Parties involved in a residential dispute in Vallecito were given 60 days to determine whether units at the property are considered mobile homes under definition of the law.
CC5 Vallecito LLC and Advanced Outdoor Solutions are defendants in a lawsuit filed on behalf of 19 residents of the park, located at 13030 County Road 501, who claim CC5 illegally acquired ownership of the park, wrongfully terminated residents’ leases and attempted to force out residents.
On Wednesday, plaintiffs argued CC5 and AOS are attempting to stall the case by requesting a stay until a similar case in Denver District Court is completed, and that the defendants failed to present documents that could reveal intentions in acquiring the park and not performing maintenance and repairs in a timely manner.
The defendants argued the Denver case, which involves the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, will produce a state decision, and it is best to let that case resolve before continuing forward with the case involving CC5 and AOS. Kim Perdue, a partner at Southwest Water and Property Law LLC and the attorney representing the 19 residents, said the Denver court has no jurisdiction over proceedings in La Plata County.
District Judge Suzanne Carlson said the Denver case could end up being appealed and possibly make its way to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Perdue and the defending attorneys agreed the crux of the case is whether Vallecito Resort is actually a mobile home park as defined by Colorado’s Mobile Home Park Act.
Perdue said at least five mobile home units must be permanently installed on a premises for the definition of a mobile home park to apply under the Mobile Home Park Act, and in the case of Vallecito Resort, more than five units – including all of the 19 plaintiffs’ homes – are permanent mobile homes.
Carlson said CC5 and AOS have 60 days to determine through an expert if the plaintiffs’ homes are mobile homes or not. She said she agrees with Perdue in that expert testimony does not need to stall any longer than that, noting that once fall hits and snow returns, the process “just becomes endless.”
Vallecito Resort closes for the winter – a point defendants stressed supports the argument it is a summer campground. But Perdue argued the plaintiffs’ units in the park are permanent installations, which supports the argument they fit the Mobile Home Park Act’s definition of mobile homes.
Attorneys for CC5 and AOS argued the park was presented as a campground or a seasonal RV park to CC5 when it was purchased; it was never disclosed as a mobile home park to the new owner and that certain financial documents requested in discovery are irrelevant and contain proprietary business information.
Carlson granted the defendants a stay on discovery but said documents about maintenance and repairs need to be turned over and should have been some time ago. She will let Perdue and defendants work together to determine what specific information should be turned over; the court can address any unresolved issues afterward. Perdue requested the court put a deadline on that action, and Carlson set one for May 19.
The judge approved the plaintiffs’ request to file a motion for an affidavit of attorney fees after Perdue argued the delay in receiving relevant documents from CC5 and AOS is costing her clients money, and the defendants should be responsible for those costs. The defendants will have 21 days to file an objection.
“I want to hear about any remaining entries on discovery by next Friday as well as the attorney fee affidavit from Ms. Perdue,” the judge said.
Sheri Sperline, a resident of Vallecito Resort and plaintiff against CC5 and AOS, attended the hearing on Wednesday. In an interview with The Durango Herald, she said CC5 and AOS are trying to kick people out of the park.
“They do everything they can so we can’t sell our places,” she said. “They’re trying to force us to move on. Raised our rent against orders from the state saying they couldn’t.”
She said she purchased a home at the park to be closer to her dad, who lives in the park, after her mom died in 2022.
“It’s gotten to where we don’t even want to be back in the park because of the harassment,” she said. “My dad couldn’t use his front door because he had a branch hanging over the door for a year, which they finally removed (a couple days ago). It took a year.”
The lawsuit is “financially killing us,” she said. She would be content if Vallecito Resort adhered to the Mobile Home Park Act.
“We were happy with the way it was,” she added.
Perdue said the Mobile Home Park Act is intended to secure affordable housing, but it’s also meant to protect residents’ investments in their mobile homes, which lose their value if a lease or license can be terminated without notice.
“Another point I think is important is that each and every one of the plaintiffs’ homes has a title as a manufactured home. Which is one of the categories under which a home is defined as a mobile home,” she said.
cburney@durangoherald.com
