Filing # 222433711 E-Filed 05/05/2025 03:19:29 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL

CASE NO. 2024-024248-CA-01

CLASS REPRESENTATION
L'IL ABNER MOBILE PARK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
a Florida nonprofit corporation, and

OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES AT

LI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE

INVESTMENTS, GP, a Florida general partnership,
d/b/a LI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK,

CITY OF SWEETWATER, a Florida

municipal corporation, and

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a subdivision of Florida,

Defendant(s).
______/

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND OBJECTION TO CHANGE OF USE UNDER FLA. STAT. §723.061

Plaintiffs, L'IL ABNER MOBILE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., on behalf of

itself and on behalf of the owners of mobile homes at Li’l Abner Mobile Home Park, and the

owners set forth in a separately filed exhibit of owners, individually on behalf of themselves

and others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), hereby sue Defendants, CONSOLIDATED REAL

ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP (“CREI Defendant”), THE CITY OF SWEETWATER, and

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, and allege as follows:

1
 INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises as a result of the illegal and unconscionable acts to illegally evict

approximately 5000 other residents of the Li'l Abner Mobile Home Park (“Li'l Abner”).

2. Li’l Abner consists of 900 homes located in the City of Sweetwater.

3. The 5000 residents of Li’l Abner constitute close to 30% of the population of

Sweetwater.

4. The residents of Li’l Abner have paid anywhere between $20,000.00 to $200,000.00 for

the purchase of their respective mobile homes.

5. The duties owed to owners of mobile homes renting land in mobile home parks are

meticulously set forth under Florida law because mobile homeowners can easily be

taken advantage of by owners of mobile home parks in which their homes are situated.

2
 This is because of the unequal bargaining power in the relationship where, despite its

name, the homes are not mobile so the homeowners cannot just pick up and go if they

are dissatisfied with the park owner and operator’s maintenance and management of

the property.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

6. Plaintiff, L'IL ABNER MOBILE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., is a Florida

nonprofit corporation.

7. The remaining individual Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Miami-Dade County,

Florida.

8. Defendant, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, is a Florida general

partnership, d/b/a LI’L ABNER MOBILE HOME PARK.

9. Defendant, THE CITY OF SWEETWATER (“City”), is a Florida municipal corporation.

10. Defendant, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, is a subdivision of the state government of Florida.

11. This is an action for damages and related equitable relief that is in excess of F i f t y

Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and expense and

therefore lies within the jurisdiction of this Court.

12. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, as requested, pursuant to

Sections 86.011, Florida Statutes, and injunctive relief, as requested, pursuant to

Section 26.012(3), Florida Statutes.

13. The acts and omissions underlying this Complaint all took place in Miami-Dade County

involving Defendants who conduct business in this County.

3
 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Li’l Abner has provided long-term leases to 900 mobile homes for decades.

15. Plaintiffs own their mobile homes and have entered into leases to have their homes at

Li’l Abner.

16. Defendant, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, repeatedly misled

residents that there were no plans for development, all while they were submitting

applications for platting and zoning changes to begin development of the land, including

in face to face conversations and in writing to the Plaintiffs: 1

17. The CREI Defendant knew or should have known the statements made were false.

18. As a direct and proximate result of the false statements and concealments of material

1The screenshot is from correspondence to Adys Inda dated August 29, 2024 for Lot 51-125 with address 11125
NW 5 Terrace, Sweetwater, Florida 33172.
4
 fact by the CREI Defendant, Plaintiffs justifiably relied on those false statements,

remained in Li’l Abner and continued paying rent they otherwise would not have paid,

as well as being forced out of their homes during one of the worst rental markets in US

history.

19. On November 12, 2024, the CREI Defendant, caused to be delivered to all residents of

Li’l Abner the “Eviction Notice” attached as Exhibit A (the “Eviction Notice”), in an

attempt to evict the mobile home owners in violation of Florida law.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FLA. STAT. § 723.061

20. Fla. Stat. § 723.061 provides a specific methodology for the eviction of mobile home

owners from a mobile home park when the owner of the park proposes a change of

use:

(1) A mobile home park owner may evict a mobile home owner, a mobile
home tenant, a mobile home occupant, or a mobile home only on one
or more of the following grounds:

.....

(d) Change in use of the land comprising the mobile home park, or the
portion thereof from which mobile homes are to be evicted, from mobile
home lot rentals to some other use, if:
1. The park owner gives written notice to the homeowners’
association formed and operating under ss. 723.075-723.079 of its right
to purchase the mobile home park, if the land comprising the mobile
home park is changing use from mobile home lot rentals to a different
use, at the price and under the terms and conditions set forth in the
written notice.
a. The notice shall be delivered to the officers of the homeowners’
association by United States mail. Within 45 days after the date of
mailing of the notice, the homeowners’ association may execute and
deliver a contract to the park owner to purchase the mobile home park
at the price and under the terms and conditions set forth in the notice. If
the contract between the park owner and the homeowners’ association
is not executed and delivered to the park owner within the 45-day

5
 period, the park owner is under no further obligation to the homeowners’
association except as provided in sub-subparagraph b.
b. If the park owner elects to offer or sell the mobile home park at a
price lower than the price specified in her or his initial notice to the
officers of the homeowners’ association, the homeowners’ association
has an additional 10 days to meet the revised price, terms, and
conditions of the park owner by executing and delivering a revised
contract to the park owner.
c. The park owner is not obligated under this subparagraph or
s. 723.071 to give any other notice to, or to further negotiate with, the
homeowners’ association for the sale of the mobile home park to the
homeowners’ association after 6 months after the date of the mailing of
the initial notice under sub-subparagraph a.
2. The park owner gives the affected mobile home owners and
tenants at least 6 months’ notice of the eviction due to the projected
change in use and of their need to secure other accommodations.
Within 20 days after giving an eviction notice to a mobile home owner,
the park owner must provide the division with a copy of the notice. The
division must provide the executive director of the Florida Mobile Home
Relocation Corporation with a copy of the notice.
a. The notice of eviction due to a change in use of the land must
include in a font no smaller than the body of the notice the following
statement:

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE FLORIDA

MOBILE HOME RELOCATION TRUST FUND, ADMINISTERED BY
THE FLORIDA MOBILE HOME RELOCATION CORPORATION
(FMHRC). FMHRC CONTACT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FROM
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION.

b. The park owner may not give a notice of increase in lot rental
amount within 90 days before giving notice of a change in use.

21. Defendant, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, has violated Fla.

Stat. § 723.061(d) by failing to give the written notice to the Plaintiff homeowners’

association, Li’l Abner Mobile Park Homeowner's Association Inc. formed and operating

under ss. 723.075-723.079, namely, of its right to purchase the mobile home park.

6
22. Defendant, CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP, has also violated

Fla. Stat. § 723.061(d) by giving notice of raising the lot rental amount within 90 days

before giving notice of a change in use. Attached as Exhibit B are two representative

leases entered into on August 29 and 30 of 2024, and these owners were provided

notice of the increase in rental amount on those dates, which are within 90 days of the

notice of change in use.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FLA. STAT. § 723.083

23. Fla. Stat. § 723.083 Governmental action affecting removal of mobile home owners—

provides:

No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve

any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would
result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a
mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home
parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home
owners.

24. Defendant Miami-Dade County has taken official action approving the change of use

which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in Li’l

Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable

facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. §

723.083. Documentation of the official action is attached as Exhibit C.

25. Defendant City of Sweetwater has taken official action approving the change of use

which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in Li’l

Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable

facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. §

723.083. Documentation of the official action is attached as Exhibit C.

7
 CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

26. Pursuant to Rule 1.220, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual Plaintiffs bring

this claim as a class action because: (1) the members of the class are so numerous that

separate joinder of each member is impracticable – the number of homeowners being

wrongfully evicted by the Defendants exceeds 900, and it would be impracticable to

bring individual claims on behalf of more than 900 homeowners; (2) the claim or defense

of the representative party raises questions of law or fact common to the questions of

law or fact raised by the claim or defense of each member of the class – as set forth

more fully above, the Eviction Notice, which was sent to all homeowners, violates county

and state law equally for each member of the class, and each member is similarly

affected by the Defendants’ wrongful actions; (3) the claim or defense of the

representative party is typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class – Ms.

Hernandez’s claims with respect to the Eviction Notice and the actions threatened affect

each of the class members in an equal way; and (4) the representative plaintiffs can

fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class –

they have all been long-term tenant of Li’l Abner and her claims are typical of the each

member of the class, who, likewise, are mobile home owners subject to the Defendants’

wrongful actions.

27. The class is defined as all homeowners of Li’l Abner who have been targeted by the

Defendants wrongfully for eviction and who received the Eviction Notice.

28. Attempts to obtain voluntary compliance by the Defendants have failed. As such,

mediation would be futile. In the alternative, based on the exigency, if the Defendants

agree, this Complaint shall serve as a demand for mediation.

29. All conditions precedent to maintaining this action have been satisfied by Plaintiffs or
8
 otherwise have been waived by Defendants.

COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO FLA. STAT. § 723.061
(the CREI Defendant)

30. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 29.

31. This is a claim for declaratory relief brought pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida Statutes.

32. On November 12, 2024, the CREI Defendants sent the Eviction Notice to Plaintiffs.

33. Plaintiffs are in doubt about their rights and/or status with respect to whether the Eviction

Notice and the actions it threatens are violative of Fla. Stat. 723.061.

34. As a result, pursuant to Section 86.021, Florida Statutes, the Court has the authority to

determine the rights, status or other equitable and legal relations between Plaintiff and

the Defendants with respect to the Eviction Letter.

35. The Court should review the Eviction Notice and determine that the Eviction Notice

threatens to violate Fla. Stat. § 723.061, Florida Statutes.

36. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are in an actual, practical and present need for

judicial declarations.

37. The declarations in question deal with a present ascertained or ascertainable state of

facts or present controversy as to a state of facts.

38. The privileges or rights of Plaintiffs and the proposed class are dependent upon the facts

or the law applicable to the facts.

39. Plaintiffs have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject

matter, either in fact or law. All antagonistic and adverse interests are before the Court

by proper process, or can be added by class treatment, and the relief cited is not the

giving of legal advice by the Court or the answers to questions propounded from

curiosity.
9
40. Plaintiff requests, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.111, Florida Statutes, that the Court

advance this matter on the calendar.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an order determining that the Eviction

Notice and the actions it threatens violate Fla. Stat. § 723.061; awarding costs and

attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and providing such other and further relief the Court deems

proper.

COUNT II
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO FLA. STAT. § 723.083
(THE CITY OF SWEETWATER and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY)

41. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 29.

42. This is a claim for declaratory relief brought pursuant to Section 86.011, Florida

Statutes.

43. Defendant, Miami-Dade County, has taken official action approving the change of use

which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in Li’l

Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable

facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. §

723.083.

44. Defendant, City of Sweetwater, has taken official action approving the change of use

which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in the

Li’l Abner without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable

facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. §

723.083.

45. Plaintiffs are in doubt about her rights and/or status with respect to whether Defendants’

official actions are violative of Fla. Stat. § 723.083, which requires that prohibits such

action without Defendants “first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other
10
 suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners.”

46. As a result, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.021, the Court has the authority to determine the

rights, status or other equitable and legal relations between Plaintiffs and Defendants

with respect to their actions regarding the evictions.

47. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are in an actual, practical and present need for

judicial declarations.

48. The declarations in question deal with a present ascertained or ascertainable state of

facts or present controversy as to a state of facts.

49. The privileges or rights of Plaintiffs and the proposed class are dependent upon the facts

or the law applicable to the facts.

50. Plaintiffs have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject

matter, either in fact or law. All antagonistic and adverse interests are before the Court

by proper process, or can be added by class treatment, and the relief cited is not the

giving of legal advice by the Court or the answers to questions propounded from

curiosity.

51. Plaintiffs request, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.111, Florida Statutes, that the Court

advance this matter on the calendar.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an order determining that the

Defendants have taken official action which violates Fla. Stat. § 723.083; awarding costs

and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff, and providing such other and further relief the Court deems

proper.

11
 COUNT III
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(CREI DEFENDANT)

52. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 29.

53. This is a claim for injunctive relief.

54. On November 12, 2024, the Defendants sent the Eviction Notice to Plaintiffs.

55. If an owner of a mobile home park intends to sell the property for a change of the

property’s use, the owner must comply with the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 723.061.

56. Defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 723.061.

57. Plaintiff has a clear right to permanent injunctive relief on the basis that the Eviction

Notice and the actions it threatens violate Fla. Stat. § 723.061.

58. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and must seek injunctive relief in order to

prevent the Defendants from relying on the Eviction Notice as a proper, legal notice

of eviction and proceeding with the actions threatened in the Eviction Notice.

59. Irreparable harm will arise should the Court not enjoin the Defendants from

proceeding pursuant to the Eviction Notice, as set forth above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding

pursuant to the Eviction Notice; require the Defendants to abide by all applicable laws and

ordinances, including, but not limited to, Section 723.061, Florida Statutes; to award costs

and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and to provide such other and further relief the Court deems

proper.

COUNT IV
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(THE CITY OF SWEETWATER and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY)

60. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 29.

61. This is a claim for injunctive relief.

12
62. Defendant, Miami-Dade County, has taken official action which would result in the

removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in the Li’l Abner Trailer Park

without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities

exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.

63. Defendant, City of Sweetwater, has taken official action which would result in the

removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in the Li’l Abner Trailer Park

without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities

exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083.

64. Plaintiffs have a clear right to injunctive relief on the basis that the Defendants are

violating Fla. Stat. § 723.083.

65. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and must seek injunctive relief in order to

prevent the Defendants continuing to take official actions in violation of Fla. Stat. §

723.083.

66. Irreparable harm will arise should the Court not enjoin the Defendants from proceeding

pursuant to the Eviction Notice, as set forth above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court quash any and all official actions taken by

Defendants in violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.083, enjoin Defendants from taking any official

action which violates Fla. Stat. § 723.083, to award costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs,

and to provide such other and further relief the Court deems proper.

COUNT V
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS TO OBJECTION TO CHANGE OF USE
IN ACCORD WITH FLA. STAT. §723.061
(CREI DEFENDANT)

67. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 29.

68. This is a claim for injunctive relief.

13
69. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of the November 12, 2024 Eviction Notice, the Plaintiff

Class filed their objection to the proposed change of use and sought Administrative relief

due to the Defendants’ various violations of Florida Statute §723 with Florida’s

Department of Business and Professional Regulation [“DBPR”].

70. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that given the above stated facts there is a lack of an

adequate remedy at law as the property rights of the Plaintiff Class is being threatened

by the Defendants violations of Florida Statute 723 and their attempts to illegally evict

the Plaintiffs.

71. Accordingly, the threatened injury to the Plaintiffs in losing their homestead and being

left homeless, far outweighs any threatened harm the injunction may cause to the

Defendants. And the injunction, if issued will not disserve the public interest.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an injunction on the evictions for

violation of Fla. Stat. § 723.061; awarding costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, and

providing such other and further relief the Court deems proper.

COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF FDUTPA
(CREI DEFENDANTS)

72. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 29.

73. Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct

of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). The

provision of the Act shall be “construed liberally to promote the protection” of the

“consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in . . .

deceptive[] or unfair practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” See Fla. Stat.

§ 501.202(2).

74. Fla. Stat. § 501.211(1) provides that “[w]ithout regard to any other remedy or relief to
14
 which a person is entitled, anyone aggrieved by a violation this part may bring an action

to obtain declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates this part and to enjoin a

person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate this part.” See Fla.

Stat. § 501.211(1).

75. Although not specifically enumerated in the statute, “There are three elements that are

required to be alleged to establish a claim pursuant to FDUTPA: (1) a deceptive act or

unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.” See Borchardt v. Mako Marine

Int’l, Inc., 2009 WL 3856678, *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2009) (quoting KC Leisure, Inc. v.

Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)); see also Kia Motors of American

Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

76. During the period of January 1, 2024 to November 12, 2024, Defendant

CONSOLIDATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, GP through conversations with,

and in prospectuses provided to, residents of Li’l Abner, represented, that there were

no definite plans for redevelopment of Li’l Abner.

77. Defendants’ representations as set forth in the previous paragraph were deceptive and

unfair when made, in violation of FDUTP.

78. At the time Defendants made those representations, Defendants possessed both

actual and constructive knowledge that these representations were false.

79. Defendants made the representations set forth above with the knowledge and intent

that Plaintiffs would rely on them.

80. In actual reliance on Defendants’ representations, Plaintiffs some with written leases

and others without written leases did remain in their mobile homes and not seek

alternatives, and as a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result, suffered and

continues to suffer damages, in the form of increased rent payments, down

payments, future increased mortgage payments, all the incidental and consequential
15
 damages associated with moving and others.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendants specifically declaring that

Defendants’ conduct complained herein violates FDUTPA and cannot be used as the basis

to terminate Plaintiffs’ lease agreements and enter judgment for actual damages, and

related relief including prejudgment interest and the cost of this action against Defendants,

together with reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 501.211(1)-(2) and

501.2105, as well as for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Demand is hereby made for trial by jury of all matters so triable.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2025.

Respectfully submitted,

s/davidwinker
David J. Winker, Esq.
Fla. Bar. No. 73148
David J. Winker, PA
4720 S. Le Jeune Rd
Coral Gables, FL 33146
305-801-8700
dwinker@dwrlc.com

s/erikwesoloski
Erik Wesoloski, Esq.
Fla. Bar. No. 526649
Wesoloski Carlson, P.A.
848 Brickell Avenue, Suite 302
Miami, Florida 33131
305-329-1030
erik@wesoloskicarlson.com

16
EXHIBITS A, B and C filed as separate docket entry