Your Rights Bytes #16 - Park Request to Sign a Long-Term Lease

                                                                  

Question:  What are my rights and options if a park owner requests that I sign a long term lease?

By Bruce Stanton, GSMOL Corporate Counsel and GSMOEF Secretary

The Situation:

You live in a mobilehome park and have a month-to-month rental agreement or perhaps a lease with a one-year term that is expiring.  Your park management gives notice that a new multi-year lease is available for review and signature.  What is the relevant law and what are your available options as a homeowner?

Long-Term Leases in General

It is first important to know the applicable law concerning what we refer to in the industry as “long-term leases”.  The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) governs the enforceability and offering of mobilehome leases.  Civil Code sections 798.17 and 18 are the key sections.  When these sections were initially passed, the legislature intended that voluntary lease agreements might eliminate the need for allegedly “adversarial” rent stabilization ordinance fights. But no one counted on the lengths to which some park owners would go to coerce homeowners to sign leases, and several subsequent amendments to 798.17 have been enacted to protect residents from abuses.  Any lease which exceeds 12 months in length is exempt from local rent control under 798.17.  Although your local jurisdiction may currently have no mobilehome rent stabilization, the possibility exists that a Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) could become law in the future, whether by City Council, a voter initiative ballot measure or a State “rent cap” law.  It is thus important for each resident to carefully consider whether these offered lease terms are fair, or best for them, before signing away the potential for future RSO protection.  Important:  No resident who signs a long-term lease will be covered by any Ordinance until the Agreement term expires, at which time the last rent charged under the Agreement would be the initial rent charged under the Ordinance.  So for every resident who signs this document, there shall be one less “voice” or concerned resident who might be motivated to participate in a process to pass future mobilehome rent control in your city. 

Where an RSO exists, or might potentially exist, it is typical that park owners will offer long-term leases to keep as many residents as possible out of the “rent control activist” group.  Fewer residents will be motivated to speak out, fewer will be affected by any action that the city might take, and thus the City Council will be able to more easily justify a decision to avoid discussion or passage of an Ordinance.  Unfortunately, some residents feel compelled to sign offered Leases when they do not have to sign anything!  The Civil Code makes it clear that after initial move in, no homeowner ever has to sign a new rental agreement or lease of any kind.  In fact, no resident should ever sign a lease because they think they have to.  They should only sign a lease where it is voluntary, they understand all of its terms, and because it makes the most sense for them.  Always remember this rule when reviewing an offered Lease document!  Note that prospective purchasers are not protected by the MRL provisions until they become tenants in the park, so a park owner can make a buyer sign a long-term lease unless there is a local RSO provision which states otherwise.

Residents should NOT sign any offered lease without first attempting to negotiate terms.  Accepting a “take it or leave it” lease offer is often not smart or even necessary. Homeowners typically have far more power and negotiating leverage then believed, especially where there is an existing RSO or the potential for one.  Where there is no RSO protection, it could be tempting to sign the offered Lease in order to achieve some sort of “certainty” about future rent increases.  But be careful that you do not give up too much, for at some point “certainty” is not justified if it becomes nothing but “very bad” certainty!  The best strategy is for park residents to unite and present a “common front” to negotiate a fair and reasonable agreement, as an alternative to the homeowners seeking an RSO. The threat of obtaining RSO coverage can be used by residents as leverage to get a better lease.  If the terms are too onerous, the offered Lease should simply be rejected. I am fond of saying that “I never met a long-term lease I liked”.  With few exceptions this has been true in my experience.  Leases can be lengthy, and may attempt to induce residents to waive certain rights.  Hidden rent increases may be present which are not readily apparent. Some common issues to analyze in an offered lease are:

1.      How often are rent increases given? 

2.      Is there a “market catch-up” clause increasing rent just before the term ends?

3.      What is the amount of each rent increase, and how is it calculated?

4.      If CPI is used, which geographic index or portion of an index will be utilized?

5.      Are there any “pass throughs” in addition to base rent?  If so, which/how many?

6.      Is there a mandatory arbitration clause?

7.      Are there any “Release” clauses or express waivers of rights?

8.      What is the term of the lease?  (Beware of overly long terms!)

9.      Are rent increases allowed on resale? (aka Vacancy De-control)

 

**Important: The Civil Code 798.17 (c) Election**

Civil Code sections 798.17 (c) provides an important protection for homeowners.  If a resident does not wish to sign an offered long-term lease, they can reject it, instead request a one-year or month-to-month agreement, and the rent for the first twelve months cannot exceed what was offered during the first year of the offered long-term lease term.  This is an important strategic maneuver that can be made to lock the rent in for a one-year period, while local RSO protection might be pursued, or State “rent caps” could go into effect.  A form to make this election is included below.  Choosing a one-year term covers an interim period and locks in the space rent for twelve months.  At that point there might be new negotiations, although a park owner is never obligated to offer a long-term agreement.  

Other Protections and Tips

There are other offering requirements that appear in 798.17-798.18 which should also be reviewed in conjunction with a lease offering, including (1) a required 30-day review period and (2) a 72-hour right to rescind your signature.  Choosing a one-year term would at least cover an interim period and lock in the space rent to a specific amount for up to twelve months.  At that point there might conceivably be new negotiations, although a park owner is never obligated to offer a long-term agreement.   Knowing the amount of starting rent is critical.  One cannot determine the amount of rent being offered when blanks are not filled in.  Any resident receiving an offered lease should ask that management fill in any blanks before they can consider accepting it.  Never sign anything with blanks!

-2-

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF OFFERED MULTI-YEAR RENTAL AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF MONTH-TO-MONTH AGREEMENT

[California Civil Code sec. 798.17 (c)]

 

            The undersigned homeowner(s) hereby acknowledge that he/she/they have been offered a multi-year rental agreement by management with a term of ___ years and an offered starting space rent of $______ during the first twelve months of said Agreement.  Pursuant to California Civil Code section 798.17 (c), the undersigned hereby confirm(s) by this notice that he/she/they elect to reject the said offered Agreement, and instead accept a month-to-month rental agreement to be effective on the same date, and which shall include for the initial 12 months of said month-to-month agreement, the same space rental charge of $________ that was offered by management for the initial 12 months of the rejected multi-year rental agreement, as required by Civil Code 798.17 (c).

 

Dated:  ____________                                               _____________________________

                                                                                    Homeowner Signature

 

                                                                                    Print Name: _________________

 

                                                                                    Space No.:________

 

 

 

Dated:  ____________                                               _____________________________

                                                                                    Homeowner Signature

 

                                                                                    Print Name: _________________

 

                                                                                    Space No.:________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-3-

GSMOEF RECEIVES GRANT!!

The Ed Fund is delighted to announce that we have received a grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development!

This grant will benefit both GSMOEF and GSMOL, and the two organizations will be working together to plan and carry out the project which is being funded by the grant.

 

According to our arrangement with CCHD, we will be doing a pilot program which focuses on (1) homeowner organization (forming GSMOL Chapters, HOAs, and Coalitions), (2) leadership training, and (3) institutional change (engaging MHP residents to work with their local governments on beneficial legislation such as rent stabilization ordinances).

  

CCHD has asked that we focus our work in a particular geographical area, specifically the Diocese of Los Angeles, for the first part of the project, as a trial program.  If we are successful, we will be able to extend the program to other Dioceses and obtain more funding.   The Diocese of Los Angeles includes the Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara.

 

The work of both our organizations will be coordinated by Mary Jo Baretich and Anne Anderson, who sit on both the GSMOEF and GSMOL Boards.  Mary Jo is President of GSMOEF, and as GSMOL Zone C Vice President she oversees GSMOL operations in LA County.  Anne is Treasurer of GSMOEF, and as GSMOL Vice President for Zone B-1 she oversees GSMOL operations in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. 

Ed Fund Telephone Townhall June 13, 2020

GSMOEF presents a Telephone Townhall featuring Roger Johnson, Chair of the MRL Protection Program Implementation Team.

Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 9:15 AM

This teleconference is open to all MH owners.   To make a reservation, email to Anne Anderson, a.bushnell.anderson@gmail.com with your name, park, city, and the phone number you will use to call in, and you will be sent the call-in number and code.   Space is limited so sign up soon!

The MRLPP will begin on July 1, 2020.

To read more about this program, visit HCD's MRLPP website:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/manufactured-mobile-home/mobilehome-residency-law-protection-program/

Your rights Bytes #15 - The Other FAQ, Part Three

· I got a call from an owner of a small mobilehome park who asked for advice on how to evict a very disruptive tenant.  The owner said that the tenant hadn’t paid rent since he moved in four months prior, and when the owner asked him for the rent money, the tenant laughed at him.  The park owner explained that the disruptive tenant had taken over the mobilehome when his father died, bringing with him drugs and unwelcomed guests.  The park owner noted that the recently deceased father had been a good tenant, but that his son was a nightmare.  I asked the park owner if the son was a registered tenant.  The owner said “no”; that the father had never registered his son.  The park owner was emotionally worn down, not only by the son’s behavior, but by the pressure of the other tenants for the owner to evict the son.  The owner, hoping I had some sort of legal leverage, said, “I don’t have the money to pay for an attorney.  What do I do?  Can you help?”  As I did in so many cases, I first told him that I was not an attorney and that I could not give legal advice.  I explained he law  – as I understood it – that since the son was not a registered tenant, and that he was never invited onto the property, then he was officially trespassing.  In this case the legal eviction process was not necessary.  I advised the owner to contact local law enforcement and have the son escorted off the owner’s property.  The owner was hopeful and understood this option but was now concerned about the empty mobilehome remaining in his park.  I explained that he would need to follow the official abandonment procedure, and if the son did not remove the mobilehome, then the owner could have the unit towed from his park.

· A man who had been living in his RV for many years, called me one day very mad that the park manager was making the tenants move their RVs out of the park every 30 days, and re-registering at the front gate.  He thought it was somehow discriminatory towards RVers that they had to move out every 30 days, just to line-up outside the park and drive back in and hope to get their favorite spaces back.  “The management makes us pack-up and drive our RVs out of the park every 30 days.  Is this legal?”  I asked the man what county he lived in, and when he told me he lived in one of California’s scenic coastal counties, well, that explained it.  I told him that all counties have their own laws on recreational vehicle living, and that most coastal counties are very strict on enforcement.  I had done some research a while back and learned that popular counties, like it or not, had some sort of ordinance restricting how long an RV could be parked in one spot.    So the 30-day in-and-out requirement was not an arbitrary park rule, but a county law.  I explained that even though some less-traveled counties might have similar laws, they may not be strictly enforced and that some long-term RVers in, say, Inyo County are not pressured to move out every 30-days.  The man wasn’t happy with my answer and maintained that it was “discrimination against RV residents.”  I cautiously explained to him that high-tourism counties have ordinances that try to keep RV park spaces available to all RVers, and that some RV parks might lose their status if they don’t make spaces available to visiting RVers. 

· On the subject of RV living, there are a few northern counties that advertise themselves as “recreational counties”. These are counties where outdoor activities are abundant.  Many private land owners have their own cabins, or camp for a short time on their land.  In these counties, non-permanent living structures are illegal.  In other words, it is illegal for the property owner to live on their own land in a temporary housing structure, such as an RV, car or tent.  And some counties won’t allow a mobilehome on private land unless it is situated in a registered mobilehome park.  One retired couple travelled to my office to ask me for help in getting the officials in their county to allow them to place a new RV on their own lot.  “We have owned this land for years, but now they are telling us we can’t live on it.  Are they allow to do that?”  There was an interesting back-story to this couple’s problem.  Their county had experienced a wild fire, wiping out hundreds of acres of forestland and destroying structures.  For decades prior to the fire, land-use ordinances had not been enforced.  But after the fire, the local officials started enforcing their ordinances.  This meant that this couple, and many others like them, could not replace the RVs or mobilehomes they had lost in the fire.  They argued that they should be “grandfathered-in” because they had been living on their land in an RV for years.  “Grandfathering” is not applicable here because the county’s ordinance had already been on the books, whether or not they had been enforced.  So in this case, the couple had to either build a permanent structure on their own land (acquiring all the permits to do so) or visit their land in their RV at restricted time intervals.

· An older man who lived in a mobilehome park in a quiet rural county, was told one day by the park manager that he had to take down his patio.  “I have lived in the same park for over 30 years.  After all these years I was told I have to take my patio down.  Is this fair?”  I asked him to describe his patio to me, thinking I could figure out from his description what the violation was.  He explained that he rented two spaces, side-by-side, and that he constructed a “patio”, connecting his two mobilehomes.  He said that since he was paying rent on both side-by-side spaces, that he was entitled to use the square footage between the spaces as well.  I told him that it sounded like his park got a visit from HCD and that his “patio” violated a very basic fire safety regulation.  I explained that a fire-fighting crew must be able to walk between mobilehomes and be able to haul their equipment with them.  I told him that he enjoyed his “patio” a lot longer than other residents in other parks would have, but that it was time for it to come down.  He thanked me for listening to him but decided that he would wait it out hoping that the park manager would not mention it again.

· A woman called me and wanted to know if I knew anything about the rumor that the mobilehome park where she lived was going to close down.  “We are all scared here.  If this park closes, we don’t know where we would go.  What should we do?”  I told her that I had no information on the status of her mobilehome park, but I did discuss with her why parks close down, and that she may want to watch for specific clues, if not outright ask the park owner.  When I asked her where her park was located, she explained that it was in Orange County near Disneyland (Clue #1), that her park was on a wide boulevard (Clue #2), that it was on the corner of a big, busy intersection (Clue #3), and that other parks near her had closed (Clue #4).  I explained how, generally, all mobilehome parks are on land zoned “temporary”, and that in very urbanized counties it was only a matter of time before temporary-use plots were destined to change and sold to developers (or to Walmart or Target).  She was very grateful for the time I spent discussing this with her over the phone, and that she was going to meet with her neighbors and tell them what she learned.  It didn’t solve her looming problem of displacement, but it was clearer to her why some mobilehome park owners sell their land, and what she needed to do to prepare.  Simply knowing why a mobilehome park would close down helped her tackle the next challenges.

--Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Homes and Communities

-0-

Your Rights Bytes #14 - The Other FAQ, Part Two

· The subject of rent is the first official FAQ because it generated the most phone calls to the Senate Select Committee for Manufactured Homes.  I explained to residents that they had to appeal to their city council or county board of supervisors to enact rent control.  Many residents called me back and said, “I called my councilmember’s office asking for rent control and they said I need to call the State.”  Local staff either did not know how rent control laws worked, or they simply didn’t want to tell the truth, which is “This city (or county) does not want rent control here.  Period.  End of discussion.”  Rent control falls under the definition of “local control”.  This means that cities and counties do not want the State taking away their right to run their cities their own way.  Most local jurisdictions retain a fulltime lobbyist in Sacramento to protect their exclusive rights of governance.

· “Why can’t the Legislature pass a MHP rent control law?”  This has been tried at different times with no success.  All bills must go through a hearing and review process.  It is during this process that some bills die on the battlefield of compromise.  If a MHP rent control bill has any life left in it by the time it reaches the Governor’s Desk, it has been so heavily amended that it is virtually useless.  This is why it is strategic to develop a rent control ordinance at the local level.

· “Why do some cities have MHP rent control ordinances, but mine doesn’t?”  These ordinances were enacted because a core group of MHP residents worked consistently and patiently for years negotiating with their local elected officials.  Getting any kind of rent control ordinance is pushing against the tide.  A few local jurisdictions have strong MHP rent control ordinances, some have weak ones.  Most local governments have none at all.

In a nutshell:  Rent control has a different impact on different groups.  For space-renters, it keeps housing costs in line with their other monthly expenses.  For park managers, it keeps the tenant population steady, limits move-ins and move-outs, and even keeps evictions at a minimum.  For property owners, rent control limits their business income and also restricts them from saving enough money for costly infrastructure upgrades.  For cities and counties, rent control ordinances can drive investors away, which makes it hard for local jurisdictions to raise money from property taxes, construction permit fees, and sales taxes.

· Residents in Orange County seemed to be impacted the most by unregulated rent increases.  A frantic man called me one day.  He said, “I just got a notice that my rent is increasing by $800.  How can they do this to us?”  He explained that he and his wife could not afford the increase along with food and medications.  And even if they sold their mobilehome, they couldn’t afford apartment rents either.  There was nothing I could do other than explain how to apply for housing assistance and food subsidies.  None of my advice helped.  He broke down in tears anyway.  Then he hung up because he couldn’t talk anymore.  I never heard from him again.  To this day, I feel awful about that.

· One elderly woman called me numerous times trying to figure out a way to get out of the park she and her husband were living in before the rising rents caused them to be homeless.  “We need to get out of this park because the rent is getting too much for us.  How do we do this?”  She took my advice and applied for a spot on the county’s low-income senior housing list.  When I didn’t hear from this positive, tenacious lady again, I assumed she and her husband moved to better housing.  This is how I explained to residents how this important process works:  A senior who is low income contacts their county housing authority and asks to be put on the waiting list.  The definition of “low income” is different in every county.  Almost all counties have a housing authority agency, and the popular counties’ waiting lists are very long.  At one time, I heard that Orange County is so impacted that their list only opens every 5 years, and is 10 years long.  Keep in mind that baby boomers are making that waiting list longer every day.  I tell seniors, “Get your name on the list now even if you don’t think you’ll need it.  You might need it by the time they call your name.”

· A recently retired woman in Los Angeles county called me and said she was trapped in a park where the rents were going up regularly and she wouldn’t be able to stay there.  She said, “I guess I’ll have to move.  What do I do?”  I advised her to apply for a Section 8 housing voucher through the local housing authority agency.  I cautioned her that landlords are not required to take Section 8, and in Los Angeles, the waiting list to get into Section 8 housing was very long.  She said her income was so low that she won’t be able to afford to stay in L.A.  I explained that since Section 8 is a federal program, this housing voucher is good anywhere in the U.S.

· A MHP resident from Southern California called me to report that as the rents were spiking in his park, maintenance and order were disappearing.  The park was getting dirty, trash was only being picked up periodically, and trailers were being brought in and squeezed onto random open spaces.  “I don’t feel safe in this park anymore.  What do I do?”  I told him that it appeared that his park was on a serious downslide, and that an upswing, if it came at all, could be years away.  I told him I couldn’t tell him what to do, but that if I was in his position, I would prepare to sell and move out before the park gets so unattractive and the rents are so high that no one would want to buy my home.  Before he hung up, he shared one more bleak observation:  The park was getting so unaffordable that the tenants in the mobilehome next door to him were stripping the metal siding off their unit and selling it for scrap to make the rent payments. 

· Rents have been on a wild streak for years in California but an increase is still relative, depending on where a person lives.  A woman called me from a rural eastern county where she and her neighbors were furious over the newest rent increase.  She said, “We just got another rent increase notice.  They are raising our rent five dollars again!  How can they do this?”  I told her that rent is going up everywhere because all of California is prime real estate.  And tenants in coastal counties (I call that area “The Riviera”) are being hit harder than the rest.  I explained that just that morning I had heard from an angry MHP resident in Orange County who said that his rent went up five hundred dollars.  She didn’t feel so bad anymore knowing what others were going through.  The man with the $500 increase didn’t know it, but he was an important example for residents from rural areas.  The rent increases in the country may be difficult, but they are not nearly as stiff as rent increases in the city.

---Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee for Manufactured Homes and Communities

Your Rights Bytes #13 - The Other FAQ, Part One

EDITOR's NOTE:   The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) Handbook published by the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Home Communities includes a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section which is based upon questions that were submitted to the Committee over the years.   Stephanie Reid had a large part in developing this FAQ, which you can still get in the 2020 MRL Handbook, along with information on other State laws pertaining to manufactured homes and a very helpful Directory of Community Resources, listed according to Counties (also compiled by Ms. Reid).    The MRL Handbook is often available at no charge from your State Senator's district office, or you may order a copy for the cost of mailing by calling the Senate Select Committee's publications office at 916-651-1538.   The Handbook is also available to search online at the Senate Select Committee website:  
https://mobilehomes.senate.ca.gov/sites/mobilehomes.senate.ca.gov/files/2020_mrl_final_version.pdf

Over the next three Rights Bytes, Stephanie Reid shares with us "The Other FAQ", other questions that she received when she was on staff with the Select Committee.

There were many questions I received over the years that never made it to the official FAQs list, but they are just as interesting. 

· When I guided mobilehome owners to call their own city or county services, they would often ask, “But how do I know whether I live in the City or the County?”  The quick, easy answer was: “If you call 9-1-1 and a police car arrives, you live in the City.  If a sheriff’s car arrives, then you live in the County.”

· Many MH residents were very frustrated at not finding legal help at the highest levels.  They were downright angry when I told them I couldn’t help them beyond explaining the law to them.  They would ask, “If you can’t give legal advice or defend my rights before the park manager, then what the heck is the Select Committee for?”  (Sometimes they didn’t say “heck”.)  I was in a corner, but the only thing I could do was come out with the truth.  I told them to join GSMOL or contact a local tenants’ rights group.  This is was the hardest subject to discuss because I had to defend my job, and there was no way I could help other than give them phone numbers.  My answers were no help at all.

· One MH resident was so mad at me that he was going to make sure I was fired.  He emailed me, “Two months ago, I sent you a list of laws that need to be added to the MRL.  You have done nothing.  I demand to see your office budget and salary.”  This resident never called me but preferred to email instead.  If he wanted to document our conversation, well then that worked in my favor too.  I told him that I did not “make” the laws, but as staff I advised the Senators on necessary additions or amendments to the MRL.  And that a two-month turnaround from bill proposal to enactment was not possible.  (There are extremely rare occasions when this happens, but it usually is because of a disaster, or other life-threatening problem that needs a codified resolution.)  I had responded to each of his proposed “laws”, noting that each was either already in statute, or were already part of Title 25, or were not solvable by legislative action but by arbitrator or in civil court.  This got him madder.  When he demanded to see my budget and salary, I consulted with Senate Rules Committee staff.  They advised me on how the Open Records Act worked:  that the requestor would have to identify exactly which budget time periods they were requesting.  Rules asked me to forward the email conversation to them and they would follow up.  I never heard from the resident again.

· It was painfully obvious to me the huge gap that MHP residents fell into when it came to legal assistance.  Numerous times I was asked, “Can you call the park managers and tell them to stop harassing me?”  The unfortunate answer was always “No.”  These were honest, sincere residents who needed – as I called it – a legal bodyguard.  I would spend as much time on the phone with these callers as they wanted.  Sometimes I would see their problem from a different perspective, which sometimes helped, sometimes not.  On occasion I would risk my job and say “Now, you didn’t hear this from me……”, or “I can’t tell you what to do, but I could tell you what I would do.”  The closer I got to retirement, the easier it was for me to help them this way.

· The Senate Townhalls were always useful, but unfortunately I could not pick the cities where the Townhalls were held.  That was up to the Senators who wanted them in their districts.  Residents often asked, “When will there be a mobilehome conference near me?  They are always so far away.”  I had the interest and the energy to have those Townhalls all over the state, but as it turned out, they happened to always be in Southern California.  MHP residents in the rest of the state definitely felt left out.  I would tell the residents that they have to ask their representatives for a Townhall.  A few times I would get calls from legislative staff from other parts of the state, but either they held the Townhall on their own, or it never happened at all.  There were times during the “election cycle” when I would get calls from staff, but other than that there just wasn’t the interest, I guess.

· This is how I blew up my office budget once.  I had become so energized by the response and educational value of the printed MRLs and FAQs that I was going to make sure that everyone had a copy.  For two years in a row I overspent my postage allotment, and finally the Senate slashed it to the bone.  I knew at some point I would get in trouble for the overspending, but at least I was able to get the book into a lot of hands.  I was especially hellbent on getting the books to park operators.  They would kindly call me, “I am a park manager and I have 300 homes in my park.  Can you send me 300 MRL books?”  I was encouraged by these requests, but I had to say “no” after my postage budget was pulled.  I don’t regret for a minute mailing out these books, but it was right at the time when many agencies were not printing their valuable consumer books any longer and instead posting them right to the internet.  This direct-to-internet publishing affected me too because I had a great office library of valuable printed materials from other agencies and eventually I could not get hardcopy updates anymore.

· Some MHP problems were not solvable by enforcement of the law or regulation because they were simply a matter of two residents who disagreed.  I got this call every now and then: “The man next door smokes on his porch and the smoke floats into my home.  I have told him to stop but he won’t.  Where is the law that says his smoke can’t come into my home?”  Here was my answer: If your park is a “no-smoking” park, then tell the manager that your neighbor is violating the park rule.  If your park does not have a no-smoking policy, then you will have to work the problem out with your neighbor.” 

· And there were other numerous neighbor-on-neighbor problems whose answers were not in the MRL or Title 25.  A resident asked me to make a trip to her MHP where she lived in Los Angeles.  She said, “The children play handball against the side of my mobile.  Please tell them to stop.”  When I told her that she needed to tell the children herself or tell their parents, she said she didn’t want to because she lived alone and was scared to confront them.  I told her that it just wasn’t my place to represent her.  She hung up disappointed, and I felt sorry for her.    

--Stephanie Reid

Your Rights Bytes #12 - Rejected Home Buyers

Question:  Can the park’s income requirements on prospective buyers prevent a resident from selling their home?

Background:

Over the years, I received calls from mobilehome park residents who felt that the park manager was purposely blocking the sale of their home by unfairly rejecting the residency application of their potential buyers.  Although indeed there were cases where a park manager would derail a sale for unscrupulous reasons, in most cases a residency application was rejected because the potential buyer did not have the sustained income to qualify for long-term residency.

Most of the people who called me were not aware that this very screening process happens in nearly every pre-rental review of apartments, single-family rental housing, and even commercial properties.  I would explain to callers that property managers routinely screen potential tenants to determine if they would be able to afford future rent increases, as well as upcoming pass-thru fees for future infrastructure repair or replacement.  In a large mobilehome park where infrastructure upgrades have been delayed for years, repairs or replacement of sewer, roads and lighting could cost well over a million dollars.  Residents would not only be paying their base rent, but be charged for a portion of the infrastructure repair costs.

Although most of the cases were the same, there were some cases where the facts proved the manager’s position.  One day a manager called me to chew me out because he felt that I was giving encouragement to a realtor to resist the manager’s decision.  (It was always my style to stay on neutral ground, and to listen objectively and to learn.)  In this case, the potential buyer had proof of plenty of funds to purchase the mobilehome.  However, their funds were not their own, but their elderly parents’.  In addition, the buyer had no employment history.  Further, the prospective buyer had a poor tenancy record, as reported by former landlords, which had caused chronic complaints from other residents.  The manager denied residency to this potential buyer not only because their income could not be guaranteed, but to avoid trouble for other residents – and a possible eviction. 

Answer: Yes.  The sale of a mobilehome located in a mobilehome park is a three-party, not two-party transaction.  The buyer and seller must not only agree to the terms of the sale of the homes, but the buyer must be approved for residency in the park by the park owner/management.  Management can withhold approval on the basis of: 1) the buyer’s inability to pay the rent and charges of the park, and 2) the buyer’s inability to comply with park rules and regulations as indicated by prior tenancies (see Civil Code Section 798.74).  Although guidelines used by other landlords or public agencies for rental housing may be more lenient, many park owners impose higher income requirement to assure buyers will be able to afford future rent increases without causing the park problems such as evictions. 

[Editor’s Note:  However, in 2019 the State Legislature passed SB 274 by Senator Bill Dodd.   This made changes in the Mobilehome Residency Law section 798.74 to allow a prospective buyer to supply other proofs of ability to pay besides income.  This makes it more likely that the buyer will be approved even if their income alone does not qualify them.] 

--Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Homes and Communities