The Court finds that both affirmative defenses fail, and Our Sunny Acres is not entitled to a right of first refusal.”

Superior Court Justice Richard A. Licht

PORTSMOUTH — The residents of Sunny Acres Mobile Home Park won't get the first chance to buy the land beneath their homes after a Superior Court judge ruled that their homeowners association failed to meet the requirements of Rhode Island law.

The decision, filed Tuesday, Oct. 27, deals a major blow to residents who had hoped to take control of their community rather than see it sold to an outside buyer.

Superior Court Justice Richard A. Licht ruled that Our Sunny Acres Association was not entitled to a right of first refusal — the opportunity to match an outside buyer's offer before the park could be sold.

The ruling favors The Springfield Group, which owns the Portsmouth mobile home park and agreed in March 2025 to sell it to Crown Communities LLC.

The decision removes a major legal obstacle to that sale, although it does not establish whether the transaction has been completed.

Under Rhode Island law, a homeowners association can match an outside buyer’s offer if at least 51% of the park’s homeowner households are members and its articles of incorporation specifically authorize it to negotiate for, purchase and operate the property.

Licht found that Our Sunny Acres had not satisfied those requirements when the owner accepted Crown’s offer in March 2025.

Association formed in 2019

The dispute dates back to November 2019, when residents formed an incorporated association, then called Shady Park, and notified Springfield Group that they represented at least 51% of the park’s households.

However, the association’s incorporation documents lacked the specific powers required by state law. Those provisions were not added until June 2025, after the park was under contract to be sold.

The judge also questioned whether the association had sufficient membership.

Sunny Acres has approximately 116 livable units, meaning the association needed 58 member households to meet the 51% threshold.

But testimony indicated that only 40 to 45 people could fit into the room where residents met to organize in 2019. One resident testified that he did not join until May 2025.

Licht was particularly critical of association president Sharlene Patton, whom he described as the leader of the residents’ purchase effort. Patton, a member of the Portsmouth Town Council, lost her bid for reelection on Tuesday.

“Ms. Patton had some memory issues and could be combative at times,” the judge wrote, adding that her testimony about membership was “vague and unpersuasive.”

Patton submitted an affidavit asserting that the association represented more than 51% of households as of April 2025, but the judge found insufficient evidence of qualifying membership on the dates that mattered.

The association declined to provide a membership roster to the owner’s attorney, citing concerns about intimidation, retaliation and surveillance.

The Portsmouth Times reached out to Patton for comment, but she did not respond.

Did owner promise something?

A central question was whether Springfield Group had effectively granted residents the right to purchase the park despite their association’s failure to meet legal requirements.

In April 2025, Patton complained to the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation that the association had not received formal notice of the pending sale.

The following month, the owner notified the association of the sale, pledging to comply with state law while questioning whether the association qualified for purchase rights.

In June, the owner’s attorney confirmed that residents had until June 26 to submit a proposed purchase agreement.

Working with the nonprofit Cooperative Development Institute, residents explored financing, hired legal counsel and submitted a proposed purchase agreement.

The association argued that the owner’s actions amounted to a promise that residents could purchase the property. Its attorneys also contended that Springfield Group had surrendered its right to challenge the association’s eligibility.

Licht rejected both arguments.

The judge concluded that notifying residents of the sale did not mean Springfield Group had waived its right to insist on compliance with state law. The owner’s attorney had repeatedly requested proof of membership and proper incorporation documents.

Although residents invested considerable time and resources pursuing a purchase, Licht found that association leaders knew the legal requirements had not been satisfied.

What happens next?

The ruling means Our Sunny Acres Association cannot use the state’s right-of-first-refusal law to force an opportunity to match Crown Communities’ offer.

However, the association also filed a separate counterclaim accusing Springfield Group of retaliating against residents in violation of state law. That claim remains unresolved by Tuesday’s decision.

Licht also declined Springfield Group’s request to have the association pay its attorney fees and court costs.