Mobile Home Park Leases – AB2782 – Injunction DENIED
If you have been following the Saga of AB2782, first you need to get out more.
However, AB2782 is important and the MH Industry (via Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association – “WMA”) has been fighting it ‘tooth and nail’ for several years. Specifically, they are REALLY fighting ONE SENTENCE, to wit “As of January 1, 2025, any exemption pursuant to this section shall expire”
For everyone who has a life and has not been watching this Saga closely, the exemption referred to was the exemption for MH leases from RENT CONTROL (“Rent Stabilization Ordinances – RSO). In effect, this sentence in AB 2782 moved ALL MH leases in rent controlled jurisdictions BACK ONTO RENT CONTROL. WMA hates that.
They also HATE that, if contesting an RSO CPI increase, the park owner would be required to reveal their financial information in public. THEY REALLY HATE THAT.
This means that MH Leases, rather than being “negotiated” between the park owner and the individual resident, will be limited to the annual CPI adjustment found in most rent control ordinances (“RSO”).
Why does AB2782 do this? I don’t have a lot of facts, but I suspect that there have been lots of complaints about the leasing process. I have been a publicly elected official (3 terms-12 years) in California and I can assure that Assembly Persons DO NOT wake up one morning and decide “Wow, we really need to offend a large, well organized, well funded lobby group.” Rather, they respond when their voters complain a lot.
So WMA fights, filed a law suit, and recently sought an a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION against the implementation of AB2782 on January 1, 2025. The WMA well paid legal counsel filed lots of pages of documents stating that implementing AB2782 on January 1 would destroy the business model of MH owners, cause park closures and rioting in the streets. This is of course nonsense. But they attempted to convince the Superior Court in Sacramento that, since WMA was likely to win the lawsuit, the Injunction would prevent a messy situation that would only have to be corrected when WAM won the lawsuit in August.
However, the Superior Court also thought this was NONSENSE. In their 17 page Final Ruling, the Court summed up the situation with one sentence – “Because Plaintiffs [WMA] have failed to show irreparable harm and failed to show a likelihood of success on their legal claims, their motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
So the ‘rioting in the streets’ was more likely a mild celebration in the back offices of the California Department of Justice Attorney General.
Stay tuned.
Deane
Deane Sargent and PMC Financial Services have been helping mobile home park resident groups and cooperatives to organize and find financing to buy their parks for over 20 years.