
PAGE 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 -13 - 14
Days after the takeover, my husband, Don Holmes, was admitted to the
hospital with symptoms that mimicked a heart attack. I returned to
the lease site (without my husband, who was still under medical
observation) with several employees to begin removing Havasu Palms’
personal property. Our former tenant, who was now one of the new
lessees, began harassing me. When we attempted to load a forklift,
which was owned by my husband, onto an equipment hauler, he chased away
the driver of the equipment hauler, telling me I needed to show proof of
ownership. It was pretty ludicrous, he knew full well my family
had been operating the site for over 30 years, and when I realized he
might expect me to show him a bill of sell for every item we
owned….hundreds of items…..I was overwhelmed, and extremely frustrated.
I called our attorney, and he advised me to leave the park, and let him
handle the situation.
When tribal representatives met with Havasu Palms' tenants to discuss
the new lessee they assured the tenants that no one would be evicted.
Technically speaking, Havasu Palms would become tenants, as we owned
three mobile homes in the park. About a year after the takeover,
the shareholders of Havasu Palms Inc. still owned one lake front mobile
home in the park, and they had paid timely monthly rent to the new
landlords. In spite of the fact that the rent was current, they seized
the mobile home, with the sanction of the tribe.
When the new park management first seized the mobile home (they
broke into it and had the locks changed), I went to the park and called
the local sheriff’s office. The reporting officer ordered the
mobile home keys be immediately returned to me. Later that week, the
officer returned, and arrested the manager of the mobile home park
removing him from the premises. The District Attorney refused to
press charges, as the incident occurred on the reservation.
At first, the attorney for new lessees agreed his clients would not
attempt a retake of the mobile home, until the matter was settled in the
courts. Yet, the matter never made it to the courts, as the
California courts did not want to hear a case involving a business on
the reservation. The mobile home was retaken by the park, and lost to
Havasu Palms. Today similar mobile homes along the water might sell
anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000.
Havasu Palms’ lease with the Tribe held a clause for arbitration to
settle lease disputes between Havasu Palms and the Tribe under the rules
of the American Arbitration Association. We filed for an arbitration,
and finally in 2002, an arbitration hearing was held in San
Francisco, California. One of Havasu Palms' grievances against the tribe
was the tribe's total disregard of the terms of their lease, when they
illegally seized Havasu Palms' property, most of which, was never
returned or reimbursed. Another issue was the tribe’s failure to
negotiate in good faith for a long term lease, as was repeatedly
promised throughout the years.