Opinion ID: 4153008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: defendants’ evidence at trial

Text: Although the Plaintiffs had called property managers Nyquist, Emanuel, and Jackson as witnesses during their own case in chief, the Defendants had previewed their defense during cross-examination of those witnesses. During that crossexamination, these witnesses had already testified that the security guards and property managers enforced these Rules against both adults and children and that often the Rules were not strictly enforced. After the Plaintiffs rested, the Defendants also presented testimony from Patricia Makarowa, the President of the Marsh Harbour Board. Makarowa testified that Marsh Harbour put the Rules in place in 2011 based on those implemented at Sonoma Bay. The Defendants also called Kulick, who similarly denied that the Rules were enforced against only families with children. In 2002, Kulick and her husband moved to Florida. A retired teacher, Kulick got her realtor’s license in 2005. Kulick purchased a property at Sonoma Bay in 2005, but she does not live there. In April 2010, Kulick became the Sonoma Bay Board president. By that time, her Sonoma Bay property had depreciated in value from $215,000 or $225,000 to $26,000. 27 Case: 16-11248 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 28 of 73 In 2005 and 2006, Sonoma Bay was in a dilapidated condition—holes in the fences, dead plants, overflowing dumpsters inhabited by rats, mice, and vermin. Kulick saw drug paraphernalia and spark plugs (used to smash sliding glass doors) littering the property. Kulick also saw “[g]rown people . . . gambling on the electrical boxes. Adults were playing football in the street, scratching cars, didn’t matter where the ball went.” Kulick testified that crime was a problem, with people squatting in vacant units or using vacant units for drugs and sex. In 2010, Sonoma Bay had more than $200,000 worth of code violations. Kulick made it her mission to clean up the community and resurrect property values. Kulick met with city officials and law enforcement officers. She had a manned guard gate installed, hired a security company, and instituted a new tenant application process. Kulick insisted that the reason for the Report Card Requirement was to gauge the child’s age. Sonoma Bay never rejected an applicant because of a child’s bad grades or behavior or because the applicant was a single parent. Kulick’s version of the enforcement of the Loitering and Curfew Rules was quite different from that of the Plaintiff residents. Under Kulick’s watch, the Sonoma Bay Board implemented the Loitering Rule. Kulick explained that the Loitering Rule was meant to address adults gambling on the electrical boxes and drinking on the hood of their car “in order to watch you leave for work so they 28 Case: 16-11248 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 29 of 73 could rob [your home] five seconds after you are gone.” Kulick never told children they could not play outside and was not aware of anyone telling children they could not play outside. Kulick specifically denied telling a child to “go inside and play video games.” Kulick instituted a tutoring program for children at Sonoma Bay. Plaintiff Janet Jackson gave tennis lesson to the kids who were in tutoring. In 2010 and 2011, Sonoma Bay offered basketball clinics for children. Kulick testified that the Sonoma Bay HOA (1) never targeted or attempted to “weed out” families with children; (2) a prospective tenant was never rejected based on familial status; and (3) no tenant was ever evicted or had their lease nonrenewed based on familial status. Kulick stated that Sonoma Bay had “done what was impossible. We took a community in distress and brought it back to life. We enabled people to feel safe.” According to Kulick, Sonoma Bay’s occupancy rate went from 30 to 90 percent and property values rose 300 percent. The Defendants’ evidence also stressed that the majority of residents were families with children and that there was no evidence that anyone was ever denied an apartment or evicted because they had children. For example, the trial evidence showed that, out of the 302 units at Sonoma Bay, 70 to 80 percent of those 29 Case: 16-11248 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 30 of 73 consisted of families with children, and of the 402 units at Marsh Harbour, 75 percent consisted of families with children. After the Defendants rested, the Plaintiffs re-called Janet Jackson to testify in rebuttal. Jackson admitted that she was aware of the tutoring program and that she gave tennis lessons to children at Sonoma Bay “so they won’t be harassed by security.” She denied ever discussing the tutoring program with Kulick. The Plaintiffs presented no other rebuttal testimony.