A Sun survey found that half the mutuals that make up Leisure World believe they are governed by the state’s homeowners association law known as Davis-Stirling or have been declared by a court to be under Davis-Stirling.
Two Seal Beach Leisure World mutuals, two and four, came under the state law that regulates homeowners associations following lawsuits.
As the Sun reported last week, a settlement in a lawsuit against Mutual Two resulted in that non-profit corporation agreeing that it was under the jurisdiction of the Davis-Stirling Act. In July, a court ruled that Mutual Four was also under the act.
Eight of Leisure World’s 16 mutual benefit corporations consider themselves under Stirling-Davis. Two of those mutuals came under the jurisdiction of the homeowners association law as the result of lawsuits.
The positions taken by the various mutuals apparently represent the majority of the members of each mutual’s board of directors.
The majority of board members of five other mutuals apparently do not believe Davis-Stirling applies to their non-profit corporations. The positions of three Leisure World mutuals are not known because the Sun was unable to reach a representative who was willing to comment.
The Sun phoned first the presidents, then the vice presidents and, in some cases the secretaries of all 16 Leisure World mutuals.
The Sun obtained the phone numbers for the officers of the 16 mutuals from Concerned Shareholders, an organization that advocates on behalf of Leisure World residents. The following is a break down of the straw poll. Note: There is no Mutual 13 in Leisure World.
Mutual One—“We’re waiting for the stipulation,” said Dorothy Anderson, president of Mutual One. She said they had not had the success Mutual 2 had in coming under Davis-Stirling.
Mutual Two—Orange County Judge Kirk Nakamura approved the settlement declaring Mutual Two to be under Davis-Stirling last month.
Mutual Three—Vice President and Mutual Secretary Joyce Rutledge referred the question to President Linda Stone. President Stone contacted the Sun after the deadline for the print edition of the Sun had passed. “We have not declared,” she said.
Mutual Four—Vice President Joy Reed said that last year the board passed a resolution saying the Mutual Four board stands for Davis-Stirling.
Mutual Five—An Orange County Superior Court ruled that Mutual Five was an association as defined by Davis-Stirling in July.
Mutual Six—“Mutual Six is not covered by Davis-Stirling,” said Addison Arnold, current president of Mutual Six and former president of the Golden Rain Foundation.
“I’m sure that we’re going to have to get under t sooner or later,” he said.
However, the issue is not currently on Mutual Six’s agenda.
“We’re concerned with other things as a mutual,” Addison said.
Mutual Seven—“We are a not-for-profit corporation and we follow the rules of the act,” said Mutual President Kathleen Rapp.
Mutual Eight—“That’s a legal question I’m not prepared to answer,” said Vice President Ruth Berg.
Mutual Nine—Vice President Tony Dodero said the board had not decided yet.
Mutual 10—“No,” said Mutual Secretary Janie Freitag. She referred the Sun to President Esther Cummings. The Sun was unable to reach Cummings until after the deadline for the print edition had passed.
Cummings said: “We follow Davis-Stirling rules, yes.”
Mutual 11—“Yes, we are,” said Vice President Dominick De Ceglie.
De Ceglie said Mutual 11 had been under the homeowners association law for “quite a while.”
Mutual 12—President Lucille Findlay said her association was covered by the law. “We have not had the court case that some say is necessary to be under the Davis-Stirling Act,” Findlay said.
However, she said it was the board’s position that Mutual 11 is covered by the law. Findlay said that in her opinion all Leisure World mutuals are covered by the law.
Mutual 14—“That’s not for me to say one way or the other,” said Vice President Barry Lukoff.
The Sun left messages with President Kurt Bourhenne and Secretary Carol Johnstone.
Mutual 15—“No, Mutual 15 does not say that they are under Davis-Stirling,” said Vice President Grace Obenauer.
She said the board members believe that residents would not be better served by Davis-Stirling.
Mutual 16—“No, we’re still under corporate law,” said Al Grenrock, president of Mutual 16.
He said Mutual 16 has been that way for 50 years.
“We’re just satisfied where we are,” he said.
Mutual 17—“Yes, it is,” said Vice President Perry Moore.
“We are under it (Davis-Stirling), have always been under it and have always known we were under it,” Moore said.
“I’m surprised that argument is still going on,” Moore said.
