Dismissed OPA Candidate’s Trial Concludes; Opinion Expected Soon

Dismissed OPA Candidate’s Trial Concludes; Opinion Expected Soon
Rick Farr is pictured at a candidates forum last summer. Submitted Photo

SNOW HILL – The Ocean Pines community will have to wait a few days more to hear the judge’s determination on the eligibility of disqualified board candidate Rick Farr.

Following closing arguments on Monday, Worcester County Circuit Court Judge Sidney Campen said his ruling on a complaint against the Ocean Pines Association (OPA) and its Board of Directors would be released in the coming days.

“I will take the case under advisement and write an opinion on what the outcome would be,” he said.

In court this week, witnesses Jeremy Tucker, OPA legal counsel, Director Colette Horn, and Ruth Ann Meyer, the association’s assessment and membership supervisor, were called to testify in an ongoing lawsuit to determine Farr’s eligibility as a candidate in the 2021 board election.

This year, four contenders – incumbent Frank Daly and challengers Stuart Lakernick, David Hardy and Farr – vied for two seats on the association’s board. But in late July, during the voting process, former association secretary Camilla Rogers disqualified Farr as a candidate after an anonymous tip raised questions about his status as a homeowner of the address listed on his candidate application.

According to the association’s bylaws, candidates must be a recorded property owner within Ocean Pines on Jan. 1 of the year in which the election is held. The association contends Farr was not an owner of record, but a successor trustee to the property listed on his candidate application. Farr’s attorney, however, asserts he has been the “equitable and beneficial owner” of the property since 2000, based on his status as a beneficiary of the Farr Living Trust.

The matter of Farr’s eligibility made its way to Worcester County Circuit Court in August, when Farr filed a complaint against the OPA and its Board of Directors. Simply put, the suit challenges the determination on his eligibility and the board’s decision to proceed with the 2021 election and ballot count but to invalidate all votes for Farr. The disqualified candidate was soon joined by several co-plaintiffs alleging they had been disenfranchised after submitting their votes for Farr.

In recent months, the case has worked its way through the court system. In October, for example, the judge granted Farr’s request for an injunction, effectively putting a stop to the association’s redo election of the three remaining candidates. He also ordered the association to count the existing ballots, which ultimately revealed Farr as the top vote-getter.

Witnesses Called This Week

On the witness stand this week, Meyer said it was her responsibility to verify candidates met the requirements to run for election, and an initial search of OPA’s database and state records showed a Richard Farr as the owner of 21 Birdnest Drive, the property listed on Farr’s application.

In July, however, she said she was called into General Manager John Viola’s office after the administration received an anonymous tip stating a candidate was not a Pines homeowner, though the candidate was never named. A review of property deeds for all the candidates revealed Richard L. Farr, Farr’s deceased father, as the owner of 21 Birdnest.

“It was a red flag,” she said.

Tucker told the court he had emailed the board after learning of the issue and discussed options for proceeding with the election in light of Rogers’ disqualification. He said the board voted to continue with the election, but to disqualify any votes cast for Farr.

“The cards that we were dealt all led to bad decisions…,” he said. “I think the board made the best decision and I think the secretary made the best decision.”

Tucker maintained it was the association’s position that qualified candidates must be an owner of record for the property listed on the candidate application. While the term “owner of record” was not defined in the association’s governing documents, he said it was in Black’s Law Dictionary.

“Conceptually, unless I can verify they are the owner of a property in public records, they cannot run for the board,” he said.

Though he asserted Farr was not eligible to run for the election, Tucker noted that bylaws permitted him to be seated as a director, as he was a member of the association and eligible to vote.

When asked if Farr was eligible to fill any of the two vacancies resulting from the resignations of Rogers and Director Tom Janasek, Tucker said he was.

“Mr. Farr is an equitable owner of the trust that owns Birdnest,” he said.

In her testimony this week, Horn said the issue of owner of record had surfaced once before, when Brett Hill applied as a candidate in the 2018 election. As a result of that matter, she said, the candidate application was amended to request candidates submit supporting documentation showing them as owner of record.

Horn added the association was looking to make further revisions to its bylaws and candidate application.

“We need to tighten things up so mistakes like this won’t be made in the future,” she said.

Attorneys Make Closing Arguments

In his closing statement this week, Bruce Bright, Farr’s attorney, said the two main issues in the case were his client’s eligibility as a board candidate and the association’s process for declaring him ineligible.

“This is arbitrary decision making, and most of it was in bad faith,” he said.

Regarding the question of Farr’s eligibility, Bright argued OPA records reflected his client as an owner of 21 Birdnest, and that those association records were typically used to determine eligibility.

He also took issue with the board’s actions in disqualifying his client.

“There is nothing in the bylaws that sanction or support what Camilla Rogers did in this case,” he said.

Bright highlighted the July 30 closed session, in which the board voted to disqualify votes for Farr, as well as a Sept. 30 board meeting, in which Daly and three other members voted to redo an election in which he was a candidate.

“At some point it becomes palpably clear, or inferable, that they don’t want this gentleman on the board,” he said.

However, association attorney Anthony Dwyer argued Rogers and the board had taken appropriate actions based on OPA’s governing documents.

“Regardless of whether the decision was correct or not, it was not arbitrary,” he said.

Dwyer noted the term owner of record was also clearly defined in legal dictionaries.

“This is a common-sense interpretation,” he said.

In his remarks Monday, Campen said he took issue with several of the board’s actions, including their process for disqualifying Farr and deeming votes for the candidate invalid.

“The problem is if the board just let the election take its course, Mr. Farr could’ve lost and we wouldn’t be here,” he said.

In the event that Farr won, Campen said, the bylaws established procedures for removing a director.

“The board couldn’t wait for that,” he said. “They decided to pull the rug from Mr. Farr.”

Campen said his opinion would be released in the coming days. A motion to dismiss the named co-plaintiffs in the case was also granted this week.

About The Author: Bethany Hooper

Alternative Text

Bethany Hooper has been with The Dispatch since 2016. She currently covers various general stories. Hooper graduated from Stephen Decatur High School in 2012 and the University of Maryland in 2016, where she completed double majors in journalism and economics.