BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 244 (Vidak)
Version: February 18, 2015
Hearing Date: April 7, 2015
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Mobilehomes: Injunctions
DESCRIPTION
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes 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.
This bill would eliminate that sunset date, thus extending the
provision indefinitely.
BACKGROUND
Enacted in 1978, the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) governs the
relationship between mobilehome park owners or managers and the
residents of the more than 4,800 mobilehome parks and
manufactured housing communities in California. In most of
these parks, residents own their home but lease the land on
which their home is installed. Although they have historically
been called "mobilehomes," it is often 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. Originally limited to protecting a lessee against
physical interference, the right to quiet enjoyment has been
expanded to protect "the tenant against any act or omission on
the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under him, which
interferes with a tenant's right to use and enjoy the premises
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 2 of ?
for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy." (Petroleum
Collections Inc. v. Swords (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 841, 846.) 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 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, until January 1, 2016, a petition by park
management for an order enjoining a continuing or recurring
violation of a reasonable rule or regulation of a mobilehome
park may be filed as a limited civil action in the superior
court of the county in which the mobilehome park is located.
This bill would remove the January 1, 2016, sunset date, thus
extending indefinitely this authority to seek injunctive relief
within the limited jurisdiction of the superior court.
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 states that a mobilehome tenancy shall be
terminated by the management for, among other reasons:
conduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park premises,
that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners
or residents; or
failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a
reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the
rental agreement or any amendment thereto. (Civ. Code Sec.
798.56.)
Existing law provides that, in addition to other rights to
terminate the tenancy of a homeowner, any person in violation of
a reasonable rule or regulation of a mobilehome park may be
enjoined from the violation as follows:
until January 1, 2016, a petition for an order enjoining a
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 3 of ?
continuing or recurring violation of any reasonable rule or
regulation of a mobilehome park may be filed by the management
thereof within the limited jurisdiction of the superior court
of the county in which the mobilehome park is located; and
after January 1, 2016, a petition for an order enjoining a
continuing or recurring violation of any reasonable rule or
regulation of a mobilehome park may be filed by the management
thereof with the superior court of the county in which the
mobilehome park is located. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.88 (a) and
(b).)
Existing law provides that at the time of filing the petition,
the petitioner may obtain a temporary restraining order, with
notice, upon the petitioner's affidavit showing to the
satisfaction of the court reasonable proof of a continuing or
recurring violation of a rule or regulation of the mobilehome
park by the named homeowner or resident and that great or
irreparable harm would result to the management or other
homeowners or residents of the park from continuance or
recurrence of the violation. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.88 (b).)
Existing law provides that a temporary restraining order shall
be personally served upon the respondent homeowner or resident
with the petition for injunction and the notice of hearing. The
restraining order shall remain in effect for a period not to
exceed 15 days, except as modified or limited by the court.
(Civ. Code Sec. 798.88 (c).)
Existing law specifies that a hearing shall be held within 15
days of filing the petition for an injunction. If the court, by
clear and convincing evidence, finds the existence of a
continuing or recurring violation of a reasonable rule or
regulation of the mobilehome park, the court shall issue an
injunction prohibiting the violation. The duration of the
injunction shall not exceed three years, but not more than three
months prior to its expiration the management may petition for a
new injunction where there has been recurring or continuous
violation of the injunction or there is a threat of future
violation of the mobilehome park's rules upon termination of the
injunction. (Civ. Code Sec. 798.88 (d) and (e).)
This bill would strike the January 1, 2016, sunset date attached
to the authorization to 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, thus extending this provision
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 4 of ?
indefinitely.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
AB 2272 (Wagner, Ch. 99, Stats, 2012), until January 1, 2016,
[permits] the management to file a petition for an order to
enjoin violations within the limited jurisdiction of the
superior court of the county in which the mobilehome community
is located. . . . Without new legislation mobile home park
owners will be unable to utilize injunctions to enforce the
rules of the park.
SB 244 will remove the sunset date thereby allowing mobile
home park owners to continue using this tool in enforcing the
rules of the park instead of having to resort to the eviction
process.
Prior to the enactment of AB 2272 park owners had few options
available to deal with residents that were not following the
park rules and engaging in disruptive behavior. If the
disruptive behavior became . . . a problem park owners were
only able to utilize the eviction process[,] which was
burdensome to park owners, [the] evicted resident, and the
entire mobile home park community.
2.Limited vs. Unlimited Civil Cases
Civil 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 jurisdictionally be granted in
a limited civil case. Generally, in a limited civil case, the
amount in controversy may not exceed $25,000, and the court
cannot grant permanent injunctions (except as otherwise
authorized), determine title to real property, or provide
declaratory relief. Filing fees are also lower in limited civil
cases - for example, in San Francisco County, the filing fee for
a complaint in an unlimited civil case is $450 while the filing
fee for a limited civil complaint may be as low as $225.
Limited cases also differ in various procedural ways - for
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 5 of ?
example, an answer to a verified complaint in a limited civil
case need not be verified. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 92.)
Prior to the enactment of AB 2272 (Wagner, Ch. 99, Stats. 2012),
then-existing law required petitions to enjoin continuing or
recurring violations of the rules or regulations of a mobilehome
park to be filed as unlimited civil cases. This bill would
extend indefinitely the current authorization for mobilehome
park management to file these petitions within the "limited"
jurisdiction of the superior court.
By lowering the cost and effort required to secure an injunction
through a limited civil proceeding, the existing authorization
helps ensure that petitions for injunctions are not more
burdensome and costly than the comparatively more intrusive
remedy of eviction. A letter from Terry Dowdall, an attorney in
Orange County, on the effectiveness of AB 2272 makes this point,
stating:
AB 2272 put injunctions on the same footing (costs,
convenience, efficiency) as evictions. Previously, it was
easier and cheaper to evict! (than to keep the resident and
order compliance with the rules). Since eviction actions are
tried in limited jurisdiction courts, speed, convenience and
cost continue to attract the park management. So, the same
speed and convenience should continue to be provided for the
much less harsh remedy of no more than an order to behave.
This encourages enforcement of rules instead of eviction.
This avoids the resident's parade of horribles which always
follow mobilehome tenancy termination (e.g. housing
dislocation, removal or sale of the home, uprooting of family,
fall in credit rating).
From a policy standpoint, existing law should arguably not
encourage an action for eviction, which may leave a resident
without affordable housing, if an injunction would equally
resolve the issue and not force the resident to leave his or her
home.
It should be noted that the distinction between "limited" and
"unlimited" civil cases is a result of the unification of the
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
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 6 of ?
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." (Unnecessary
Procedural Differences Between Limited and Unlimited Civil Cases
(Feb. 2001) Vol. 30 California Law Revision Commission Report
(2001) p. 448.)
3.Experience Under AB 2272
When AB 2272 was heard by this Committee in 2012, the bill
analysis stated:
In order to allow the Legislature (and this Committee) to
reevaluate 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 reevaluate 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.
Since the time AB 2272 entered into force in 2013, the Committee
has not received any information suggesting that allowing
mobilehome park managers to pursue injunctive relief through the
limited civil jurisdiction of the superior courts has had any
unintended consequences. To the contrary, a letter from Terry
Dowdall, an attorney in Orange County, recounts several
instances where mobilehome park tenancies were spared by
court-ordered injunctions and the more drastic remedy of
eviction was avoided. One such example from Mr. Dowdall states
the following:
In 2013, San Diego, a resident intentionally engaged in
conduct for the alleged express purpose of irritating her
neighbors. She installed several wind-chimes and then
intentionally and frequently struck them to create more noise.
She allegedly constantly "beeped" her automobile horn with
her remote control key, for no reason. She decorated a
portion of her driveway immediately adjacent to her neighbor's
bedroom window with indoor furniture and furnishings (couches,
end tables, statues, plants, etc.) to make it look like a
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 7 of ?
living room, then sat there on the couch all day facing them
while singing loudly about them and everything she thought
about them in a sing-song voice so they could hear. She
ignored notices from park [management]. She always timely
paid her rent and her home and space were otherwise
immaculate. We demanded that she desist from the disturbing
conduct and conditions, all rule violations for which an
eviction action could be brought under the Mobilehome
Residency Law. . . . She finally complied.
This and other examples provided to the Committee, and the lack
of any countervailing evidence, suggest that expanding limited
civil jurisdiction to include injunctive relief for continuing
or recurring violations of reasonable rules or regulations of a
mobilehome park seems to be working as intended.
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Related Pending Legislation :
SB 419 (McGuire) would authorize the seller of a mobilehome to
display a "for sale" sign of a generally accepted yard-arm type
design and would require the management of a mobilehome park,
upon request, to provide in writing the information and
standards management will use to review a prospective homeowner
to prospective homeowners or the seller. This bill is currently
in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 999 (Daly) would authorize the management of a mobilehome
park to dispose of a mobilehome left upon the premises by a
tenant or lienholder under specified circumstances. This bill
would require the landlord, prior to disposing of the
mobilehome, to provide written notice to the tenant and owner,
and would conclusively presume, if the tenant or lienholder does
not respond to the notice on or before the date specified in the
notice, that the mobilehome is immediately subject to salvage,
demolition, removal, or other abatement. This bill is currently
in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 244 (Vidak)
Page 8 of ?
AB 2272 (Wagner, Ch. 99, Stats. 2012) authorized, until January
1, 2016, the management of mobilehome parks to file petitions
for orders to enjoin violations of reasonable rules or
regulations of mobilehome parks within the limited jurisdiction
of the superior court.
SB 459 (Lockyer, Ch. 270, Stats. 1991) authorized the management
of mobilehome parks to obtain injunctions for three years
against continuing or recurring violations of the reasonable
rules and regulations of the park. This bill entitled the
management to an injunction upon showing such a violation by
clear and convincing evidence, and authorized the court to grant
a temporary order restraining the violation for up to 15 days
pending a hearing on the injunction.
**************