SB 470: The Mobilehome Residency Law: tenancy: termination.

The Mobilehome Residency Law governs residency in mobilehome parks and includes provisions that are applicable to those who have an ownership interest in a subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobilehomes, or a resident-owned mobilehome park, as specified. Among other things, these provisions set forth the rights of residents and homeowners regarding the use of the property.

Existing law prohibits mobilehome park management from terminating or refusing to renew a tenancy except for specified reasons, including, among other reasons, conduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park premises, that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or residents. Existing law requires the management to set forth in a notice of termination the reason relied upon for the termination with specific facts to permit determination of the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances concerning that reason.

This bill would also authorize mobilehome park management to terminate a tenancy for commission of acts that are outrageous in the extreme, on the mobilehome park premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises, including, various acts of violence or threats against a person. person in the park. The bill would require any notice of termination of tenancy to provide for a 3-day 14-day notice to vacate the premises and an eviction to be supported at trial by evidence from another resident of the park or from law enforcement personnel.

The Mobilehome Residency Law governs residency in mobilehome parks and includes provisions that are applicable to those who have an ownership interest in a subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobilehomes, or a resident-owned mobilehome park, as specified. Among other things, these provisions set forth the rights of residents and homeowners regarding the use of the property.

Existing law prohibits mobilehome park management from terminating or refusing to renew a tenancy except for specified reasons, including, among other reasons, conduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park premises, that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or residents. Existing law requires the management to set forth in a notice of termination the reason relied upon for the termination with specific facts to permit determination of the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances concerning that reason.

This bill would also authorize mobilehome park management to terminate a tenancy for commission of acts that are outrageous in the extreme, on the mobilehome park premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises, including, various acts of violence or threats against a person. The bill would require any notice of termination of tenancy to provide for a 3-day notice to vacate the premises and an eviction to be supported at trial by evidence from another resident of the park or from law enforcement personnel.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 470 (Author:Stone)

Version: February 16, 2017

Hearing Date: May 2, 2017

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: TSG

SUBJECT

The Mobilehome Residency Law: tenancy: termination

DESCRIPTION

This bill would create an additional legal basis and an accelerated timeline for mobilehome parks to terminate a mobilehome owner’s tenancy and thereby evict that owner from the park: the commission, on the park premises or the immediate vicinity, of any act that is “outrageous in the extreme.”

BACKGROUND

Enacted in 1978, the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) governs the relationship between park owners or managers and the residents of the more than 4,800 mobilehome parks and manufactured housing communities in California. In most of those parks, residents own their home but lease the land on which their home is installed. Although they have historically been called “mobilehomes,” it is very difficult to actually move a mobilehome once it has been installed in a park.

In recognition of the unique challenges associated with moving a mobilehome, mobilehome owners receive unique state law protections against eviction. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.55(a).) For residential homes and apartments, state law does not require a landlord to give a reason for terminating a tenancy. So long as the reason is not discriminatory or retaliatory, any reason, or no reason at all, is legally sufficient, and, unless the tenancy has lasted over a year already, only 30 days’ notice is typically required. (Civ. Code Sec. 1946.) In the residential apartment or house context, if a landlord wants to evict tenants for conduct that violates the lease or the tenant commits waste or nuisance on the property, the landlord generally only has to give three days’ notice. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 1161(3) and 1161(4).)

In contrast, the management of a mobilehome park cannot terminate a mobilehome owner’s tenancy without cause. Park management must have one of seven valid legal reasons for evicting a mobilehome owner from the premises. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.56).

Among the seven legally valid reasons that management can terminate a homeowner’s tenancy in a park, three are related to the conduct of the mobilehome’s occupant. First, a park can terminate a tenancy for conduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park premises, that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or residents of the park. (Civ. Code sec. 798.56(b).) Second, homeowners and residents in a mobilehome park can be evicted if they fail to abide by reasonable rules and regulations in the park. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.56(d).) Park leases and rules generally prohibit unlawful behavior. Homeowners and residents are entitled to seven days’ notice of a violation and the opportunity to cure it, though the park may proceed with an eviction after the third notice of the same violation in a calendar year. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.56 (d).) Finally, parks may terminate the tenancies of homeowners and residents who are convicted of a series of specified crimes, including prostitution, arson, infliction of serious bodily harm, assault with a firearm, assault with a semiautomatic weapon, and a variety of sexual crimes. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.56(c).) Regardless of the park’s cause for terminating the tenancy, the corresponding notice must specify the grounds for the termination with sufficient specific facts to permit the homeowner to determine the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances on which the termination is based. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.57.)

In all of these scenarios, while the initial notice requiring the compliance with a lease term may be shorter, ultimately the park must provide the mobilehome owner with at least 60 days’ notice of its intention to terminate the mobilehome owner’s occupancy in the park. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.55(b)(1).) Thus, as a practical matter, unless a mobilehome owner voluntarily leaves earlier, mobilehome parks have to wait 60 days before they can start formal proceedings in court to get the homeowner physically evicted.

By comparison, this bill purports to permit a mobilehome park to terminate a homeowner’s tenancy in the park on just three days’ notice for commission of an act which is “outrageous in the extreme.”

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

1. Existing law permits a mobilehome park to evict a homeowner or resident for conduct, upon the park premises, that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or residents of the park. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.56(b).)

Existing law permits a mobilehome park to evict a homeowner or resident when that homeowner or resident is convicted of prostitution, arson, infliction of serious bodily harm, assault with a firearm, assault with a semiautomatic weapon, and a variety of sexual crimes; unless the person convicted has permanently vacated. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.56(c).)

Existing law requires a mobilehome park to provide at least 60 days’ notice to the mobilehome owner prior to terminating a tenancy. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.55(b)(1).)

Existing law requires that, in notifying a resident or homeowner of the termination of the tenancy, park management must set forth the reason for the termination with specific facts to permit determination of the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.57.)

This bill would permit a mobilehome park to evict a homeowner or resident for commission of any act that is outrageous in the extreme, on or in the vicinity of the mobilehome park premises. Termination of a tenancy for this reason would require three days’ notice.

2. Existing law provides that the direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact, except where additional evidence is required by statute. (Evid. Code Sec. 411.)

This bill would require that, in any trial for eviction pursuant to termination of a tenancy for outrageous conduct in the extreme, a judgment for eviction would have to be supported by evidence from another resident of the park or from law enforcement personnel.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Parkowners do not have an expedited eviction process for homeowners that act in an egregious manner against other homeowners. Other homeowners are more reluctant to sign their name to the eviction notice since the offending resident will still be residing in the park for the 60+ days it takes to evict. SB 470 is an attempt to find a balance to evict the most egregious behaving homeowners while protecting the well behaving homeowners. SB 470 would allow a request to evict the homeowner within 3 days, similar to provisions in Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In support, the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association writes:

…SB 470 would enable mobilehome park management to evict residents who’ve committed egregious acts in a much shorter time frame… When the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) was first adopted back in 1976, it didn’t contemplate the issues that mobilehome parks are dealing with today. Mostly retirement communities, evictions for bad behavior could be dealt with in subsection (b) under “substantial annoyance.” However, the problem has worsened over time as the offenses have become more threatening and egregious.

2. Expressed concerns about the bill

In opposition to the bill, the Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League writes:

…[T]his bill does not outline which offenses could be cause for eviction and allows for any behavior that is “outrageous in the extreme.” Without proper park manager training and full discretion on how to interpret “outrageous in the extreme” behavior and then to allow that discretion to be the reason for eviction is a recipe for abuse. And, providing “including, but not limited” language in the bill means the list of behaviors is not exhaustive and allows for such discretion and interpretation to occur.

This bill also allows for eviction within 3 days without the requirement of notifying in writing the alleged “outrageous in the extreme” behavior committed and in turn the cause for eviction. Finally, the bill requires evidence to be supported by another resident or enforcement personnel at trial. Not all residents can afford to take their eviction to trial…

3. A fast-track eviction process with limited due process protections

There is an enormous amount at stake in any residential eviction proceeding. For the tenants, including families and children in many instances, their home is at stake. The landlord stands to lose rent money and lacks control over the property. Both sides must bear the time and expense of dealing with the legal process. The California courts have described the eviction process as “highly penal in nature, since it sometimes results in forfeiture of valuable property rights.” (Woods-Drury, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 1936) 18 Cal.App.2d 340.)

In spite of the significant impact that eviction has on people’s lives, the eviction process lacks many of the due process protections that generally accompany high-stakes legal matters. To begin with, it proceeds on what is a very fast timeline for a legal matter. Whereas a defendant in an ordinary civil lawsuit generally has 30 days after learning of the plaintiff’s allegations to provide the judge with a response, a tenant facing eviction gets just five days, towards which weekends and holidays count. In ordinary civil lawsuits, it is rare for a matter to go to trial within a year from the time the lawsuit starts. Eviction trials usually happen within a month. Technically, there is the time and process for both a landlord and tenant to conduct “discovery,” meaning that they get to flush out and investigate all the evidence that each side has. Practically speaking, however, such discovery almost never takes place in the eviction context.

Perhaps most significantly, the eviction process is marked by a heavy imbalance in legal representation. The vast majority of landlords are represented by attorneys throughout the process, while only about one in ten tenants have counsel to help them navigate the complexities of the proceedings.^[1] The result is that, not surprisingly, landlords win in the overwhelming majority of cases. Frequently this happens by default, meaning that the tenant either never tries, or never figures out how, to contest the eviction. A 2011 study of evictions in Milwaukee, Wisconsin found that 71 percent of eviction cases were decided by default.^[2] Studies in other locations found that tenants defaulted in eviction cases between 35 and 90 percent of the time.^[3]

The Legislature has recognized that mobilehome owners have even more at stake in the eviction process than other residential tenants. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.55) Mobilehome owners stand to lose not only their place to live, but also a potentially significant asset: the mobilehome itself, given the expense and difficulty of actually moving the mobilehome away from the park.

That is the reasoning behind the 60 day notice requirement for termination of a mobilehome owner’s lease. In theory, this provides sufficient time for the mobilehome owner either to sell the mobilehome or to remove it from the park. In practice, many mobilehome owners elect, or are forced by the circumstances, to abandon the mobilehome in the park, which triggers the park’s right to auction the mobilehome and recover any unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, and costs. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.61.)

4. Vagueness of outrageous in the extreme

The supporters of this bill maintain that, whatever the justifications behind it, when it comes to situations of violent, threatening, or dangerous behavior, the 60 day notice requirement for terminating a mobilehome owner’s tenancy leaves other park residents to live in fear for at least two months before the problem can be addressed.

Over 450 park owners and managers signed a petition in support of this bill. About 50 of them also wrote letters of support. Many of these letters included compelling stories describing situations that the park managers or owners felt unable to handle effectively under present law. For example:

We are currently paying an attorney to process an eviction for us due to the tenant’s brother pulling a loaded gun on our… contractor. It seems that the criminals have more rights than the park owner and the timeframe and expense required to obtain this type of an eviction is unrealistic. The park residents are tired of hearing that we have to follow the law and required number of days to remove dangerous persons from the community….

----

A few years back, a resident in a mobile home park that I manage assaulted her neighbor and caused significant bodily harm. This even resulted in the arrest of the offending resident and a hospital visit by the victim. After interviewing and collecting statements from numerous residents that witnessed the assault, it became clear that the assault was unprovoked and was consistent with past behavior of the offending resident. Unfortunately, when the offending resident was released by the police, our only recourse as management was to issue a 7-day notice to abide by the rules and regulations, and so long as that resident paid rent on time, a lengthy, legal, and ultimately uncertain termination on the grounds of “substantial annoyance.”

----

We had a particular problem tenant in a park we manage in Southern California. During a 4-month period, this individual was responsible for ten incidents that required police response. Several of these incidents involved brandishing weapons, along with explicit verbal threats of violence toward other residents and police. There were also multiple complaints that the problem tenant was making sexually obscene gestures towards other residents. We were able to eventually evict said tenant from the park based on substantial annoyance, but we faced two major problems when we attempted to address this matter.

The first problem is that substantial annoyance is vaguely worded and a high bar for management to prove. It requires us to spend significant time, often several months, documenting and tallying up a resident’s offenses, all the while the problem resident is free to terrorize his or her entire community with relative impunity…

The second is the time period required by the 60-day notice. Once we are confident in our ability to prove substantial annoyance in court, we must serve the 60 day notice and wait for it to expire…

This bill would allow for fast track evictions when mobilehome owners commit acts that are “outrageous in the extreme.” While the bill would presumably cover the scenarios described in the letters above, what other conduct is covered by the phrase is open to interpretation. The bill provides some examples of what sort of conduct might constitute behavior that is “outrageous in the extreme,” yet the bill also makes it clear that the list of examples is not exhaustive. By the bill’s terms, commission of an act that is “outrageous in the extreme” includes, but is not limited to, “acts of violence committed against any person, threats of violence against any person, sexual assault or abuse of any person, or use or display of any firearm or other weapon toward any person in the park in a manner which would make that person reasonably fear for his or her own life, health, or safety.”

Opponents of the bill argue that, while there may be compelling circumstances in which a faster timeline for evicting mobilehome owners could be justified, having such an open and vague standard could easily be abused. Indeed, while many of the letters sent in by park owners and managers described quite compelling examples of violent and dangerous conduct by homeowners, others illustrated just how broadly some park managers and owners interpret the concept “outrageous in the extreme.” For instance, one park manager wrote in to expound on two (among other) “egregious” cases that the manager felt passage of this bill would help resolve:

The first lives on the golf course near a tee-box and shouts at the golfers as they prepare to address the ball. Additionally, she interrupts speakers during HOA meetings, intimidates people in the clubhouse and accosts people in the parking lot. She poses as an attorney, but has no license in the State of California. She files many frivolous lawsuits that have been dismissed by the Court.

The second, is a man who sits on his porch whenever his next-door neighbor is in her driveway or yard. He consistently accuses employees of stealing his mail, and then recants every seven days, only to begin again with a barrage of phone calls to City agencies and our office.

There may very well be more to both of these stories than what was written here, but they point to how broadly “outrageous in the extreme” could be interpreted by some park managers. They also show how a vague standard could be used to chill participation in HOA groups and criticism of park employees. Moreover, in as much as some of the behavior described may be the result of mental illness, the stories also demonstrate how such a pliable phrase as “outrageous in the extreme” might result in greater displacement of people with mental illnesses.

Another manager, in support of SB 470, wrote:

The laws don’t seem to address adult children in the senior parks. These are, in my experience, 45+ men living with their moms. These comprise some of our largest legal expense we’re going through in the eviction process. These usually are unsavory individuals that of course mom doesn’t see or accept the adult child’s shortcomings. These are normally men who have no intention of working or even helping mom. I wish the eviction process could be applied directly to the offenders. Their activities might include drug and alcohol use, theft, visitors of the same activity and so forth and so on.

Here again, there could be more going on than what is written, of course, but it the letter nonetheless illustrates the danger that a vague standard such as “outrageous in the extreme” could be used by some managers as a pretext to go after entire classes of people for whom the manager simply has a general disdain.

It could be argued that courts will serve as a backstop against the possibility that park managers interpret “outrageous in the extreme” too broadly, or use it pre-textually. As discussed in Comment 3 above, however, the vast majority of eviction cases are decided by default, meaning a judge never hears the tenant’s side of the story.

5. Impact on mobilehome eviction costs

A number of the park managers and owners who wrote in support of this bill cited the high legal costs associated with eviction, as well as the speed of eviction, as a motivation for wanting this bill enacted.

There is no obvious reason to believe that the eviction process will be any more or less expensive under this bill, however. In its current form, all the bill does is shorten the period of time between when a notice of termination of tenancy is issued to the mobilehome owner and the first moment that a park can file in court to evict that owner if the owner has not left voluntarily. No additional legal work necessarily takes place during those 57 days; everyone is simply waiting for the notice period to expire. Contested evictions do involve substantially more legal costs than uncontested evictions. Theoretically, it is possible that the shorter timeframe might shock some mobilehome owners into vacating quickly and voluntarily, which would save legal costs. It seems equally plausible, however, that faced with just three days (57 fewer than under existing law) in which to figure out where else to go, more mobilehome owners will contest the eviction, if for no other reason than that they have not yet figured out where else they can live.

The fact that several park owners and managers appear to perceive that this bill would lower eviction costs may support the opposition’s concern regarding potential abuse of this bill’s vague language, however. If, as their letters seem to indicate, park owners and managers think it will benefit them financially to use this bill’s provisions, rather than the existing grounds and timelines for mobilehome evictions, then they have a financial incentive to interpret the concept of conduct that is “outrageous in the extreme” as broadly as possible to cover situations that might fit more appropriately under the existing eviction laws.

6. Scenarios to which this bill would apply

Some mobilehome residents are already subject to eviction through the use of a three day notice.

There are three legal circumstances under which a resident lives in a mobilehome. First, there are residents who rent both the mobilehome and the space on which it sits, from the park. Such a resident does not have the protections of the Mobilehome Residency Law and can be evicted just as any other residential tenant can be evicted, including on the basis of a three day notice for misconduct in violation of the lease. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161(3).)

Second, there are residents who rent the mobilehome from the mobilehome’s owner, while that owner rents the space under the mobilehome from the park. In this situation, too, the resident does not have the protections of the Mobilehome Residency Law. The resident can be evicted from the mobilehome by the owner just as any other residential tenant. The park, however, cannot evict this resident directly. The park’s only remedy is to evict the mobilehome owner from the space. To do that, the mobilehome park must serve a 60 day notice on the owner of the mobilehome.

Finally, if the resident of the mobilehome is also the owner of the mobilehome, then the protections of the Mobilehome Residency Law apply. In this scenario, the park must both have grounds for the eviction and wait out the 60 days that the owner has to either remove the mobilehome from the park grounds, or sell it.

This bill would only impact the scenarios which currently require a 60 day notice to the mobilehome owner. In all other circumstances, a resident’s tenancy can already be terminated through the use of a three day notice.

7. Would the bill actually eliminate the 60 day notice requirement? If not, what follows?

This bill’s proponents argue that it would permit mobilehome parks to terminate the tenancy of a mobilehome owner on just three days’ notice. It is not clear that the bill supersedes the requirement that a mobilehome owner receive 60 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy, however. The bill only amends Civil Code Section 798.56. The requirement that a homeowner receives a 60 day notice of termination of tenancy springs from Civil Code Section 798.55(b). Thus, arguably, just as a mobilehome owner who receives a three day notice to pay rent or vacate under Civil Code Section 798.56(e) is also entitled to a 60 day notice of termination of tenancy, a mobilehome owner given a three day notice to vacate under this bill would also be entitled to 60 days’s notice of termination of tenancy. If that is the case, then this bill would not accomplish the fast track to eviction for conduct outrageous in the extreme that its supporters envision.

On the other hand, if this bill’s three day termination of tenancy does supersede the 60 day notice requirement somehow, that raises several questions that the bill leaves unaddressed. To comply with the three day notice voluntarily, must the homeowner remove the mobilehome from the park or sell it within the three days? If not, may the homeowner come back to the mobilehome to make arrangements to sell it or move it? How long does the mobilehome owner have to do that? Sixty days? If so, what happens during those sixty days? Is the mobilehome owner obliged to pay rent or restitution to the park for the fact that the mobilehome is occupying the space, even though the owner is not – presumably – permitted to be present physically? Can the homeowner leave personal property in the mobilehome during this period? If so, what access is allowed?

Support: Calanda Real, L.P.; California Mobilehome Parkowners Alliance; Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C.; Hemet West; Western Manufactured Housing Community Association, 481 mobilehome owners, residents, and park managers, in their individual capacities; 1 mobilehome park attorney in his individual capacity

Opposition: Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League

HISTORY

Source: Western Manufactured Housing Community Association

Related Pending Legislation: None known

Prior Legislation:

SB 227 (Lowenthal, 2005) as introduced, would have permitted mobilehome parks to terminate the tenancy of a homeowner or resident on 60 days’ notice, for use or threatened use of force, willful threats, or menacing conduct by the homeowner or resident constituting a course of conduct against any person that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. SB 227 was subsequently amended to address a different subject matter entirely.

AB 2023 (Nakano, 2004) would have defined the term “substantial annoyance,” one of the reasons for termination of a mobilehome tenancy, to include any of the following acts upon the park premises: use or threatened use of force, willful threats, or menacing conduct against any person that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. SB 2023 died in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

AB 767 (Nakano, Chapter 388, Statutes of 2003) added battery causing serious bodily injury, assault with a firearm, and child molestation to the types of crimes a conviction for which a mobilehome park can terminate the tenancy of a homeowner or resident.

**************

1. Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants, Statewide Action Plan for Serving Self-Represented Litigants (2003), at p. 2 <http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/selfreplitsrept.pdf> (as of Apr. 28, 2017). ↑

2. Desmond, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City (2016) Crown Publishing, p. 358. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑