Mabee Response to Court Ruling Concerning Rancho Librado


In response to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego’s December 8 ruling concerning the lawsuit filed by Golden Eagle Land Investment and the Mabee Family Trust against the RSF Association Board, the Mabee family released this statement:

“Overall, we are pleased with the Court’s ruling. Our main issue with the Association has always been that they violated the provisions of the Open Meeting Act and we, as Association members, were not treated fairly. The Court has found that the Association did in fact violate the Open Meeting Act in regards to the Mabee family. It was just unfortunate we were forced to take legal action to against our Board in order to force compliance with the rules.

When we filed suit against the Association last September we published an open letter to the Community in the Review outlining the reasons for the suit. The Open Letter included the following statements:

  • The basis for the legal action is due to the fact our rights, as members of the Association, have been flagrantly violated by the Association Board. Our protections as members under the Governing Documents were ignored by the Board who has also violated provisions of the California Civil Code, including the Open Meeting Act, and their fiduciary duty to us as members.
  • The lawsuit is about the process and the rights we all have as members of the Association and as citizens of the State of California.
  • We sincerely wish we were not forced to take this drastic measure, but truly believe the Board has left us no other option but a court of law to compel them to follow the bylaws and rules and regulations of our Association and the laws of the State of California.    

The reason we filed a legal action in the first place is because we firmly believed the Association violated the Open Meeting Act, a fact now confirmed by the court. To have our project rejected by the Board, who did not even have the decency to allow us to present it to them after giving us a unanimous approval to proceed with the concept only a year earlier was not only a violation of the Act, but contrary to common decency and fair dealing. To be forced to use the Court, who agreed with us on this issue, is not only a waste of time and resources which could be much better used elsewhere, but also further proof of the Board’s apparent representation of only some of us living here in the Ranch.”