BRADENTON BEACH – Pines Park Investors LLC filed a motion for the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them in March by the Pines Trailer Park Homeowners Association (HOA).

The HOA lawsuit filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court claims park ownership failed to comply with state law which rendered the park closure as invalid. The suit also alleges park ownership failed to fulfill its obligations in good faith, did not maintain the park’s common areas following the 2024 hurricanes and did not provide adequate parking in accordance with the city of Bradenton Beach Land Development Code.
   

On Dec. 9, however, 83 of the 86 Pines Trailer Park homeowners were told by the city that they may repair their hurricane-damaged mobile homes, with the proper permits. On Jan. 4, however, the homeowners received notification from the park’s ownership group, Pines Park Investors LLC, that the park was being closed in July.

In December, the parking lot at 205 1st Street N. (which had been used for an annual fee by park residents who did not have available parking) was converted into a paid public parking lot. On April 22, residents who were up to date on their lot rental payments were notified they could park free of charge in the lot “until further notice.”

In a Jan. 27 letter to the Pines Trailer Park HOA, park ownership offered to sell the mobile home park to the residents for $75 million. Managed by local developer Shawn Kaleta, Pines Park Investors LLC purchased the 2.78-acre waterfront mobile home property on Aug. 5, 2023, from The Jackson Partnership LLLP for $16.25 million.
Owners’ response

In the 25-page motion to dismiss, Davie, Fl.-based Attorney Shawn Arbeiter laid out the ownership group’s reasons for the dismissal request. The motion maintains the evictions and the park closure were done in accordance with Florida Statute 723 (also known as the Florida Mobile Home Act), which governs mobile home parks.

“Plaintiff seeks to derail the lawful transition of the park – as a result of terrible circumstances – with invalid legal claims,” the motion states. “Pines Park Investors LLC provided adequate notice to residents and the HOA in the event of a planned eviction due to a change in land use.”

The motion to dismiss also claims the HOA does not have the authority as a properly-formed HOA to represent all the Pines homeowners.

“Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims because plaintiff has failed to properly plead that they are a valid homeowners’ association and thus are not permitted to represent all of the Pines homeowners,” the motion states. “This error is not merely a technical oversight, it strikes at the heart of their standing to bring this case. By failing to properly plead that they have satisfied these statutory requirements, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action in that regard as to counts and therefore all counts should be dismissed for lack of standing.”

The motion states the “Right to Purchase” notice made to the homeowners to purchase the mobile home park for $75 million complies with the state statue.

“The statute does not say at the market price or at the fair market price. The statute simply says at the price,” the motion states. “The defendant delivered a legally sufficient notice to the plaintiff as to their right to purchase the mobile home park at the price and under the terms and conditions in the written notice.

“Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from closing the park and from evicting mobile homeowners, but the plaintiff fails to cite to any underlying claim or statute that specifically authorizes such relief,” the motion states.

The motion concludes, in part, with the following claim: “There can be no irreparable harm if very few persons are residing in Pines Trailer Park because of the damage the park has sustained; and if there are persons residing in the park, those residents are likely there without properly pulling permits from the city, which the city has required in order to reside in one of the mobile homes considered substantially damaged.”

The defendant also asked for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in defending the lawsuit.