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

Your Rights Bytes #11 - Abandoned Mobilehomes

Question:  I own a mobilehome park where there are many abandoned homes.  Can I sell them without registering as a real estate agent?

Background:

The majority of calls on this subject were from residents who reported many observations of illegal acquisitions.  The most egregious example – of, well, theft – were of a few mobilehome park owners and managers who routinely “sold” abandoned homes to persons who were living in this country without proof of citizenship.  The “undocumented” resident would pay for their MH in cash installments.  Then, when the resident paid the last installment on their home, the park owner or manager would order the undocumented resident and their family to leave the park immediately under threat of being reported to immigration authorities.  The family would flee the park and the home was then sold to the next undocumented family with the same outcome.  A penalty of $2,000 would hardly dissuade a theft of a home that would yield thousands more, if the theft was prosecuted at all.

Answer:  Generally, the answer is “no”.  First, in order to act as an agent between a seller or buyer of a used mobilehome or manufactured home, you either must be registered with HCD as a “manufactured home dealer” or with the Bureau of Real Estate as a licensed real estate agent.  Acting as an unlicensed dealer or agent can result in criminal penalties, civil penalties, and citations of up to $2,000 for each illegal sales activity.

The only exception to this is if the prior residents/homeowners have “walked away” from the homes, a park owner may sell them if he/she first obtains the right to ownership through a court action for the judgment of abandonment (Civil Code Section 798.61) or after a warehouse lien sale (Civil Code Section 798.56a).  After that, if the park owner intends to rent, sell or salvage the units, the park owner must go to HCD and transfer title to his or her name, which includes paying all property taxes or HCD fees that are owed.  HCD also has special procedures for when the prior registered owner cannot be found or when there are unpaid or unsatisfied loans on the home.  Only after registering as the new owner may the Park owner (who is now the homeowner) rent, sell, or salvage the abandoned homes.

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

Your Rights Bytes #10 - MRL Enforcement

Question:  What good is the MRL if there is no enforcement and residents have to go to court to protect themselves?

Background:

This issue, more than any other, caused residents to hang up the phone mad at me.  Telling residents that they had to take their dispute to the courts was no help at all, making callers furious and extremely frustrated.  It made no sense to residents that they should call the state capitol simply to get turned away.  I had to explain that my role was limited to staffing legislation and advising senators and staff on the MRL.  Unfortunately this caused more anger and the predictable rebuke, “Then what DO you do if you can’t help me?”  I was never offended by their frustration because I understood.  It only made clear the need for a program that would close the gap between the law and access to justice.

As a result of residents’ requests for legal assistance, I added the Community Resources section to the annual MRL Handbook, which lists county court services.  This listing was still not sufficient – and I knew it.  Residents needed an advocate who would accept their case and guide them through the legal process, just like a social services agency would guide an individual through the complex process of applying for and receiving health care, food or housing. 

Answer:  The MRL – the landlord-tenant law for mobilehome parks -- is part of the Civil Code. The enforcement mechanism is through the civil courts, not law enforcement or another government agency.  The courts are a branch of government responsible for, among other aspects, resolving or ruling on civil disputes.     The good news is:  with the enactment of AB 3066 (2018), GSMOL and HCD will join as partners in developing a referral program that will bring residents complaining of MRL violations together with local non-profit legal advocates.  This is known as the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program.   Homeowners will be able to begin filing complaints in July, 2020.   GSMOL and GSMOEF (Education Fund) will be communicating with homeowners with more information.

--Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Homes and Communities, updated by Anne Anderson, website editor and GSMOEF Board Member

Your Rights Bytes #9 - Unprofessional Managers

Rights Bytes #9 – Unprofessional Managers

Question:  What can residents do about park managers who act unprofessionally?

Background:   

Most “unprofessional” park managers lack the benefit of training courses to help them understand the Mobilehome Residency Law and Title 25 and how these laws and regulations work together.  It would benefit all park managers if their park owners joined a professional association and took advantage of the training seminars that are designed specifically for them.  Until all managers are trained, then the best alternative is a current copy of the Select Committee’s annual MRL.  I spoke with many park managers who called me back every year to request their own MRL.  They were very grateful, and some even requested extra copies for them to send to their park owner and to give to other park staff.  A number of park managers even displayed an “office copy” for residents to view.  So, what might seem “unprofessional” may just be “untrained”.

            However, I did hear of managers who – with no oversight by their park owners, and no interest in the MRL or Title 25 – made life very difficult for their tenants.  For tenants who feel that they are being harassed, then they must build a solid defense by chronicling every action by the manager that is clearly a violation of the laws governing mobilehome parks.  An attorney or advocacy group will be more likely to help the tenant if the tenant can hand them a copy of carefully recorded notes. 

            I add this however:  It was not lost on me when I heard from a tenant who I surmised may have been an equal partner in the dispute.  When I figured out that it wasn’t clearly a case of the manager breaking laws, but of two clashing personalities, I would advise the caller to consider whether they would be happier living in a different park.  (In cases where the resident would not consider moving, they would predictably ask me what to do.  My response was always “I cannot tell you what to do, but if it were me, I would fly under the manager’s radar.”)

            The MRL Protection Program set up by AB 3066 (2018, Stone) brings an organized process for legal advocacy to residents.  This program will begin taking complaints from MHP residents in July, 2020, and referring the most egregious ones to nonprofit legal aid agencies.   The hope will be that “unprofessionalism” will be replaced with cooperation and the discovery for the need for training.  (My last thought on this:  It is not enough to require a license to own a park, but just as importantly, to run a park.)

Answer:  There are at this time no state mandated qualifications to be a mobilehome park manager.  Many are good managers, however, a few lack professional training and oversight.  The MRL gives residents certain rights, but when contentious issues have to be resolved, residents have a right to contact legal advocacy groups that will assist them in assessing and achieving a solution to the problem.

--Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Homes and Communities, updated by Anne Anderson, website editor and GSMOEF Board Member

Your Rights Bytes #8 - Trees and Driveways

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.

Your Rights Bytes #7 - Animal Control

Question:  I manage a park where pets and other animals are getting out of control.  Some residents’ dogs are aggressive toward other pets or residents.  Some residents feed feral cats.  And, stray animals are wandering in packs.  How do I solve these problems?

Background:

Both residents and park managers called me complaining about animals in their park.  It seemed that ultimately the problem was not about the animals, but about the residents who fed feral animals or who failed to keep their pets in their own yard.  This problem was so easily enforceable.

Title 25 is clear, however some park managers were too timid (or unwilling) to enforce this state regulation because of the backlash.  But this only caused the law-abiding residents to resent the park manager for not being forceful, and to resent their neighbors for causing a disruption.  The reports were as varied as they were numerous:  Residents routinely feeding feral cats; residents keeping food dishes on their porches which attracted rats, skunks, raccoons and possums at night; unspayed or unneutered dogs roaming in packs; residents who let their dogs defecate on other residents’ spaces; and finally, in some parks of which I was made aware, an infestation of fleas that caused an outbreak of typhoid fever among the parks’ children.

I received a call from a woman who was upset because I told her that Title 25 is not meant to be punitive, but as a guideline for keeping people and other pets safe.  She felt that Title 25 did not apply to her because she felt that the feral cats that she fed were her “pets”.  I got a call from a resident who was mad at the park manager who allowed another resident to walk his aggressive dog through the park without a leash.  In another case, a resident who put out dishes of cat food on her porch did not mind the family of raccoons living under her mobilehome, but her neighbors did mind.  The reports went on and on.

But there was a call I may never forget.  An older resident was heartbroken when the park manager announced that he was enforcing the park’s one-pet rule.  This resident’s three indoor cats had been providing him comfort and calm while he endured chemotherapy treatments.  Now he had the terrible task of parting with two of his cats.

It was my goal that by publishing this FAQ it would help managers and residents realize the common goal of safety and courtesy in their parks.

Answer:  Contact the city or county animal services department for assistance.  Local government services include abatement or information on the following matters:  barking/nuisance dogs, rodents, stray/feral, license/registration/microchip, dog bites, neglect/abuse, spay/neuter, and prohibited aggressive breeds.  Also, according to California Code of Regulations, Title 25 (health and safety requirements for mobilehome parks), Article 2, Section 1114(a), “Dogs and other domestic animals, and cats (domestic or feral) shall not be permitted to roam at-large (free) in any park.”  Finally, pet owners may be liable for danger or harm caused by their pets.

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