Fernwood Mobile Home Park v. Almeyda

2002 WL 31862850 (2002)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fernwood Mobile Home Park v. Almeyda

California Court of Appeal
2002 WL 31862850 (2002)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

Fernwood Mobile Home Park (Fernwood) (plaintiff) was a mobile-home development in California established in 1970 as an adults-only community. In 1989, federal law required that the park be opened to families with children. Fernwood adopted rules prohibiting virtually all of children’s typical outdoor play activities. Angelina Almeyda purchased a mobile home in Fernwood for herself, her husband, and their three children. Almeyda and her husband (the Almeydas) (defendants) signed Fernwood’s rules and regulations despite the Fernwood manager’s warning that the children would not like living there. Conflict and litigation based on alleged violation of the rules and regulations ensued. Fernwood sued the Almeydas for breach of contract and abatement of nuisance, and the Almeydas cross-complained on theories of negligence and unlawful discrimination against families with children. While ruling on post-trial motions, the judge compared Fernwood to Nazi camps, referred to the owners as “park Nazis,” and commented about how offended he was by the partners’ testimony that they had no idea about the discriminatory practices, likening their testimony to people in Germany saying, “What oven? What Jewish problem? What camps? We smell nothing. This is dust settling on us.” The Almeydas obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting Fernwood from engaging in unlawful discrimination against families with children. Fernwood appealed, arguing in part that judicial bias required reversal of the judgment and remand to a different judge for a new trial.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Leary, J.)

Dissent (Fybel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership