Wedgewood Manor, a 108-unit complex on Lora Drive near La Rinconada Country Club, was established in 1962. Three years later it was designated as a place to house senior citizens. But an owner of two of the condominiums within the complex is suing the Wedgewood Manor Homeowners' Association for age discrimination and is seeking to have the courts permanently lift the age restriction.

"My main issue is a legal issue. Discrimination is illegal," said Cyrus Hazari, the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Both state and federal laws grant exemptions to senior housing establishments that apply age restrictions, said Sandra Bonato, the attorney representing the homeowners' association.

Hazari, 41, purchased two condominiums in 1994 during a brief period when enforcement of the 55-or-above age restriction was lifted. The homeowners' association had been notified by a housing advocacy group earlier that year that its 108-unit complex had fallen below the minimum 150 units required by the state to qualify as senior housing.

When Senate Bill 332 was introduced into state law in 1996, it reduced the minimum number of units required in a senior complex to 70. With that, the homeowners' association reinstated its age restriction.

According to Hazari, neither his Realtor nor the Wedgewood Manor Homeowners' Association informed him at the time of his purchase that the building complex might become age-restricted again. Hazari eventually settled with the Realtor, Muriel Kao, who he said was negligent in not fully researching the situation at Wedgewood Manor.

However, he said, the "primary culprit" is the board of directors for the homeowners' association, which should have disclosed the information.

Attorney James Hillman, who is defending Community Management Services Inc., the company that manages Wedgewood Manor, wrote in a legal brief that Hazari had received documents verifying that age restrictions were not being enforced at the time of purchase. However, "never before the close of escrow was Mr. Hazari told that the association would never again enforce ... the age restrictions," Hillman wrote.

Now, as part of a settlement agreement, a judge has decided that the homeowners' association has until April 2004 to poll the proprietors of the units. For Wedgewood Manor to legally gain senior status, not only must the units meet all state and federal regulations for senior housing but 75 percent of homeowners polled must vote to retain the age restriction.

Meanwhile, with the lawsuit ongoing, anyone may move into the complex.

If enough Wedgewood Manor homeowners say they wish to maintain the complex as senior housing, the establishment must still comply with federal law. That law mandates that a minimum 80 percent of the units be occupied by at least one person who is 55 or older, Bonato said. As long as this is met, people under 55 can also move into the complex.

If Wedgewood Manor meets the 75-percent approval rate to maintain the complex as senior housing, then age restriction may be enforced on 80 percent of the units, while the remaining units may be occupied by people under 55 years of age.

If the judge finds that Wedgewood Manor is not a senior complex, then Hazari's claim of age discrimination is not valid, the plaintiff said, and the homeowners' association would not have to pay him for damages because his condos are now valued at a free market price.

According to Hillman's brief, Hazari purchased one of his units at a senior restricted sales price of $65,000. Hazari confirmed this and said he paid, as damage, $90,000 for the second unit. Within a few months of the age restriction no longer being enforced, Hazari said, the sale price went up to $120,000.

Those adamant that the complex should remain a place for the seniors have launched a campaign telling other residents that if the complex's senior status is eliminated, they will lose the existing van service, beauty shop, exercise room and security provided through the homeowners' association.

One-third of Wedgewood Manor residents use the beauty salon, and others rely on the van service to take them to the grocery store and on special outings, said Norma Irace, president of the Wedgewood Manor Homeowners' Association.

In addition to the loss of amenities, if the outcome of the vote indicates a desire to do away with the senior status, then the lawsuit will go to trial. Once at that stage, regardless of the verdict, each homeowner might have to pay up to $3,000 to help cover attorney and trial fees as well as alleged damages due to Hazari, Irace said.

The association is covered by an insurance company that would pay the fees, and no money will come out of homeowners' pockets, Hazari said.

But if the insurance company does not cover the lawsuit, members of the association will be assessed, Bonato said. "Mr. Hazari is not in a position to say what the insurance company will pay or not pay," she said.

Irace, who settled at Wedgewood Manor 11 years ago, remembers when the housing complex had its senior status taken away in the mid-'90s. It was a time when families with small children moved in and the kids played on handrails, raced around on skateboards and broke exercise equipment and the communal television set, she said.

"It was a total mess. They ran free from morning to night," she said. "It's not that we're anti-kids. It's just that we moved here so that we could be around people our own age."

Shirley Egan, secretary of the homeowners' association, asked, "Isn't there a place for us? We're not forcing anyone to move in here, but young people move in and force us to be something else."

Presently, five people in their 90s and 18 in their 80s live at Wedgewood Manor; the majority of residents are in their mid-60s to 70s, according to board members.

Resident Fred Irace, 46, said that he purchased his condo when the age restriction was not enforced. He said only about five other people under 55 bought units during this period, and most were over 35 years old.

"Would people rush in here? I don't think so," he said. However, he noted that having young kids would not stop him from moving into a place occupied mainly by seniors.

At the same time, a number of people who now own units are investors wishing to rent their space to non-seniors, said Fred Irace, who voted to keep the senior status because he feels that is what the majority of the residents want.

Not everyone over 55 is opposed to having young children move in.

"Even when I moved in, I was wondering why this is an age-restricted place," said 56-year-old Latif Taheri, adding that he enjoys being around children.

Mary Coker, who became a trustee of her father's unit along with her sister, said she has been unable to find a renter for the unit since December 2002 due to the age restriction. Furthermore, although the family is paying approximately $600 per month in homeowners' fees, the family cannot move into the unit because one member of the family is too young, she said.