By Greg Ellison

(Sept. 23, 2021) Property ownership questions concerning Ocean Pines Board of Directors candidate Rick Farr could be decided next week when Farr and Ocean Pines representatives appear at a Worcester County Circuit Court hearing next Monday.

On Aug. 30, Judge Sidney Campen, retired from the Talbot County Circuit Court bench, opted against extending an injunction that stayed the directors election on Aug. 11 after Farr alleged he was improperly declared ineligible to run.

At the same time, Campen acted on requests from Farr and the OPA for a speedy resolution of the argument and scheduled a hearing on Sept. 27 at 9 a.m. when he is expected to issue his decision.

Farr was declared ineligible to run on July 27, even though Ocean Pines Board member and Secretary Camilla Rogers certified Farr’s candidacy on May 11. An “anonymous tip” however, suggested that Farr was not a property owner at the qualification deadline of Jan. 1.

Since 2000, Farr has been a designated beneficiary of the Farr Living Trust, the legal owner of the property originally purchased by his parents in 1999.

Farr’s attorney, Bruce Bright, said during the Aug. 30 hearing the decision to disqualify Farr was based on Bylaws section 5.02A, which states board candidates must be “owners of record,” on Jan. 1 of the election year.

Bright said the sole focus on 5.02A ignores conflicting details on association membership status included in the association charter and Bylaws section 2.02.

Speaking this week, Bright said the case was originally filed on behalf of plaintiff Farr and as a class-action lawsuit for his supporters.

“The other side filed a motion to dismiss as to the class-action aspect of the case,” he said. “Rather than litigate whether or not the case could properly go forward as a class-action we took out the class-action allegations and essentially voluntarily removed that aspect of the case.”

The revised approach dropped the class action on behalf of a class of plaintiffs, instead substituting specific plaintiffs who supported Farr’s candidacy.

“They filed a motion to dismiss as to the entire complaint, but the only argument that they advanced was this is not an appropriate case for class-action status, and they didn’t attack the complaint,” he said.

Bright said removing the class-action allegations and inserting new plaintiffs undercut the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

“It’s just been rendered moot and, so far, they haven’t filed anything that disagrees with our position in that respect,” he said.