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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-0-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Stephanie Reid

Your Rights Bytes #12 - Rejected Home Buyers

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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