RULES V. THE MOBILEHOME RESIDENCY LAW
Q. My park manager says the mobilehome park’s rules prevail over any state law? Is this true?
A. No. The park rental agreement and the park rules and regulations must be consistent with the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) and other laws that apply in parks. For example, a park rental agreement or rule that provides the park may increase the rent with a 30-day notice to a homeowner who owns the mobilehome in the park would be in conflict with Section 798.30, which provides that such a rent increase requires a 90-day notice. In this case the MRL would prevail over the conflicting park rule.
RULE CHANGES
Q. Recently a new management company took over the park, and they are changing numerous standards or rules that have existed for years affecting existing residents, imposing new restrictions on parking, clothes’ lines, and patio furniture. Can the park change rules on long-time residents or are they “grandfathered in” under old rules?
A. Existing residents are not insulated from park rule changes. Under Section 798.25 of the Mobilehome Residency Law, the park can change a park rule and regulation as it applies to existing residents, such as prohibiting clothes lines or limiting the number of cars at each space, but the park must give residents a 6-months notice of the changes, or a 60-day notice if it involves changes in rules relating to park recreational facilities, such as he swimming pool or recreational facilities within the clubhouse. The management must also meet and confer with park residents at their request upon a 30-day notice about the change in park rules but is not bound to accept residents’ suggestions or requests about the rules. There have been several bills over the years in Sacramento to try to change the law giving residents a vote on park rule changes, but these attempts have never been successful.
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF PARK RULES
Q. In my park there are many rules and regulations, but they don’t apply to everyone. For example, the rules say no one is allowed to have a clothesline, outside patio furniture, or pick-up trucks in the park, but the manager and several of the manager’s resident friends have their pick-up trucks parked at their spaces, and several other residents have patio furniture sitting on their decks or in their empty carports. How can park rules apply to some residents but not others?
A. They can’t. MRL Sec. 798.56(d) provides that the park rules and regulations have to be “reasonable.” “Reasonable” often may be subject to court interpretation, but normally rules have to have some rational basis in fact under the circumstances, as well as apply evenly to everyone residing in the park. A rule, which applies to some but not all residents, is discriminatory and would not stand up in court. Sec. 798.23 also requires park owners and their employees to abide by park rules to the same extent as residents, except rules regarding age limits or acts of the park owner or park employee undertaken to fulfill park maintenance, management or operational responsibilities (making noise pounding nails, use of trucks for maintenance purposes, etc.). The manager may argue that it is necessary for him to have a pick-up in order to fulfill his park responsibilities as manager. Considering the fact that many people today commonly use pick-ups like cars, the rule may have no reasonable basis in the first place for prohibiting other residents from parking a pick-up truck in the park. But civil action may be necessary. Homeowners, through their homeowners association or advocacy group, should seek a meeting with management under Section 798.53 or seek legal redress, such as an injunction or possible declaratory relief.
SENIOR PARK CHANGED TO ALL
Q. We retired and bought a home in the park five years ago, when it was advertised as a senior community. The rental agreement and park rules provide that we had to be 55 or older to move in to the park. Now the management has arbitrarily changed the senior rule to allow anyone of any age to move in, has torn out the shuffle board court and closed down part of the clubhouse that used to be used for weekly bingo games. However, there are no play areas for children in the park, and teenagers kick their soccer balls or footballs into our yards and run through our carports, and some have even damaged our property. Shouldn’t residents have a say in the elimination of the retirement lifestyle we were promised when we moved in, and shouldn’t the park have facilities for kids if they convert to an all-age park?
A. The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 prohibits discrimination against families with children in multiple residential housing but permits such housing, including mobilehome parks, to limit residency to seniors in one of two categories: 1) 55 and older; or 2) 62 and older, if the park meets certain minimum conditions. The major condition is that a minimum of 80% of the units are required to have at least one resident 55 and older. The federal law does not specifically address procedures for changing from a “senior” category to an all-age category, which in rental mobilehome parks under state law or by practice is often the sole decision of park management with a minimum notice. But parks can lose their “senior” status if, upon a complaint, they fail to meet the statutory conditions, such as the 80% requirement. The law does not require parks or other multiple-residential housing complexes that convert to all-age to install playground or other facilities for children. Advocates of family housing have argued that such a requirement would drive up the cost of housing and discourage landlords from opening up restricted housing to families. Some local governments have imposed conditions on mobilehome park zoning or use permits requiring parks that were developed as “senior parks” to be maintained as “senior” unless otherwise approved by the city or county. It is not clear to what extent these local zoning or use permit requirements may conflict with the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act.
Senior residents who have leases that provide that the park is a retirement
or Senior Park, and providing for specific facilities such as a shuffle board court, may, however, have a civil case against the park for breach of contract or diminution of services contracted for in the lease or rental agreement.
ALL-AGE PARK CHANGED BACK TO A SENIOR PARK
Q. My park manager has just announced that the rules of our mobilehome park, which originally was a restricted senior park but later opened up to allow residents of all ages, will be changed back to a senior 55-and-older status. It was our understanding that once a mobilehome park adopted all-age rules, under federal law it could not go back to a more restricted or senior status. Is the park rule change back to a senior park legal?
A. This is an issue that has changed over the years. Pursuant to the passage of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act in 1988, and the adoption of federal HUD regulations to carry out the Act, it was originally believed that multiple residential communities could not backtrack once they had decided to open up to an “all-age” status. But under the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA), which amended the 1988 Act, regulations established a transition period until May 3, 2000 to provide a mechanism for communities to become housing for older persons if they had abandoned or did not achieve such status before HOPA. Then, on March 6, 2006, HUD adopted a memo to clarify how communities that did not convert to housing for older persons before the 2000 transition period deadline could do so. Basically, if vacated spaces fill up with qualifying seniors (55 or older), and the park does not discourage or discriminate against younger people from buying available homes when these vacancies occur, the park can be “built back” to a senior status. However, this is difficult to achieve and few parks, once they become family parks, have been able to go back to a 55-or-older status.
OCCUPANCY STANDARDS
Q. There are six people living next door to me in a single wide mobilehome with one bedroom, but the park management won’t do anything to prohibit the overcrowding. This is an older park with narrow streets and limited facilities. If there was a fire, all of them would have trouble getting out. They have 4 cars and park them in front of my home and across the street, making it very hard for me to get out of my driveway into the narrow street. Can’t the state or local government force park management to limit occupancy of mobilehomes based on square footage or fire safety standards?
A. The occupancy standard issue is difficult to solve. The issue has arisen at both the federal and state levels. Legislation has been considered but not enacted to create a “2 persons per bedroom plus 1” standard that is presently only a HUD guideline (e.g., if the home had 1 bedroom, the occupancy standard would be 3; if the home had 2 bedrooms, the standard would be 5, etc.). Proponents argue that occupancy standards are necessary to avoid overcrowding and unhealthy living conditions. Opponents contend that, especially in areas where the cost of housing is high, an occupancy standard is nothing but a form of discrimination against persons who can’t afford larger homes. Some cities have attempted to legislate occupancy standards, only to have their ordinances challenged in court. Mobilehomes usually have a design standard established by the manufacturer as the recommended occupancy for the size of the home. The park manager could try to establish an occupancy standard in the park rules based upon something reasonable, such as the design standard of each home or the HUD guideline, and some do, but the management would probably be subject to legal challenge, and for that reason most parks don’t even try.
CLUBHOUSE HOURS
Q. Our park has a clubhouse but it was closed last year, and our requests to hold mobilehome owner meetings in the clubhouse have been denied. Doesn’t state law require the clubhouse to be open and available at reasonable hours?
A. Yes. Although the law does not require parks to have club houses or meeting halls, if they do, MRL Section 798.24 requires the common facilities to be open and available at reasonable hours, which are to be posted. Section 798.51 gives homeowners the right to hold meetings at reasonable hours and in a reasonable manner in the clubhouse when it is not otherwise in use for any lawful purpose, including homeowner association meetings and meetings with public officials or candidates for public office. If you bring these provisions to the attention of management in writing, including a request for a meeting with the management on the issue in accordance with Sec. 798.53, and the management still refuses to do anything about it, you may have to obtain the services of an attorney to write the management a letter or even go to court to enforce your rights under these provisions or as a breach of contract or diminution of services under your lease or rental agreement.
PETS
Q. When I moved into the park in 1999 I was told the park prohibited pets, so I had to give mine up. But other park residents now have pets. I miss having a pet. Is this legal?
A. Probably. AB 860 (Thomson, 2000) became effective on January 1, 2001, which permits pets in parks with certain limitations. The bill allows a mobilehome owner to have one domesticated dog, cat, bird or aquatic animal kept within an aquarium, subject to “reasonable” parks rules. However, persons who signed a rental agreement prior to January 1, 2001 with a provision prohibiting pets are bound to that provision until the rental agreement expires or is renewed. If the resident moved into the park in 1999 and signed a 10-year lease with a ‘no pets’ provision, he or she is bound to it until the lease expires. Persons moving into a park since January 1, 2000 would be allowed to have pets that conform to the park’s rules as to size, height, or weight of the pet, and in some instances breed (e.g. some parks prohibit big dogs, pit bulls and certain breeds with so-called aggressive tendencies).
PARKING PROBLEMS
Q. When it was a senior mobilehome park, we never had any problems, but today every family has about three cars and management has not made provisions for additional parking. Management also has an aggressive towing policy and has even towed residents’ cars out of their own driveways and carports.
A. Residents or guests who park in fire lanes along the park’s streets, or in front of park entrances or fire plugs can be towed without notice. Park management cannot have residents’ cars towed from their own parking space or driveway unless the vehicle does not conform to the park rules, in which case a 7-day notice is required pursuant to MRL Section 798.29.5. But if the vehicle presents a significant danger to the health and safety of residents, or is parked in another resident’s space and requested to be removed by that resident, the vehicle could be towed without the 7-day notice, in which case the extensive provisions of Vehicle Code Section 22658 would apply to both the management’s and tow company’s procedures in removal of the vehicle.
SUBLEASING
Q. I have to move to Portland, Oregon next month because of a job change
but have not been able to sell my mobilehome in San Jose, which has already been on the market 90 days. The park owner keeps rejecting my buyers for various reasons and says the park rules will not permit me to sublet the home to someone else. This means I will have to incur the hardship of continuing to pay rent on an empty home in order to resell it in place, in addition to paying rent for my new place in Portland. Can the park prevent me from subleasing my mobilehome?
A. Yes. Most mobilehome parks have rules that prohibit homeowners from subleasing their mobilehomes, even in hardship cases. This issue has arisen in the State Legislature a number of times, but numerous bills over the past 10 years to require park owners to let homeowners sublet have not been successful, except in cases of seniors with health problems who require convalescence and have to leave their home for not more than a year.
RV’S IN MOBILEHOME PARKS
Q. Recently my park has been buying up older mobilehomes and removing them from the park. The park is then offering to rent the mobilehome spaces to new residents with recreational vehicles or motor homes, thus changing the character of the park from one of permanence to that of a more transient residency. Is this legal?
A. It depends on the circumstances. When mobilehome parks were first constructed, designation as a mobilehome park only for mobilehomes or manufactured homes, or for the mixed use of mobilehomes and RV’s, would normally have been made as a condition of city or county use permits or zoning requirements. The city would have to enforce the conditions of the permit or zoning. Additionally, HCD’s Permit to Operate (PTO) will reflect the number of mobilehome spaces or lots and the number of RV lots. But in the absence of local permit conditions, a pre-1982 mobilehome park may be occupied by RV’s as well as mobilehomes on mobilehome spaces, but only RV’s can be situated on RV spaces. In a mobilehome park developed after January 1, 1982, however, state law provides that mobilehome spaces shall not be rented for the accommodation of RV’s unless they are in a separate area of the park designated for RVs and apart from the mobilehomes.
CARETAKER RESIDENCY IN THE PARK AFTER HOMEOWNER’S DEATH
Q. I am 52 years old and have lived with my elderly mother for 5 years to take care of her in her home in a park. Recently my mother passed away and left me the mobilehome in her will, but the park management has refused to accept my rent, will not accept an application for my residency, and has asked that I get out of the park because I do not meet the minimum 55 age residency limit. Can the park evict me from my own home?
A. Yes, probably, but it depends upon the circumstances. Generally, a caretaker – including a caretaker relative – does not have the right to continue to live in the mobilehome, even if he or she has inherited it. The caretaker statute recognizes that a senior homeowner has the right to have a caretaker, even someone who is 18 or older in a senior park, to assist them with medical needs under a doctor’s treatment plan, but the caretaker resident has no right of residency and is more like a guest of the homeowner. Therefore, when the homeowner dies, the caretaker’s right to continue to live in the park normally ends. If, however, the caretaker was a party to the homeowner’s rental agreement, or had otherwise been accepted for co-residency by the park while the homeowner was still alive, the park could not evict the caretaker after the homeowner’s death except for the same kind of reason they could have evicted the homeowner, such as failure to pay the rent. In either case, whether or not the caretaker has a right of residency in the park, if the caretaker inherits the home, he or she would have the right to resell it in place to someone else if they continue to pay the rent and charges and comply with other requirements of resale until the home is sold.
|
