More News

Legal questions remain after sale of Ridgemark

Golf course development is the latest acquisition of John Wynn, who has a history of buying downtrodden properties
Drought conditions have also affected Ridgemark.
The four-year drought has taken a toll on parts of Ridgemark.

Even though JMK Golf LLC has announced that after nearly two years of contentions wrangling with the Ridgemark Homeowners' Association that it has finally sold Ridgemark Golf & Country Club, there may be more than a few legal wrinkles to iron out for the deal to be complete.

In particular is the association’s lawsuit, filed April 2014 against JMK to determine who owns the roads in the community, and JMK’s counter-suit for $50 million, much of which has been determined to have no merit, according to Bradley Matteoni, a partner at O’Laughlin, Heichtman, Matteoni, which represents the homeowner association.

“In my opinion, the homeowners own the roads, so any development that goes on out there would have to show that it has buy-in from the homeowners,” said Supervisor Jerry Muenzer. “Whoever owns the golf course has the right to use the roads for the golf course operation, but they would need the homeowners’ permission to do a development.”

Alex Kheriotis, president of JMK Golf LLC, told BenitoLink back in February: "If they (the homeowners' association) don't want to cooperate with us to re-establish property value in a development that is mutually beneficial, then we're just probably going to shut down and develop it five, 10, 15 years down the road."

As of Aug. 10, that is apparently not an issue as Angels Company LLC, of which a John Wynn is apparently a partner, purchased the property, according to Matteoni.  

Matteoni said it’s still unclear, however, what is to become of the lawsuits.

“With the $50 million lawsuit against the homeowner’s association, the court has previously said JMK didn’t plead enough facts to even bring such a claim and gave them the right to amend the complaint,” she said. “They have not filed an amended complaint. So the status of that is unclear. With the new owner (Wynn), trying to finalize the settlement agreement would make everything go away."

Matteoni said that Wynn wants to settle because the homeowners’ portion of the lawsuit stated that he can’t use the roads, other than for the golf course. So, that lawsuit still exists.

“We’re trying to find a way to make the community better and resolve all of our issues and move forward with a business relationship with the new owner,” she said. “That’s our hope and I hope we’re going to be able to succeed.”

She explained that it’s her understanding that Wynn was assigned JMK’s rights in that lawsuit.

“His company would have to become a party to the lawsuit and how that would sort out I’m not really sure,” she said. “But the expectation is we’ll be able to resolve that and we won’t have to cross that bridge.”

As for what Wynn wants, that’s anyone’s guess. Calls to his lawyer were not returned and Matteoni described Wynn as a man who shuns the spotlight.

But Wynn does have a history of buying distressed golf courses and other large properties that have had mixed success.

In 2005, Wynn, described as a San Francisco area entrepreneur in a Honolulu Advertiser article, bought the Hawaii Country Club, which the paper said was a “shabby 18-hole public golf course,” for about $4.2 million. Wynn, who heads Imperial Investment & Development, based in Milpitas, planned to “spruce it up” by upgrading the course, restaurant and clubhouse to return the operation to profitability. The broker for the deal said it was a “turnaround opportunity” for Wynn.

Nine years later, it would seem that the "sprucing up" had garnered mixed reviews, if comments left on Yelp are any indication. While there are a few good reviews—mostly about the restaurant—many are less than complementary. 

Wynn, who reportedly changed his name from Nguyen, is associated with more than a half-dozen companies. Imperial Investments & Development Inc., was incorporated in 2003. The other companies include: 5555 Auto Mall LLC, Ayala Garden Homes Corporation, Sakura Financial Group, Inc., and Pacislatino Villages, Inc. All six companies are located in Milpitas in the same strip mall and none appear to have working phone numbers, according to directory assistance.

In 2007, Wynn was the developer of a $200 million construction project called, The Globe, in Fremont. It was supposed to include ethnic stores, restaurants and a supermarket that would reflect the cultural flavors from around the world, according to an insidebayarea.com article.

"With restaurants and upscale shopping, it could be like (Disney World's) Epcot Center," Mayor Bob Wasserman said at the time.

The Globe was also slated to include a 15,000-square-foot theater, outdoor plaza, a performing area and more than 2,000 parking spaces.

In the same article, Vice Mayor Bob Wieckowski praised Wynn for revitalizing “a beat-up piece of property.”

Two years later, an Inside Bay Area news story reported that the entire project was in default, to the tune of $13.2 million, and was on the verge of foreclosure. And across the street, another Wynn project was also in default for $18 million. Apparently bad timing and the economic downturn of 2009 brought both projects crashing down. Wynn and his partners had reportedly paid $30 million for the site in 2005, according to the article.

What looked good on paper turned out to be a lot harder to execute, said one expert in the same article.

Meanwhile, Wynn appears to still be in the game, attempting to revitalize downtrodden properties, with Ridgemark being his latest effort.

“I don’t know of anything officially about the sale, but I met Mr. Wynn and he wants to work with the homeowners' association,” Muenzer said. “If that could come about it would be a good thing.”

But, then again, there are still those two lawsuits.

“What Mr. Wynn wants is the right to do some development on that golf course,” Matteoni said. “We’ve been in negotiations to see how we could work something out where he could develop certain portions and at the same time respect the character of the neighborhood, which is important to the value of the community and any potential homes there. We’ve been trying to compromise so both sides benefit where the community will grow stronger and the golf course will continue to operate.”

Calls to other parties involved in the sale were not returned by the time of publication.

BenitoLink Logo

Become a Member Today

Support your local independent news.

We work hard to give you the news and information you need. By becoming a member, you will be part of something bigger; BenitoLink, your community-supported news source.

Donate

About:
John Chadwell (John Chadwell)

John Chadwell is an investigative reporter for BenitoLink. He has many years experience as a freelance photojournalist, copywriter, ghostwriter, scriptwriter and novelist. He is a former U.S. Navy Combat Photojournalist and is an award-winning writer who has worked for magazine, newspapers, radio and television. He has a BA in Journalism and Mass Communications from Chapman University and underwent graduate studies at USC Cinema School. John has worked as a script doctor and his own script, God's Club, was released as a motion picture in 2016. He has also written eight novels, ranging from science fiction to true crime that are sold on Amazon. To contact John Chadwell, send an email to: johnchadwell@benitolink.com.

Comments

I have no inside information, but it appears to me that any "turnaround" would have to include some higher density development.  The question in that regard is, will the new owner and homeowners be able to come to an agreement that works?

This is a two-sided problem; historically, neither the overall owners (even when they were the residents themselves) and the individual homeowners have been able to come to a mutual agreement or a formula that works economically.  Only time will tell if anything has changed.

If the Supervisors want to really do something for the community they should stop supporting one side and try to get a mutual agreement or we will be right back here in the same place in 5 years. Both sides have to give - get an independent arbitrator and go to work,

What a pity.

Marty Richman

Submitted by (Stephen Mills) on

My understanding is that when Ridgemark was originally developed the condominium projects exceeded the density allowed by the zoning. So the developer did a density tradeoff whereby he was allowed to build the condos while dedicating a portion of the property as open space. That "open space" was the golf courses. Now a new owner comes in and says he can't make enough profit on his investment and should be allowed to build on the land that was dedicated as open space. That coupled with the fact that some poor homeowner who bought a house at a premium because it was on a golf course is now told "sorry, there are going to be homes in your backyard even though it destroys the value of your property". So if I am not making enough of a return on my investment for my single family home in Ridgemark, can I tear it down and build an apartment building?
An no, Marty, the supervisors are not supporting one side. They are charged with the stewardship of the long term quality of life in the county. Carpetbaggers like Kheriotis who come in to make a fast buck, destroy the quality of life and leave need to have the brakes put on. That is what the supervisors have done.

Add new comment

Add Facebook comment

Comment using your Facebook account. Facebook comments will be published on this page, and on Facebook. It will not be posted to the "Recent Comments" list on the BenitoLink front page.