Question:
Can the park manager force residents to pay for maintenance or removal
of a tree on their space and for maintenance of their driveway?
Background:
These problems, as I
eventually figured out, were a result of inadequate rental agreements that did
not specifically indicate who was responsible for the care and maintenance of
trees and driveways. (Some parks didn’t
even offer rental agreements, but that’s another story.)
Usually, a very basic rental
agreement will state that the tenant is responsible for the care and
maintenance of everything on their space, but I found that this cryptic
language causes headaches. A tenant
called me asking me to interpret the Civil Code in a way that proved his
opinion that since the tree on his space was there before he moved in, then it
was the responsibility of the park. In
reading and re-reading 798.37.5, I could see the problem that was causing
ambiguities. In some paragraphs, the
language wraps around itself, and when parsed, it could be interpreted that the
park is responsible for all landscaping.
There was a tenant who called me
many times angry that the park manager told her that it was her responsibility
to have the dead fronds trimmed from the palm tree on her space. She complained that the palm was the
responsibility of the park because, she believed, since they owned the land
then they have to pay the tree trimming cost.
The problem stewed for months between the tenant and the park owner until
one day the park owner ordered the complete removal of the palm. The tenant called me once again, this time
furious that the park removed her beautiful palm.
Tree and driveway problems tend to
go hand-in-hand, especially when tree roots crack through driveways and
streets, causing potholes and even cracking sewer pipes. But again, the responsible party for care and
maintenance should be made clear in the rental agreement. And even then, there are differences of
opinion. A tenant called me to complain
that when the park roads were being re-topped, that every one else’s driveway
was included in being repaved except hers.
The details finally emerged and I found out that when the park sent a
questionnaire around to all the tenants asking them if they wanted to have
their driveways re-topped for a one-time low price because it would be included
in the park-wide job, this tenant declined.
Now this tenant was angry because she was told that if she wanted her
driveway re-topped – after-the-fact -- she had to pay a premium price for the
company to come out and re-top her driveway.
Not having all the facts, I surmised that this was a case of poor
communication by both parties.
The solution, in my perspective, to
these headaches can be minimized by 1) rewriting (streamlining, reducing
word-count and removing ambiguities) some portions of Civil Code Section 798.37.5
to make it easier for park owners and residents to understand their joint and
separate obligations; and by 2) making available on a public platform a sample
rental agreement that park owners (and residents, who wish to have a rental
agreement where none is offered) can use that clearly states the
responsibilities of each party on the issues of trees and driveways.
Answer: It
depends on the facts of the case. The
“tree and driveway” issue has been subject to major debate for years. A 1992 HCD legal opinion characterized trees
in mobilehome parks as fixtures belonging to the park owner, who is responsible
for their maintenance. However, HCD
legal counsel also opined that this responsibility could be delegated to the
homeowner through the rental agreement.
If the rental agreement requires the homeowner to be responsible for
maintenance of the trees, then a 60-day notice probably does not have to be
given, since it is already in the rental agreement. If the rental agreement does not make the
homeowner responsible for maintenance of the trees, then the park owner is
responsible for maintenance or removal of a tree on the homeowner’s space only
if it is a hazard or constitutes a health and safety violation, as determined
by the enforcement/inspection agency (usually HCD). (Civil Code Section 798.37.5) Homeowners may have to pay a fee for an
inspection where there is a dispute between the park and the homeowner over the
tree and where the homeowner requests an inspection by HCD or the local
enforcement agency. Inspectors have wide
discretion in this regard and if the inspector does not find a violation, the
homeowner may end up having to pay to remove the tree anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment