Says Reason for Increase Was Justified For Mobile Home Park

The Town was notified at the end of March that the Rent Control Board, consisting of Shawn O’Donnell, David Gavigan, Jr., Joseph Casna, Tom Calter and James Farrell, are being sued over their denial for rent increases at Town & Country Mobile Home Park. The filing seeks an appeal of a denial for an increase in the maximum allowable rent denied by the Board earlier in March. The action, brought forward by Attorney Rob Kraus on behalf of Town & Country Estates, Inc. and Duxton Realty Trust claims the rent for the 221 manufactured housing units has stayed at $350.00 per month since 2002. “Since that time, the cost of living…has increased by at least 24% since the last rent increase.”

Debates continued between Kraus and the Board as to paperwork that needed to be supplied by the applicant and had not. Kraus argued that the demand for certain was unreasonable and “terribly burdensome” given the claim that “the actual expense and income rolls and disbursement by check were provided to the board.” Kraus further argues that “at no time during any of the hearings did the Board request any substantial information regarding costs, operational expenses, operation of the park or any other matters associated with the primary goal of determining whether the requested rent increase was attributable to the operational expenses associated with the operation…”

The action claims that the Rent Control Board terminated the hearing at the request of an attorney representing the T & C residents. Kraus argued that the attorney was a non-entity who never sought intervention as a party yet the board “used the filing of a non-party as a foundation for terminating the proceedings.” Kraus claims that the actions of the Rent Control Board were arbitrary and capricious and outside the foundations of law. He asks the court to vacate the Board’s findings and allow the rent increase to go forward.
In another unusual aspect of the case, the action argues that the public hearing was never properly closed making it possible for additional paperwork to be introduced. It is interesting to note that the complaint actually seeks two different scenarios; one in which the applicant turns to the court for relief and another whereby the board continues with the hearing they consider still open.