BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2272 (Wagner)
As Amended April 19, 2012
Hearing Date: June 19, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
BCP:rm
SUBJECT
Mobilehomes: Injunctions
DESCRIPTION
This bill, until January 1, 2016, would permit the management of
a mobilehome park to file a petition for an order to enjoin
violations of a reasonable rule or regulation of the mobilehome
park within the limited jurisdiction of the superior court.
BACKGROUND
Enacted in 1978, the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) governs the
relationship between park owners or managers and the residents
of the 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.
Similar to other types of tenants (and property owners),
mobilehome residents are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their
property and park owners are obligated to preserve that quiet
enjoyment. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
noted in Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th
578, 590 that "�t]he perpetrator of the interference with the
tenant's quiet enjoyment need not be the landlord personally.
There may be an actionable breach where the interference is
caused by a neighbor or tenant claiming under the landlord."
The Andrews court further noted that "while the MRL limits the
eviction rights of mobilehome park owners, it expressly
(more)
AB 2272 (Wagner)
Page 2 of ?
preserves the park owners' ability to secure the quiet enjoyment
of mobilehome park tenants by authorizing park owners to pursue
eviction or injunctive relief against offending tenants." (Id.
at 592.)
Under current law, a petition by park management for an order
enjoining a continuing or recurring violation of a reasonable
rule or regulation of a mobilehome park must be filed as an
"unlimited" civil action in the superior court. (Unlimited
civil cases are cases that were within the jurisdiction of the
superior courts prior to trial court unification; limited civil
cases were those formerly within the jurisdiction of the
municipal courts.) This bill would permit those petitions for
injunctions to be filed as "limited" civil cases.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs the
relationship between park owners or managers and the residents
in mobilehome parks and manufactured housing communities. (Civ.
Code Sec. 798 et seq.)
Existing law permits management of a mobilehome park to petition
for an order enjoining a continuing or recurring violation of
any reasonable rule or regulation of a mobilehome park. A
hearing must be held within 15 days of the filing of the
petition for an injunction, and, if the court finds clear and
convincing evidence of the existence of a violation, the court
shall issue an injunction for a duration not to exceed three
years. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.88(b),(d).)
Existing law provides that an action or special proceeding shall
be treated as a limited civil case if the following conditions
are satisfied:
the amount in controversy, as defined, does not exceed
$25,000;
the relief sought is a type that may be granted in a
limited civil case; and
the relief sought, whether in the complaint, a
cross-complaint, or otherwise, is exclusively of the type
described in one or more statutes that classify an action
or special proceeding as a limited civil case or that
provides that an action or special proceeding is within the
original jurisdiction of the municipal court. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 85.)
AB 2272 (Wagner)
Page 3 of ?
Existing law provides that the following types of relief may not
be granted in a limited civil case:
relief exceeding the maximum amount in controversy for a
limited civil case;
a permanent injunction, except as otherwise authorized
by statute;
a determination of title to real property; and
declaratory relief, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
580.)
This bill would allow park management to seek a petition for an
order enjoining a continuing or recurring violation of any
reasonable rule or regulation of a mobilehome park within the
limited jurisdiction of the superior court of the county in
which the mobilehome park is located.
This bill would specifically provide that an injunction sought
pursuant to the above provision shall be considered a limited
civil case.
This bill would sunset on January 1, 2016.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
As a matter of public policy, the availability of injunctive
relief promotes quiet enjoyment and reduces disruption in
housing. An injunction against a tenant nuisance is a far
less drastic remedy than the summary displacement of an
eviction. The less intrusive remedy of injunctive relief
against violation of mobilehome park rule under Civil Code
Section 798.88 is recognition of this policy. Yet, owners
are dissuaded because injunctions are filed in the unlimited
jurisdiction of the Superior Court, which is a more
expensive and less convenient forum for both sides than a
simple eviction filed in limited jurisdiction in the
judicial district. Parkowners are discouraged from
considering a less intrusive remedy. In other words, the
injunction is more expensive than pursuing an unlawful
detainer, so mobilehome parkowners are more inclined to
pursue an unlawful detainer instead.
This proposal, for 3 years, would make the process to pursue
AB 2272 (Wagner)
Page 4 of ?
injunctive relief against a mobilehome park rule under Civil
Code Section 798.88, no less burdensome and costly than a
comparative and more intrusive remedy of eviction. Simply,
the legislation would provide that injunctions for
violations of rules and regulations be filed in limited
jurisdiction courts.
2. Limited vs. Unlimited
Cases are generally classified as either "limited" or
"unlimited" based upon the amount in controversy and whether the
relief sought is a type that may be granted in a limited civil
case. Specifically, in a limited civil case, the amount in
controversy may not exceed $25,000, and the court generally
cannot grant permanent injunctions (except as otherwise
authorized), determine title to real property, or provide
declaratory relief. Filing fees are also lower in a limited
civil case - for example, in Sacramento County, the filing fee
for a complaint in an unlimited civil case is $395 while the
filing fee for a complaint (amount up to $10,000) is only $225.
Limited cases also differ in various procedural ways, for
example, an answer to a verified complaint in a limited civil
case need not be verified. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 90 et
seq.) This bill would allow petitions by mobilehome park
management to enjoin a continuing or recurring violation of a
rule or regulation of the mobilehome park to be filed within the
"limited" jurisdiction of the superior court. That change in
jurisdiction results in not only varied procedural requirements
but also a lower filing fee.
The author and sponsor note that the intent of the change in
jurisdiction is to ensure that petitions for injunctions are "no
less burdensome and costly than a comparative and more intrusive
remedy of eviction." From a policy standpoint, existing law
should arguably not encourage an action for eviction (which may
leave the resident without affordable housing) if an injunction
would equally resolve the issue and not force the resident to
leave his or her home. The author further asserts:
Ironically, eviction actions, which terminate tenancy and
compel sale or removal of the mobilehome, are filed in the
local judicial district within the court's limited
jurisdiction. Since limited jurisdiction courts are less
expensive, less complicated, more convenient and often
closer to the parties' residences than the County Superior
Court, landlords are judicially encouraged to pursue the
AB 2272 (Wagner)
Page 5 of ?
most drastic remedy rather than seek the least intrusive
order for correcting offensive conduct or conditions which
violate the rules and regulations.
It should be noted that the distinction between "limited" and
"unlimited" civil cases is a result of the unification of trial
courts. Prior to unification, each county had a superior court
and one or more municipal courts. The California Law Revision
Commission's 2001 report on procedural differences between the
two types of cases noted that "the term 'limited civil case' was
introduced to refer to civil actions traditionally within the
jurisdiction of the municipal court, and the term 'unlimited
civil case' was introduced to refer to civil actions
traditionally within the jurisdiction of the superior court.
Provisions prescribing municipal court procedures were revised
to apply to limited civil cases; provisions prescribing
traditional superior court; procedures were revised to apply to
unlimited civil cases." (Recommendation on Unnecessary
Procedural Differences Between Limited and Unlimited Civil Case
(Feb. 2001) Vol. 30 California Law Revision Commission Report
(2001) p. 448.) Thus, while this bill arguably seeks to make a
change based upon the policy implications of the current
classification of eviction and injunction actions, that
distinction is rooted in the historic jurisdiction of the
courts. Staff notes that it is unclear whether this bill may be
used as future precedent to change other causes of action solely
to avoid paying the cost of filing fees in unlimited civil
cases.
3. Sunset
Under existing law, a court is prohibited from granting a
permanent injunction in a limited civil case unless otherwise
authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 580.) Given that
general prohibition, it is unclear whether the proposed
exception to that general rule will result in any unintended
consequences as a result of the differences between unlimited
and limited cases, or if it simply will promote the stated goal
of ensuring that a park owner is not financially motivated to
evict a resident due to the filing fee associated with an
unlimited civil case. Similarly, it is unclear if this will
have no effect on the number of evictions, but simply act to
allow park owners to bring more petitions for injunctions due to
the decreased cost.
In order to allow the Legislature (and this Committee) to
AB 2272 (Wagner)
Page 6 of ?
revaluate this provision in the near future, the bill includes a
sunset date of January 1, 2016. This three-year sunset will
arguably provide the Committee with the opportunity to revaluate
this bill to ensure that the stated goal of "encourag�ing] a
parkowner to pursue a lesser remedy against a resident of a
mobilehome park instead of eviction" is actually reached without
negative unintended consequences.
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Housing & Community Development (Ayes 6, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 0)
**************