, as the board clearly has demonstrated its utter inability
to make sound, or any other, business decisions.                 

 

KWM