GSMOL’s initial messages were relevant for the times, when much was still unknown, vaccines were months away and a strict “shelter-in-place” was ordered throughout California. We now find ourselves in far different circumstances, with a majority of Californians vaccinated and the State’s economy re-opened as of June 15th. County health orders are being modified to allow limited “in person” gatherings and the re-opening of indoor establishments. The “stay-at-home” Order has been lifted. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to expect that common area facilities in mobilehome parks must re-open in compliance with what each County allows. GSMOL’s concern is that some park owners might use the pandemic as a convenient excuse to keep common area facilities closed, regardless of what the local County allows. To do so is not “reasonable” under Civil Code 798.24, and amounts to a violation of the MRL, with a possible $2,000.00 penalty per violation if found to be “willful” under Civil Code 798.86.
A park owner is a “business” just like a restaurant or a retailer. When a County allows ”businesses” to resume limited operations this applies to park owners as well, and management should allow clubhouses, laundry facilities and pools to re-open subject to safety protocols required by the County. This may include limited occupancy, sanitization, mask-wearing and social distancing. A park owner is well within its right to limit usage according to what the County requires. But concerns about the cost or labor involved in such a re-opening should not be the basis for keeping facilities locked up. It is still management’s obligation to follow the County guidelines and the MRL, and to take whatever steps are available to re-open. Management and its employees might need to be trained in proper safety procedures and become more vigilant about the number of persons using the facilities. But this “extra work” would not justify a discretionary closure of facilities. Park Owners should be guided by what the County allows, rather than the cost to implement County safety protocols.
There can be many “moving parts” to this issue, and conditions are sometimes changing day-to-day. Vigilance and adoptability are required. But we can now recommend the following advisory policy for GSMOL members:
- Follow
and closely monitor health Orders issued by your County. Look for any Order which allows
businesses to resume “indoor” or “outdoor” activities.
- If your
County confirms businesses can resume “indoor” operations, ask management
in writing to re-open consistent with those County health guidelines.
- If you
receive no response, or receive a reply contrary to County health
guidelines, contact your County to obtain written verification that the
park IS able to re-open its facilities safely in compliance with County
guidelines.
- Relay
the County response to park management and now demand that they
re-open facilities.
- If management refuses, make a claim for a “service reduction” pursuant to a local rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) or consult with an attorney re: possible breach of contract or MRL violations. One can also file a claim with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) under the new Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (MRLPP).
Other Questions and Answers re: Civil Code 798.24 Common Area Facilities Availability/Hours:
Question: Can a park use Civil Code 1942 (b) to keep common area facilities permanently closed?
Answer: NO. Civil Code sec. 1942.9 (b), enacted in January, 2021 as part of SB 91, states that a landlord who temporarily makes a service or amenity unavailable in compliance with federal, state or local public health orders/guidelines is not in violation of a rental agreement and has not reduced services under an RSO. The key is that the closure must be “in compliance with” government orders. If State or local government allows facilities to re-open, a park owner is NOT “in compliance” with those Orders if facilities remain closed, and this law cannot be an excuse for failing to re-open.
Question: Must a park re-open outdoor facilities like a pool, even if indoor facilities are not re-opened?
Answer: YES, if the County allows. In March 2021, the City of Hayward decided in favor of residents who applied for a rent reduction under the Hayward RSO due to a pool closure. The City found the park owner did not re-open the pool when the County allowed it to do so, and thus triggered a “service reduction” under the Ordinance. Each resident was awarded a one-time rent rebate equal to 1.5% of the monthly rent for those months when the pool remained closed contrary to County health orders.
Question: Can a park owner keep common area facilities closed due to “maintenance”?
Answer: YES, but only for a “reasonable” time. With or without COVID-19, it is reasonable to temporarily close a common facility for “maintenance” as long as (a) there really is “maintenance” happening; and (b) the temporary closure does not exceed a “reasonable” time to complete the “maintenance”. Indefinite closures with no evidence of any “maintenance” and no communication to residents about the scope and length of the “maintenance” are not “reasonable” and could trigger a violation of Civil Code 798.24. That section contains a one-sentence, simple statement whose plain meaning is clear, and any continuing closure for undefined “maintenance” violates both the letter and spirit of 798.24. Where such a closure exists, residents should request in writing: (1) the reason for the closure and (2) the estimated time for re-opening. Park owners should not be allowed to claim “maintenance” as a ruse to keep common area facilities closed so as to reduce their costs of operation. If no satisfactory response is received, residents should either file a service reduction claim under their local RSO, or file a complaint with the HCD MRLPP as noted above.
Question: What if hours of an amenity have been changed, and what hours are “reasonable”?
Answer: Depending upon the park’s location and the
season of the year, it might be reasonable to limit hours of a clubhouse, pool
or laundry room during months when darkness and/or inclement weather could pose
a safety concern. But any restricted
hours which do not allow residents who work to use facilities during the week
or on weekends is clearly NOT reasonable.
Hours might be reasonably reduced from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 during the
winter. But a reduction to 5:00 p.m. would
not seem “reasonable”, since it excludes some residents from any ability to use
the facilities. And during summer months
maximum daylight hours should be “reasonably” observed. 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. is typical.