BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 244
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ed Chau, Chair
SB
244 (Vidak) - As Introduced February 18, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 37-0
SUBJECT: Mobilehomes: injunctions.
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
homeowners or residents; or
b) Failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a
SB 244
Page 2
reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of
the rental agreement or any amendment thereto.
(Civil Code Section 798.56)
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.
(Civil Code Section 798.88)
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
the park from continuance or recurrence of the violation
SB 244
Page 3
(Civil Code Section 798.88).
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 (Civil Code Section 798.88).
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 (Civil Code Section 798.88).
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
(Civil Code Section 798.88).
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
Background: 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. When AB 2272 was heard by
this Committee in 2012, the Committee analysis noted that the
author decided to include a sunset provision that will permit
SB 244
Page 4
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 there have been any
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
points to examples involving mobilehome maintenance issues as
well as pet violations.
These and other examples provided to the Committee, and the lack
of any countervailing evidence, suggest that AB 2272 appears to
be working as intended by the Legislature.
Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "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, 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
SB 244
Page 5
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. 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.
The "amount in controversy" distinction, however, remains the
same.
The classification of a case as either a limited or an unlimited
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.
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.
Injunctions vs. evictions: Without extending the authority
granted by AB 2272, the author notes, the law will revert to its
previous version in which it is cheaper and sometimes 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.
SB 244
Page 6
Due to court filing fees, there are financial incentives to
evict rather than enjoin if an injunction can only be obtained
by filing an unlimited civil case. Of course, there are other
factors that 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 a small financial incentive for management to
enjoin rather than evict in many cases (($225 fee vs. $240 fee).
Evictions may leave the resident without affordable housing,
whereas an injunction could resolve the issue without forcing
the resident to vacate his or her home.
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
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.
Double-referral: This bill was double-referred to the Assembly
SB 244
Page 7
Judiciary Committee, where it passed 10-0 on June 16, 2015.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (Sponsor)
Educational Community for Homeowners (ECHO)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085