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

Your Rights Bytes #6 - Problem Residents

Question:  I am a manager in a mobilehome park where an elderly resident is putting herself in danger. When I call her family, they are unresponsive. What do I do to make sure she and the other residents are safe from harm?

Background:   I had been hearing of this problem for years, but I had never thought to add it to the FAQs, until one day a park manager called me and was looking for help on how to handle an elderly woman who was afraid to stay in her mobilehome.  During the day the woman would walk through the park yelling, and at night the women slept on a bench in the park across the street.  The park manager contacted the family of the woman but no one was willing to come forward to take her to safety, and yet her rent was always paid on time.  The park manager was getting pressure from residents to remove the mentally unstable woman from the park, however, the park manager was not sure how to protect both the residents and the disruptive woman.  I spoke with a staff member at the State Department of Health and Human Services who was an ardent advocate for the safety and respectful care and placement of dependent adults.  Not only did she give me the valuable information which I included in the Answer, but she relayed a heart-wrenching story of her own.  Before she became employed with HHS, she was a mental health advocate at the county level where she met an elderly woman who refused to use the toilet in her home, using wastebaskets instead.  When she interviewed the woman she found out that the woman would not step into the bathroom because she was afraid of the woman in the mirror.  This served as an example of the challenge that mentally unwell persons are suffering through.  When I composed and added this FAQ to the list, it was my hope that managers and residents could work together to use state and local resources to keep their park and their neighbors safe.

Answer:  Contact your county’s Adult Protective Services program. APS is a state-mandated program (Welfare & Institutions Code Sec. 15610.10) that provides evaluation and assistance for seniors (age 65 and older) and dependent adults (age 18-64 and physically or mentally impaired) who are reported to be unable to meet their own needs. APS agencies investigate reports of alleged victims endangered by physical, sexual or financial abuse, isolation, neglect, or self-neglect.

--Stephanie Reid, formerly with Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Home Communities

Your Rights Bytes #5 - Section 8 Vouchers

Question:  Must the park owner accept Section 8 vouchers?

Background:  This question came mainly from residents in Orange County who were quite upset when their park managers informed them that they will not be renewing their Section 8 agreements with HUD.  I called a HUD rep and we spoke at length on how the Section 8 program worked.  Indeed, HUD allows property managers to opt out of participation in this rent subsidy program.  In some slower rental markets, a Section 8 voucher is a guaranteed source of income for property owners who would otherwise have trouble renting out their spaces.  But in areas like Orange County, Section 8 participation was causing landlords to lose money because HUD payments were well below “market”. The other thing I learned was that a resident could use their HUD voucher anywhere in the U.S. where Section 8 was accepted.  This was not a meaningful answer for long-time MHP residents of Orange County, but it did give them an option.  For some residents it was no answer at all.  Residents who had moved from booming L.A. county decades ago to quieter Orange County, never thought they would have to pick up and move when they were in their 80’s.  It was just as disappointing for me that I had no better answer for these people.

Answer:  Section 8 is a federal program (Housing and Urban Development), and federal law does not require landlords to accept Section 8 rent vouchers. Landlords who accept Section 8 enter into agreements or contracts with the county that administers the program and must abide by the Section 8 terms for the period of the agreement, which is normally a set number of years. Because of Section 8 restrictions, some landlords have opted-out of Section 8 at the end of their agreements. The local county housing agency has information regarding availability of rent vouchers.

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

Your Rights Bytes #4 - Subleasong

Your Rights Bytes  #4 - Subleasing

Question:  Can the park prevent residents from subleasing their mobilehome?

Background: A MHP resident/homeowner contacted me to report that the park managers were avoiding their responsibility by not evicting a bad resident.  In this particular park where subletting was allowed, the bad resident happened to be the homeowner’s roommate.  The homeowner did not want the unforgiving task of kicking out the roommate so she demanded that the manager get the roommate out.  The manager told the homeowner that she alone was responsible for evicting her “tenant”.  The caller did not agree with the manager’s interpretation of the law and contacted me for clarification.  I gave her the same simple answer.  This is one of those cases where subleasing can be a nightmare for the resident.

In another case, a woman called me from a resident-owned MHP located in a Southern California coastal city.  This woman was renting her home to weekend vacationers which caused resentment among many neighbors.  In this particular park there was no prohibition on subleasing, and indeed some residents were quietly subletting their homes on long-term leases. However, this particular resident was registered as a “landlord” on Airbnb.com, and her tenants were short-term renters.  This created what was viewed as a stream of strangers who were using the park’s common amenities, such as the clubhouse and the pool, disrupting the other residents’ sense of community.  This resident asked me if it was “fair” for others to sublet their homes while it she was resented for subletting her home to “weekenders”; wasn’t it all “subletting” anyway?  Without all the facts of the case – and without looking at the HOA’s governing documents -- I told her that I could not answer that question, and yet furthermore it could be argued that renting her home to subletters did not give her the right to allow the subletters access to the common amenities.  I suggested that the matter should be brought before the HOA’s general membership for debate and vote.

Answer:  Yes. Most mobilehome parks have rules that prohibit homeowners from subleasing their mobilehomes, even in hardship cases. However, in cases of seniors who require medical convalescence away from their homes, they may sublet for up to one year. (Civil Code §798.23.5)

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

Your Rights Bytes #3 - Lot Lines

Question:  Can the park owner or manager move lot lines without permission from residents whose spaces are affected?

Background: There were many calls over the years regarding lot line violations.  A resident called one day to report that the park owner moved a lot line that sliced the width of his driveway by half to accommodate the next door neighbor lady’s vegetable garden.  The manager agreed to move the lot line for the neighbor with the garden because he said that she was a new tenant and her monthly rent rate was higher.

In another case, a man called to complain that the manager had moved the lot lines, which reduced the size of his lot, in order to accommodate a doublewide being installed next door.  I told him to look at his original lease to verify where the actual lines were.  He said he never saved a copy of his lease.

In one case where a resident had a copy of the park’s plot map, the manager told him that the map was out-of-date.  The resident asked to see the “new” one.  The manager said he didn’t know where it was.  I also spoke with residents who were living in parks that were so old that plot maps where never established and enforcement was based on one person’s word against the other’s.

Answer:  Before moving a lot line, the management must obtain a permit (H&S Code Sec. 18610.5) from the state Department of Housing and Community Development and verify that the park has obtained the consent of homeowners affected by the lot line change. However, in some older parks there are no markers or defined lot lines and no plot maps indicating where the lot lines should be. In cases where there is no documented evidence of original lot lines, HCD may not be able to determine that the lot line has been moved and that a permit is required. The issue then becomes a legal matter between the park management and the affected homeowners.

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

Your Rights Bytes #2 - Inherited Mobilehomes

Question:  Can a park prevent a resident from living in a mobilehome they inherited?

Background:

A recently widowed resident called because the park manager had given her a 60-day move-out notice. She and her husband had lived in the same park for decades, however, the husband had just recently passed away. The park manager asked the widow to leave because she had never been a registered tenant.  She explained that she often asked her husband throughout the years to add her name on the residency list, and he always said he would get around to it, but it never happened.  Now she was technically a “trespasser” in the park that she lived in for years.  I kindly told the widow that she should try to make a clear case (showing her name on utility bills, etc.) that her husband had intended to add her to the park residency list but that his negligence was innocent and not calculated.  I wished I had had a better answer for her.

Often I received calls from caregivers who inherited their MH from their now-deceased patient, but faced eviction by the park because they were never registered tenants.  The deceased MH owner, having left a most generous gift of a home for their caregiver, caused a nightmare by not considering that the caregiver needed full residency rights in order to stay there. There were a few cases like this where the details were even more complicated.  The deceased person’s family would come to claim their inherited MH only to find the caregiver permanently settled in.  This caused a three-way fight between the caregiver who believed the home was their own, the surviving family who wanted to claim their inheritance, and the park manager who was being forced to take sides.   All because the deceased MH owner did not make their intentions clear and legal when there were alive.

A woman called me from Arizona asking me to get involved in a dispute she was having with a park manager in San Diego.  Her elderly mother had recently passed away, and instead of removing or selling the home, she wanted to place her adult son in the home.  The park was refusing to allow her son to live there.  And although the caller alluded to behavior problems that the son suffered, she believed that since the home was hers (by inheritance) that she could place anyone she wanted in her home.  She was not happy in the least when I told her that the park had the authority to deny residency to persons whom they feel do not have the personal  income to pay the monthly rent, and who may have a proven background of disruptive behavior towards other tenants.  On top of this problem, the woman was annoyed that she was paying rent on her unoccupied MH.   This Arizona woman hung up quite angry with me. 

Answer:  Yes, unless the resident qualifies for residency and has signed a rental agreement. Upon death of a homeowner, heirs cannot simply assume they can move into the decedent’s home or continue to live there if they are not already a party to the rental agreement. Despite the fact that an heir takes title to the mobilehome, the park management has the right to require an heir, or person who had been living with the resident, to newly apply for residency in the park. If the management rejects the heir’s residency because the heir cannot comply with the rules or doesn’t have the income to pay the rent and charges, the heir can be required to move out. The heir has the right to resell the inherited mobilehome in place in the park (Civ. 798.78(a)), assuming it meets health and safety code requirements (Civ. 798.78(b)), but must continue to pay the monthly space rent until the home is sold in order to maintain the right to sell it in place in the park. Otherwise, the park may terminate the tenancy and require the home to be moved from the park within 60 days of the notice of termination. (Civ. 798.73)

This Byte comes from Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee for Manufactured Homes.

Your Rights Bytes #1 - Stored Belongings

Question:  Does the park manager have the right to tell me to remove my belongings that are stored on my space?
 
Background: 
A woman called me to ask what her rights were for storing her family heirlooms around and under the crawl space of her home.  She said that since she always paid her rent on time, that she should be able to use her lot and home as it suited her.  I told her that her “right” to store, stack or pile her possessions in clear violation of Title 25, puts the rest of the park in danger of fire.  She hung up disappointed in my answer.
 
One day I received a call from a park resident who was upset because the park manager told him to either store his collection of household items inside his home, or remove the pile from the park.  He couldn’t understand why the park manager was being so harsh.  He explained to me that his “collection” consisted of items for a garage sale.  Shortly after I talked to him, I received a phone call from a person who must have been the collector’s neighbor, but this neighbor had no sympathy for the collector. She explained to me that the collector conducted a perpetual garage sale on his space, and that the assorted stuff around his home was for sale at all times.  At the very least, the collector’s “merchandise” was causing a headache for his neighbors.
 
Months later, I was with government officials on a walking tour of various mobilehome parks in an economically depressed area.  The subject of this tour was health and safety, of which the code violations in this particular park were acute.  Our small group of officials stopped to listen to the concerns of a few bold residents who approached us to plead for enforcement of a cleaner park.  They complained of rats that darted from home to home, nested under piles of trash, and gnawed on electrical wires. As I was listening to the small crowd of residents, I noticed through the corner of my eye a resident who was sitting in a folding chair amongst piles of used food containers and open, bulging trash bags.  He got up from his chair, flicked a lit cigarette butt on to his matchstick-dry lawn, and walked inside his home.  I thought, “This is why we have Title 25.”
 
Answer:  The park manager has an obligation to keep the park safe from fire. According to California Code of Regulations, Title 25 (health and safety requirements for mobilehome parks), Article 2, Section 1120, “Occupants shall keep the lot area and the area under, around, or on their unit and accessory buildings or structures free from an accumulation of refuse, rubbish, paper, leaves, brush or other combustible material,” and that park operators “...shall ensure that a collection system is provided and maintained, with covered containers, for the safe disposal of rubbish.”

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

NEW BLOG POSTS

Starting this month (February 2019), we will be posting "Your Rights Bytes" articles written by our experts in the Golden State Manufactured-home Owners Education Fund. 

Our first article will be from Stephanie Reid, who was on staff at the Senate Select Committee for Manufactured Homes and Communities. 

A new article will be published every week.

Anne Anderson
Ed Fund Academy Webmaster