MHP ALWAYS Requires Mgr's Approval
I've noticed several disturbing postings lately concerning MH sellers' ACTUAL sales deals, where the MH seller had not got the MHP mgrs' approval of the buyer first !
This is amazing to me, as the seller certainly knows the MHP had to check him/her/them out before they moved in.
So why would they (current resident/MHP tenant/Seller) now forget that and try to push somebody into their MH who has NOT been cleared by that MHP?
Folks, please remember ANY time you're selling rights in somebody else's land, like a MHP, you've GOT to have the landlord's approval.
If you persist on selling your MH first, before getting your MH buyer approved by the MHP, you stand an excellent chance of getting sued for FRAUD...because you knew the buyer had to first be approved by that MHP and you didn't disclose that to the buyer.
JOHN --
Good article on requirement of obtaining park approval as a tenant.
What cases have you aware about the park filed suit on "fraud" againt a tenant? I would be interested in hearing about this ... what state and the circumstances.
I have been listing and selling mobile homes in parks for 14 years in California and now list and sell the parks ... have not heard of any park owners sueing a tenant for "fraud" because a tenant did not apply for tenancy.
The park will just simply "decline" the tenant until the proper supporting documents park application is completed. A lot of parks in several states are now conducting a search for "unlawful detainer" in addition to the normal credit check and references, along with the tenant to approve the park's rules.
Most park owners are too busy to be sueing prospective tenants for not applying at the park. I find park owners do not like even using attornies to evident a non-paying tenant because that runs several hundereds of dollars.
Cheryl Lopez
Cheryl
In litigious CA, the lawsuit would come from that buyer of the MH who learned, after signing the purchase docs, and paying for the MH...that he/she could not live there because the MHP hadn't approved them.
While I don't personally know of any such lawsuits, it takes no great stretch of imagination to see them coming.
And I sure can imagine the spurned and burned buyer getting overheated, quickly, once he/she was notified by the MHP that they couldn't even live in the house they had just bought.
If that happened to you, how would you take it? Probably no better than I would, and that wouldn't be with any great acceptance.
JOHN --
From all the mobile home parks that I have traveled into (again here in California) the parks usually have a sign that states "Do not commit to buy before seeing park management". The sign is at the park entrance, park office, and sometimes placed in front of the mobile home that is for sale.
Again in 14 years I have not heard of any fraud cases raises. And would this really be "fraud" against the buyer or the mobile home owner? It is more that the buyer or home owner did not follow the park rules or park civil code standards on applying for park tenancy.
To me and my park experience and knowing how so many California parks do work ... that the buyer will receive a decline from the park until the buyer completes the park application. If the buyer refuses or is declined then the buyer is required to move out and that process is handled very quickly.
Cheryl Lopez[ Edited by cheryllopez on Date 10/09/2004 ]
Cheryl, it could well be alleged by some poor ignorant ESL (English as 2d language) MH buyer; and a jury might find it was fraud...specially if seller had better command of written English than did the buyer.
And who among us would be willing to lay odds that some CA lawyer wouldn't take on such a case?
As I think you'd readily agree, if it could happen anywhere, it could happen in CA.
I sure don't have any trouble visualizing this in some situation where the B gave all his/her dollars to some con-artist who then left the area in a hurry...and left the poor B up a dirty creek. With a MH he/she could't live in, couldn't rent, and maybe couldn't find another B for.
Thinking of the signs you've seen, I too have been in lots of MHPs in several states, but to my knowledge, have never seen such...should be required by statute I suppose, and probably in Eng.& Sp.
May be are required in CA as per the CCCs?
I believe I will visit the sign company monday. There is a rash of this going on in my park with people "selling" a home they want to get out of when practically they are just "renting".
esevans -- Thank You about your comment on the signs !
John -- anyone can file a law suit. But when the park owner owns the land that the mobile homes are on and especially with signs requiring buyer to apply at the park for tenancy approval would be hard case to prove and win ! With using a title company here in California, CA civil code requires the title company to obtain a copy of the "park approval" and a copy of the signed lease from the park manager. When you finally hear of a few cases winning against the park ... please let me know.
How I see it and other California park owners is that the "buyer" is now a trespasser and provided written notice to evict because the buyer does not have legal authority to stay in the mobile home on the property owned by the park. The police or sheriff are then called and the "trespasser" is escorted out of the park. Then the dispute would be between the seller and the buyer ... not the park owner.
Cheryl Lopez
If I owned a MHP, I do believe I'd take a written notice around to every MH there, telling them again, in writing, that ANY sale of that MH to anybody expecting to live in that MH, must be with your pre-approval.
This would stop the honest ones from any sales efforts without talking to you first.
The ones that aren't stopped are going to do whatever they want, regardless of what you want.
I think what John is saying and I don't disagree is the the "Fraud" would be committed by the seller. The MHP is not even involved in this potential "Fraud"
I believe the potential fraud would be the seller mis-representing the usability of the MH. This assumes that the seller make no attempt to inform the buyer about the park's application and that the seller had knowledge that the buyer had no intent on moving the home.
Now does this actually measure up to the standard of fraud? I have no Idea.
Bottom line I think is that John was tring to make it clear to all the new MH investors is that you cannot ignore the park. For you best business interest you must get your client talking to the park management.
Love all the input, thanks
Jeff
Jeff, you're right on target and absolutely right.
But even where the MHP owner/management has done absolutely nothing wrong (and isn't even aware a wrong has been done), we all know how litigious and "sue-y" folks in CA can be; so nobody there can ever rely on logic alone, and everybody concerned had better take every precaution to protect himself.
As defense lawyers correctly tell the jury, "Remember, it only takes $150 (or whatever it is these days) to sue anybody for anything, and just because a suit is filed is NO reason to think it has any merit or any basis in reality or law".