Intervention & Conveying COS Denied

On Friday, April 14th, 2023, the intervention by homeowners to end the class action lawsuit was denied by Judge Freeman. His primary reason was to adopt “the findings and conclusions made by Judge Robert E. Olson.” In other words, Judge Freeman wished to respect Judge Olson’s decision in Nov. 2020 in certifying the class action and trust his reasons for doing so, were valid.  But IF the intervention had been allowed, the trial date would still have remained for the plaintiffs, as that was never an issue to decertify the class action.  The intervention was to release the homeowners from being mandated class members, allowing them the right to choose if they wanted to be included or not.

Judge Freeman also denied the plaintiffs’ motion that Mr. Chen must convey the Common Open Space to homeowners. The judge agreed this was a “Quiet Title” action which clarifies ownership of a property and is often used to protect attempts from outside parties to acquire property in question.  

If the latter sounds familiar, it’s because this has been the end-game of the lawsuit for years, repeated by plaintiffs’ lawyers, their Complaints, and HOAG (Homestead Owners Advisory Group) updates. A quick review:

David Andersson Letter, April 16, 2020:  “The ultimate objective of the legal action is to have the Declarant (owner) convey the Common Open Space to the management and control of the Parcel Owners subject to the Fees.”

Original Complaint, May 4, 2020: “The court should rule that (18) Paradise holds the Common Open Space in trust for the parcel owners, award Parcel Owners damages in an amount to be proven, and order (18) Paradise to relinquish and convey the trust property to the HOA in accordance with the CC&Rs.”

HOAG Update 8, May 22, 2020: “The primary objective is to have the common areas conveyed to an association.” 

HOAG Update 9, July 28, 2020: “The goal of litigation is to have Chen cede the COS to the Homestead homeowners, as is provided for in the Master Declaration.”

2nd Amended Complaint, May 2021: “In addition to awarding damages, the Court should exercise its equitable powers to compel 18 Paradise to transfer the Common Open Space to the Homestead Owners Association.”

5th Amended Complaint, Jan. 2023: “Maintaining private ownership of the COS” is listed as a “…separate and distinct violation of the Consumer Protection Act… Pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction for 18 Paradise to cease its private ownership of the COS.”
Translation: 18 Paradise cannot legally hold the title to the COS.

But with Judge Freeman’s ruling to deny the plaintiffs’ motion, this means 18 Paradise IS the legal owner of Homestead, including the Common Open Space, and cannot be compelled or forced to convey the COS to any entity. Which begs the question: since the “ultimate/primary” goal is no longer viable, what strategy remains? 

For Homestead, the 6th & 7th amendments remain, MJ Management remains,18 Paradise as current owner remains, Common Open Space remains, maintenance fees remain, storm ponds mitigating rainfall remain, the Scholtens’offer remains, and so does a class action lawsuit that removed our choice. If you chose not to be involved, your wish was ignored and you’ve been added to the list of represented class members. If you signed an opt-out letter, that was also disregarded due to it being invalid and you are currently represented by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and their class representatives (plaintiffs). 

In the end, each side lost critical, key points in their motions but the greatest loss for us was Homestead homeowners’ right to choose.