BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 244
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
SB
244 (Vidak) - As Introduced February 18, 2015
PROPOSED CONSENT
SENATE VOTE: 37-0
SUBJECT: MOBILEHOMES: INJUNCTIONS
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD the sunset date be removed fROM the
provisions in existing law authorizing MANAGEMENT OF A
MOBILEHOME PARK TO ENJOIN A VIOLATION OF THE PARK'S RULES OR
REGULATIONS as A "LIMITED" CIVIL CASE, thus making this
authority permanent?
SYNOPSIS
Existing law permits the management of a mobilehome park to
terminate the tenancy of a resident who violates a rule or
regulation that is part of the tenant's rental agreement.
Existing law also permits the management of a mobilehome park to
seek a court order to enjoin a resident's continuing and
recurring violation of a park rule or regulation. Prior to
2013, however, such injunctive relief could only be obtained by
filing an "unlimited" civil case (which has higher filing fees
SB 244
Page 2
and is generally seen as less convenient than filing a limited
civil case). To encourage management to address violations
proactively by seeking an injunction instead of the more severe
remedy of eviction, the Legislature passed and the Governor
signed AB 2272 in 2012, which, until January 1, 2016, permits
management to bring an injunction as a "limited" civil case.
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Western
Manufactured Housing Communities Association, would eliminate
the sunset date from the above provisions, thereby extending
this authority indefinitely. The Committee has not received any
information to suggest that allowing mobilehome park managers to
pursue injunctive relief through the limited civil jurisdiction
of the superior courts has had unintended consequences. At the
same time, proponents of the bill have provided evidence that
management has used the law, as intended, to enforce park rules
and obtain compliance without resorting to evictions. Should
this bill be approved, it will be referred to the Assembly
Housing and Community Development Committee. There is no
registered opposition to the bill.
SUMMARY: Eliminates the January 1, 2016 sunset date on the
existing law authorizing the management of a mobilehome park to
enjoin violations of park rules by seeking an injunction, rather
than filing an unlawful detainer, thus making this authority
permanent.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a mobilehome tenancy shall be terminated by the
management for, among other reasons:
a) Conduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park
premises, that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other
SB 244
Page 3
homeowners or residents; or
b) 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. (Civil Code
Section 798.56. All further references are to this code
unless otherwise stated.)
2)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:
a) Until 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 within the limited jurisdiction of the
superior court of the county in which the mobilehome park
is located; and
b) 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. (Section 798.88 (a)
and (b).)
3)Authorizes the petitioner, at the time of filing the petition,
to 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
SB 244
Page 4
the park from continuance or recurrence of the violation.
(Section 798.88 (b).)
4)Requires the temporary restraining order to be personally
served upon the respondent homeowner or resident with the
petition for injunction and the notice of hearing. Further
provides that the restraining order shall remain in effect for
a period not to exceed 15 days, except as modified or limited
by the court. (Section 798.88 (c).)
5)Requires a hearing to be held within 15 days of filing the
petition for an injunction, and provides that the court shall
issue an injunction prohibiting the violation, not to exceed
three years in duration, if the court finds the existence of a
continuing or recurring violation of a reasonable rule or
regulation of the mobilehome park by clear and convincing
evidence. (Section 798.88 (d).)
6)Authorizes the management, not more than three months prior to
expiration of the injunction, to 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.
(Section 798.88 (e).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: This bill, sponsored by the Western Manufactured
Housing Communities Association (WMA), seeks to remove the
sunset date on the existing law authorizing the management of a
mobilehome park to enjoin violations of park rules by seeking an
injunction, rather than filing an unlawful detainer. By
removing the sunset date of January 1, 2016, this bill would
extend that authority indefinitely. According to the author:
SB 244
Page 5
Mobilehome residents are entitled to quiet enjoyment
of their property and park owners are obligated to
preserve that quiet enjoyment. Prior to the enactment
of AB 2272 (Ch. 99, Stats. 2012), 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 such a
problem, park owners were only able to utilize the
eviction process, which was burdensome to park owners,
the evicted resident, and the entire mobilehome park
community. The injunction order provided by AB 2272
will sunset on January 1, 2016. Without new
legislation, mobilehome park owners will be unable to
utilize injunctions to enforce the rules of the park.
Limited vs. Unlimited Civil Actions. Prior to their unification
in 1998, California had both county superior courts and county
municipal courts. Among other distinctions, a municipal court
had jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy was
$25,000 or less, while a superior court had jurisdiction over
cases where the amount was above $25,000. In 1998, the
California Constitution was amended to permit unification of the
municipal and superior courts into a single superior court
system. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section 5.)
Although the municipal courts ceased to exist, civil cases that
formerly would have been within the jurisdiction of the
municipal courts were then classified as "limited" civil cases,
while matters formerly within the jurisdiction of the superior
courts were classified as "unlimited" civil actions. (See Code
of Civil Procedure Sections 85 and 88.) The "amount in
controversy" distinction, however, remains the same: where the
amount in controversy is $25,000 or less, the action is
classified as a "limited" civil case; where the amount is more
than $25,000, it is classified as an "unlimited" civil case.
The classification of a case as either a limited or an unlimited
SB 244
Page 6
action has implications that go beyond the amount of money the
court may award. Generally speaking, a plaintiff in a limited
civil action may not obtain a permanent injunction and both
parties have more limited discovery rights than litigants in
unlimited cases.
Limited cases also differ in various procedural ways. For
example, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 92, an answer to
a verified complaint in a limited civil case need not be
verified. Prior to the enactment of AB 2272 in 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 in law for
mobilehome park management to file these petitions for temporary
restraining orders within the "limited" jurisdiction of the
superior court.
Public policy of allowing injunctions in limited civil cases
removes incentive for unnecessary evictions, benefitting both
management and residents. The authority provided by AB 2272
allows the management of a mobilehome park to file an injunction
as a limited civil case, but only until January 1, 2016, when
the law is scheduled to sunset, unless extended by statute.
Without extending this authority, the author notes, the law will
revert to its previous version in which it is cheaper and
perhaps easier for management to evict a resident who refuses to
comply with park rules and regulations than to seek an
injunction ordering the resident to cease the violation.
According to the Statewide Civil Fee Schedule, effective January
1, 2014 in most superior courts, the fee for filing a limited
civil case is either $225 (where the amount in controversy is up
to $10,000) or $370 (where the amount is over $10,000 but up to
$25,000). The fee for filing an unlimited civil case, however,
is $435 in most courts. By contrast, the fee for filing an
SB 244
Page 7
unlawful detainer action in most cases is only $240 (unless the
amount exceeds $25,000, in which case the fee is also $435).
Consequently, there is a financial incentive to evict rather
than enjoin (a $240 fee vs. a $435 fee) if an injunction can
only be obtained by filing an unlimited civil case.
Of course, there are other factors that likely influence
management's decision to choose between enjoining and evicting a
tenant, including the nature of the violation. For example, a
violation can only be enjoined if it is continuing or recurring,
whereas the violation may constitute a violation of the rental
agreement and the resident must have failed to respond when
given a 30-day notice to correct the violation to justify
eviction. By removing the sunset date and extending authority
for injunctions in limited civil cases, this bill would create
somewhat of a financial incentive for management to enjoin
rather than evict ($225 fee vs. $240 fee) in many cases. From a
policy standpoint, the law should not encourage management to
file an eviction, which may leave the resident without
affordable housing, whereas an injunction could resolve the
issue without forcing the resident to vacate his or her home.
Evaluation of AB 2272 suggests positive results without
unintended consequences. When AB 2272 was heard by this
Committee in 2012, there was some concern about creating an
exception to the general rule requiring injunctive relief to be
obtained in an unlimited civil case, except as otherwise
authorized by statute. The Committee's analysis of AB 2272
stated "Because this bill does carve out an exception to the
general rule, the author has decided to include a sunset
provision that will permit the Legislature to revisit the issue
and ensure that asking judges in limited civil cases to issue
injunctive relief does not create unanticipated problems."
Since AB 2272 became law on January 1, 2013, this Committee has
not received any information to suggest that allowing mobilehome
SB 244
Page 8
park managers to pursue injunctive relief through the limited
civil jurisdiction of the superior courts has had unintended
consequences. The Committee received a letter from Terry
Dowdall, an attorney in Orange County, in which he recounts
several instances where mobilehome park owners were able to
obtain injunctions against residents to enjoin violations
instead of seeking evictions. For example, Dowdall states:
In 2012 in San Bernardino County, we prevailed on
multiple homesite and mobilehome maintenance issues,
as well as pet violations. The judge ordered the
tenants to immediately comply with the park's pet
rules and gave the tenants compliance deadlines to
complete the required maintenance and repairs (up to a
year for the most expensive item-the repair and
replacement of the mobilehome skirting). We were able
to retain the tenant instead of evicting him.
This and other examples provided to the Committee, and the lack
of any countervailing evidence, suggest that expanding the
superior court's limited civil jurisdiction to include
injunctive relief for continuing or recurring violations of
reasonable rules or regulations of a mobilehome park appears to
be working as intended by the Legislature.
Prior Related Legislation. AB 2272 (Wagner) Ch. 99, Stats.
2012, authorizes, 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. The bill entitled the
SB 244
Page 9
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (sponsor)
Educational Community for Homeowners (ECHO)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
SB 244
Page 10