BERLIN – The White Horse Park residents who initiated a lawsuit regarding occupancy restrictions now want to dismiss their case against Worcester County.
On Wednesday, attorney Hugh Cropper, representing the residents, filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the case against Worcester County. The case against the White Horse Park Community Association, however, would still proceed.
“We’ve asked the judge to allow us to dismiss our case against Worcester County,” Cropper said. “At this point the association is being aggressive and Worcester County isn’t so we’d like to focus our efforts on fighting the association.”
A trial is currently scheduled for Dec. 15 and 16 after last month’s settlement talks resulted in no agreement between the parties. Cropper’s clients filed their lawsuit against Worcester County last fall after the county announced plans to begin enforcing White Horse Park’s seasonal occupancy restrictions. Residents, many of whom have lived at White Horse Park for years, were advised they would face daily fines if they didn’t abide by the park’s zoning restrictions, which don’t allow year-round occupancy. A group of nine fulltime residents hired Cropper to fight the proposed fines and enforcement after their proposal for a text amendment that would have grandfathered them into being allowed at the park was rejected.
The White Horse Park Community Association, citing fiduciary responsibility, intervened and became a party in the case shortly after it was filed. The association maintains that infrastructure improvements would be needed if the plaintiffs won the case and were permitted to live in the community year-round.
Cropper’s motion this week asks for dismissal of Worcester County without prejudice. The motion states that one of the plaintiffs, Phyllis S. Rosenbaum, has passed away in the year since the case was filed. In addition, plaintiffs Susan Naplachowski, Carl Wycoff and Virginia Kravitz have made alternative living arrangements.
“Plaintiffs request that this dismissal be ‘without prejudice,’” the motion reads. “While the remaining plaintiffs have no plans to refile their case, in the event that Worcester County takes enforcement action, in cases of specific and extreme hardship, some of the plaintiffs may need to challenge these actions in District Court. A dismissal with prejudice could be construed as an admission or an adjudication in those enforcement cases.”
James Almand, the attorney representing the White Horse Park Association, said he would be opposing the motion for dismissal.
“My client will oppose the plaintiffs’ effort to avoid an unfavorable ruling from the court by trying to dismiss the county as a defendant,” he said. “The county and White Horse Park are in the case together and have similar interests. The park declaration and the county law prohibit year-round occupancy. Therefore, the plaintiffs must continue to litigate with both the county and the park for this matter to be resolved once and for all.”
