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.