Three Pillar Communities lawsuits span federal and state courts in California and New Jersey, with the company and its affiliated entities suing cities over rent-control ordinances and senior-only zoning while defending against a coordinated countersuit from the City of Petaluma, the State of California, and mortgage lender Fannie Mae. Most of the active litigation traces back to a single strategy: buying manufactured home parks, raising rents toward market rates, and challenging the local rules that stand in the way.
Who Three Pillar Communities Is
Three Pillar Communities is a manufactured housing investment firm co-founded in 2017 by Daniel Weisfield and Yoel Kelman. Its portfolio page lists over 110 communities and RV parks across 16 states.1Three Pillar Communities. Our Portfolio A related management company, Harmony Communities Inc., operates many of the same parks and reports more than $700 million in assets under management.2MHPhoa. Harmony Communities Court filings treat the two as closely intertwined. Weisfield and Kelman were listed as interested parties in a 2026 federal lawsuit filed by a Harmony-managed park, and the two entities share historical ties through a prior business called San Rafael Housing Communities LLC.3Santa Barbara Independent. Goleta Extends Senior Housing Protections, Is Sued in Federal Court The precise corporate relationship is not publicly defined on either company’s website.
The Youngstown Mobile Home Park Cases in Petaluma
The largest legal fight involves the Youngstown Mobile Home Park in Petaluma, California, a rent-controlled seniors-only community. Four separate matters now overlap.
The Federal Rent-Control Suit
In October 2023, Youngstown MHP LLC and Little Woods Mobile Villa LLC, both associated with Three Pillar, filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of California against the City of Petaluma. The suit alleged the city’s rent stabilization laws force park owners to operate at a loss, weaken contractual agreements, and violate property rights.4Petaluma Argus-Courier. Mobile Home Park Owners Sue Petaluma Over Rent Cap Rules Three Pillar has separately argued in court that local ordinances violate a constitutional guarantee to a “fair and reasonable return on their investment.”5CBS News Bay Area. Bay Area Mobile Home Parks Owners Set Huge Rent Increase for Castro Valley Tenants
The city’s ordinance, updated in July 2023, caps annual mobile home rent increases at the lesser of 4 percent or 70 percent of the Consumer Price Index. When Three Pillar sought increases beyond that cap, the dispute went to mandatory arbitration. Over four days in January and February 2024, more than 30 hours of testimony and 2,500 pages of evidence produced a permanent monthly increase of $118 per space, a 14.5 percent jump the arbitrator acknowledged was “far beyond” the CPI-based cap. Residents also paid $472 each in retroactive adjustments and faced more than $150,000 in combined legal fees.6Press Democrat. Arbitration Leads to $118 Rent Increase for Youngstown Mobile Home Residents
The State Suit Over the Senior Overlay
On January 12, 2024, Youngstown MHP LLC and Weisfield filed a second lawsuit in Sonoma County Superior Court (Case No. 24CV00250), challenging a Petaluma ordinance passed in October 2023 that designated Youngstown and four other parks as seniors-only through a “senior mobile home park overlay district.”7Sonoma County Superior Court. Tentative Rulings, Case 24CV00250 The park owners argued the overlay violates the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act by compelling them to discriminate against families with children.8GSMOL. Owners of Youngstown Mobile Home Park Hit Petaluma With 2nd Lawsuit Attorney Paul Beard II, representing the park, called the ordinance “patently unlawful.”9Petaluma Argus-Courier. Petaluma Countersues Mobile Home Park Operator, Continuing Dispute Over Who Can Live There
Three Pillar then began selling units to younger residents and families despite the overlay.
The City and State Countersuit
On January 31, 2025, the City of Petaluma, joined by the State of California, sued Youngstown MHP LLC, Weisfield, Fannie Mae, and 50 unnamed individuals (Case No. 25CV00798). The complaint alleged the park was violating the senior overlay ordinance and constituting a public nuisance under Business and Professions Code section 17203.10Sonoma County Superior Court. Tentative Rulings, Case 25CV00798 City Attorney Eric Danly said park owners cannot “bypass the law by simply violating it.”11Press Democrat. Petaluma Mobile Home Park Rules Court Fight
Fannie Mae’s Cross-Complaint
Fannie Mae, which holds an $8 million loan on the Youngstown property, filed a cross-complaint on May 6, 2025, against Youngstown MHP LLC, Gideon Goldstein, Nirit G. Peer, and the Nirit Goldstein Peer Irrevocable Trust. Fannie Mae alleged the park breached its 2020 loan agreement, which explicitly required the property to maintain its senior-only status. The court noted the loan documents predated the city’s 2023 ordinance by four years, undermining the park owners’ argument that the overlay was the sole source of the age restriction.10Sonoma County Superior Court. Tentative Rulings, Case 25CV00798
Where Things Stand
In the park owners’ case (24CV00250), a Sonoma County judge sustained a demurrer that narrowed the surviving claims to two: a facial and as-applied challenge under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, and a familial-status discrimination claim under California’s FEHA. On February 20, 2026, Judge Patrick Broderick denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment, finding triable issues of material fact, including whether the park was legally operating as seniors-only before its attempted 2023 conversion.12Sonoma County Superior Court. Tentative Rulings, Case 24CV00250 Trial is set for August 21, 2026. In the city’s enforcement action (25CV00798), the court denied the park’s motion to stay the case, and no trial date has been set.10Sonoma County Superior Court. Tentative Rulings, Case 25CV00798
Senior-Overlay Lawsuits in Cotati and Goleta
Attorney Paul Beard II, who represents Three Pillar in Petaluma, has framed the Youngstown case as a test that will “reach the Court of Appeals eventually” and resolve the issue of mobile home park age restrictions “statewide.”11Press Democrat. Petaluma Mobile Home Park Rules Court Fight Similar suits have followed elsewhere.
In Cotati, Countryside MHP LLC v. City of Cotati challenges a senior overlay zoning change at the Countryside Mobile Park. The case was reported as still pending as of late 2024.13Santa Maria Sun. Legal Shenanigans The Ubaldi family, which owns Countryside, shares the same attorney as Youngstown and has coordinated legal strategy with Harmony Communities.11Press Democrat. Petaluma Mobile Home Park Rules Court Fight
In Goleta, University Park Manufactured Housing Community LLC filed a federal lawsuit (Case No. 2:26-cv-02307) on March 4, 2026, in the Central District of California, challenging the city’s urgency ordinance requiring the University Mobile Home Park to remain seniors-only.14PACER Monitor. University Park Manufactured Housing Community, LLC v. City of Goleta Harmony Communities had taken over management of the park in October 2025 and notified residents of plans to convert it to all-ages housing, prompting the city council to pass the overlay on an emergency basis.15Noozhawk. Goleta Extends Ordinance to Keep Mobile Home Park for Seniors Only A March 2026 court filing listed Weisfield and Kelman as interested parties.3Santa Barbara Independent. Goleta Extends Senior Housing Protections, Is Sued in Federal Court The City of Goleta filed a motion to dismiss on April 2, 2026, and after a May 2026 hearing the court took the matter under submission with a ruling pending.
Rent Disputes in Castro Valley and the Spokane Area
Not every dispute has produced a full lawsuit, but two rent conflicts illustrate the pattern that drives the litigation.
In late 2023, residents of the Avalon Mobile Home Park in unincorporated Castro Valley, California, received notices that their rents would roughly double. Some tenants reported increases from $515 to $995 per month, while management proposed bringing lot rents to a range of $1,300 to $1,450.16KTVU. Castro Valley Mobile Home Park Residents Told Rent Will Double17East Bay Echo. Castro Valley Mobile Home Park Owner Proposes 200% Rent Hike but Residents Are Fighting Back Alameda County’s rent stabilization ordinance caps annual mobile home rent increases at roughly 4 to 5 percent. Three Pillar argued the ordinance did not apply to certain dwelling types at the property and attempted to reclassify homes as recreational vehicles rather than permanent residences.5CBS News Bay Area. Bay Area Mobile Home Parks Owners Set Huge Rent Increase for Castro Valley Tenants Weisfield stated the new rents were “affordable to Very Low Income households, under county and state guidelines.”
At Bona Vista Park in Otis Orchards, Washington, a longtime resident told the Inlander her lot rent had risen from $300 per month in 2007 to $635 and was slated to jump another $240 to $875 in spring 2025. Tenants also described frequent management turnover and alleged harassment through notices about minor rule infractions. Three Pillar responded that the increases were needed to cover “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in infrastructure repairs including road repaving and septic system fixes.18Inlander. Manufactured Home Owners Are Reimagining Stable Housing as Local Communities Face Untenable Rent Increases
Three Pillar as Plaintiff in New Jersey
Separately from the California housing fights, Three Pillar Communities LLC is the plaintiff in a federal case against California Village LLC (Case No. 1:24-cv-06857) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint was filed on June 7, 2024, with an amended complaint following in August 2024. California Village LLC filed counterclaims. A settlement conference in October 2025 did not resolve the matter, and Three Pillar filed a motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2025. The case, assigned to Judge Christine P. O’Hearn, remains active, and the specific claims are not detailed in available docket records.19CourtListener. Three Pillar Communities LLC v. California Village LLC
What the Litigation Has Meant for Residents
The outcomes so far have hit residents hard regardless of how the underlying legal questions resolve. The Youngstown arbitration produced a 14.5 percent rent increase and more than $150,000 in collective legal costs for tenants who fought it.6Press Democrat. Arbitration Leads to $118 Rent Increase for Youngstown Mobile Home Residents In Castro Valley, proposed increases of up to 200 percent threatened to push low-income and elderly residents out of homes they own but cannot easily move.17East Bay Echo. Castro Valley Mobile Home Park Owner Proposes 200% Rent Hike but Residents Are Fighting Back With the Youngstown trial set for August 2026 and the Goleta ruling pending, the core questions about senior overlays and rent caps in California remain unresolved.