Your Rights Bytes #18 - How to Respond to or Handle a 7-Day Notice

 By Bruce Stanton, GSMOL Corporate Counsel and GSMOEF Secretary                                                              

The Situation:

You live in a mobilehome park and have received a written 7-day Notice from park management to perform repairs to your home or alleging non-compliance with the park rules and regulations.  What is the relevant law, how should you respond and what are your available options as a homeowner?

7-Day Notices in General:

It is first important to know the applicable law concerning what the mobilehome industry calls “7-Day Notices”.  The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) provides at Civil Code 798.56 (d) that a homeowner can be evicted for failure to “comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement or any amendment thereto.”  Civil Code 798.15 (b) provides that the rules and regulations are deemed to be a part of any rental agreement, and most parks have written rules.  But no such eviction can occur unless or until a written 7-day notice of any alleged violation is first served upon the homeowner.  This is not the eviction notice itself; a 60-day notice is required to evict.

But if you receive a 7-day Notice, it is thus important to take it seriously and respond within 7 days, since this could be a precursor to a subsequent 60-day termination of tenancy notice. 

If compliance is performed within 7 days of the date of service of the Notice, then it should be deemed satisfied.  It is the date of service, not the date on the Notice, which determines how to count the 7 days. It is important to note that if a 7-day notice has been given three or more times during a 12-month period for violation of the same rule or regulation, no new 7-day Notice is required, and the park owner could elect to proceed with a 60-day termination without providing any new 7-day notice period.

Common violations appearing in 7-Day Notices include:

-repairs to the home, including painting or remedy of dangerous conditions under Title 25;

-repairs to accessory structures, including stairs, awning supports, porches, or utility systems;

-landscaping violations on the mobilehome space;

-clean up of clutter or unapproved items;

-removal of unauthorized occupants from the home;

-cessation of unauthorized conduct or activity.

What a 7-Day Notice Should Contain

To be enforceable, a 7-Day Notice must:

-Recite the rule or regulation which is the basis for each alleged violation;

-Contain a clear description of how the rule or regulation is being violated;

-Contain a clear description of what performance is required, so that the homeowner knows how to comply with it.

 

How to Respond to a 7-Day Notice:

First it is important that the homeowner respond to the Notice, and that the response be in writing, so that you have a record of your response if needed.  The response should be delivered to management in person if possible, or mailed/emailed if there is enough time to do so.  The response should be made within the 7-day period, and could take one of the following forms:

 

1.  The Notice is Vague, Ambiguous or Unclear

A homeowner cannot presume to adequately respond to of comply with a Notice if it is

unclear what it is asking or what rule is being violated.  If there are 10 trees on the space and the Notice merely says: “Trim your Tree”, the homeowner should ask for further guidance and clarification as to which tree is being referred to.  Thus, this kind of written response should say:  “I’ve received the 7-Day Notice and am willing to comply if needed, but cannot tell from the Notice where the violation is or what you are asking.  Please clarify which park rule is being violated (or please clarify what is being asked of me)”.

 

2. I Will Comply or Have Complied with the Notice

If the Notice is clear and the homeowner confirms that there is a violation, it is

important to communicate that it will be or has been timely performed.  If a contractor or third party is hired for any purpose, be sure to provide a copy of any receipt or report which confirms the work done if available.  Offer to allow management to have a walk through or inspect for compliance.  It is vital that the work be done within 7 days if at all possible.  Remember that even if you comply with the notice, if you do not do so until after the 7 days expire the park can technically still proceed with a 60-day notice.  If you need more time to comply, such as to hire a contractor or landscaper, then request that ASAP in your response.

 

3. The Notice is Inaccurate and there are No known Violations

If the homeowner is certain there is no violation as alleged and wishes to dispute

the Notice, you should do so in writing and clearly state the basis for your objection.  This kind of response should only be made if the facts or law supports the homeowner’s position.  Be very careful before you respond in this manner, and obtain qualified legal advice first if possible.  Choosing this option could begin a negotiation with management, or could result in the service of a 60-day Notice, or another 7-Day notice.  Often management will serve multiple Notices so as appear reasonable and to create a clear “paper trail” in case they later go to court. 

Final Thoughts:

While COVID-19 legislation allows homeowners to request rent payments be deferred or evictions postponed, it does NOT include or affect 7-day Notices.  Legislation is being considered in 2021 that will hopefully deal with the problem of a homeowner finding a contractor during the pandemic, or performing repairs during 7 days.  But for now, these notices are not affected by such legislation, and must be dealt with and responded to at once.  Finally, if the park does not have any written rules or regulations it is doubtful they could ever enforce a 7-day Notice.

Your Rights Bytes #17 - Mobilehome Sale Rights and Obligations Confronting Unlawful Interference

By Bruce Stanton, GSMOL Corporate Counsel and GSMOEF Secretary

Homeowners attempting to sell their mobile or manufactured home sometimes encounter park management who fails to timely provide resale upgrade requirements or to process buyer applications.  Days drag into weeks.  Purchasers are kept in the dark about whether they are or are not park approved, and sellers hear nothing about repairs or upgrades, and then receive last-minute repair or upgrade demands just before close of escrow.  This places sellers in a pressurized situation where they feel forced to make the repairs or else lose their sale, and possibly be sued by the buyer.  In many cases these "delays" are intentionally calculated to accomplish management's goal of forcing repairs or improvements, or perhaps stopping the sale all together.  Residents want to know, and need to know what rights they have if management is unfairly blocking or delaying a sale in this manner.

We begin with the fundamental underlying premise that the Mobilehome Residency Law is a consumer protection statute, benefiting mobilehome resident "consumers" who require unique protection under the law.  Its provisions are incorporated within and deemed a part of every mobilehome lease or rental agreement (798.15 (c)).  Its provisions cannot be waived by a homeowner in any contract (798.19).  It contains definitive time deadlines which must be followed and honored by management.  If they are not, then management may be deemed to have waived the right to require certain things, as stated below.  And in the event of a willful violation of its provisions by management, a penalty of up to $2,000.00 for each such violation may be awarded by a court, or punitive damages. (798.86). 

Civil Code 798.74 provides that management "may" (not "shall") require prior approval of a mobilehome purchaser.  Approval cannot be withheld if the purchaser has financial ability to pay the rent, estimated utilities and charges of the park.  798.74 (e) ties the ability to exercise that permissive "prior approval" review process to a mandatory obligation to timely complete review of the buyer's application within 15 business days.  Management SHALL (not "may") then notify the parties of acceptance or rejection.  Failure to do so within the required 15 business days presumes, by silence, that the purchaser is qualified for residency, and would legally allow the transaction to proceed forward.  Management has every reasonable ability to conduct its review within the 15 business days.  Failure to do so could kill the transaction, and management knows this.  If management chooses not to timely exercise their right of review, then the right could be deemed waived.  Failure to provide timely approval, or a rental agreement to the buyer, which results in the loss of a sale, enables a mobilehome seller to sue the park owner for damages in an amount equal to the lost sales price.

The same is true with respect to the issue of mobilehome upgrades upon resale.  Civil Code 798.73.5 provides that management "may" require repairs or improvements upon resale.  But that ability is once again specifically conditioned upon management's compliance with a fixed time deadline.  798.73.5 states that in the case of an "in place" sale or transfer, management SHALL ( again it is stated as a mandatory duty) provide a written list summary of repairs and upgrades no later than 10 business days following receipt of a request for that information.  Typically this would be included in the "Notice of Intent to Sell" given to management by the mobilehome seller.  If management fails to comply with this mandatory "shall" requirement, then, again, management by its silence can be deemed to have waived its right to require any repairs or upgrades as a condition of sale.

The California legislature recognized the importance of these reasonable time deadlines to a mobiehome sales transaction, which like any real estate deal heavily depends upon timing and multiple conditions being met.  Any failure to perform within either of these important deadlines could result in a lost sale.  In such a case, it is park management which could and should be held liable for damages. 

So how can these rights be enforced by a mobilehome seller?  First, a selling homeowner should only hire a broker, agent, dealer or salesperson who will vigorously require park management to abide by these MRL violations.  If deadlines are not meant, they should be willing to push for compliance, or argue that management has waived its ability to require upgrades or approve a buyer.  When management refuses to comply, the seller should hire legal counsel, or file a complaint with The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) pursuant to the newly created "Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program".  Knowing your rights is the important first step.  But enforcing those rights is also critical to preserving your rights as a mobilehome seller. 

Don't forget that once park management chooses to engage either of the above sale-related processes which they "may" elect to pursue, they become obligated to perform the within the time deadlines that the legislature has decreed they "shall" follow.

Ed Fund Telephone Townhall September 11 2020

 GSMOEF presents a 

TELEPHONE TOWNHALL

with

BRUCE STANTON, GSMOL Corporate Counsel

speaking on

The Impact of New State Legislation Signed by Governor Newsom on Manufactured-Home Owners

Friday, September 11, 2020

1:30 PM

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. 

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-