Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/355277
AUGUST 2014 22 THE JOURNAL COMMUNITY LAW BY ELISSA KLUG Rule Enforcement: Effective Use of Seven Day Notices In California, for parks with residents who are not complying with the park's rules and reg- ulations, the Mobilehome Residency Laws, California Civil Code § 798 et seq. ("MRL"), provide park owners and managers with tools to effectively enforce the park's rules and regula- tions. The MRL provides a procedure to serve a Seven Day Notice for rules violations for "fail- ure to comply with a reasonable rule or regula- tion of the park that is part of the rental agreement." MRL § 798.56(d). The focus of this article is California-centric, and while your state might not have rules specific for your com- munities, you will find this information insight- ful. An effective Seven Day Notice sets forth the rules and regulations that the resident violated and the park's authority under the MRL to issue the Seven Day Notice, as well as the conduct that caused the violation and what action the resident needs to take or cease in order to come into compliance with the park's rules and reg- ulations. Attaching photographs that evidence the rule violation is an effective way to evidence the violation, and can later provide a visual un- derstanding to the trier of fact, should the mat- ter end up in court. The park can use maintenance workers to observe and document rule violations. And when a resident complains about another resident, it is good practice to have the resident submit the complaint in writ- ing. If the resident does not submit a verbal complaint in writing, then it is good practice for the park to document that verbal complaint in writing. The written reports of park employees and the written complaints from residents can then be attached to the Seven Day Notice as additional evidence supporting the rule viola- tion. Serving a Seven Day Notice starts a legal process that may potentially result in eviction. Keep in mind, however, that the Park is not required to serve a Seven Day Notice for a rule violation. However, the park should ensure that it consistently enforces the rules among all residents. With that in mind, and depending upon the severity and longevity of the rule vio- lation, as well as the park's relationship with the resident, the park may consider issuing a warning letter to the resident before serving the formal Seven Day Notice. The resident may perceive a warning letter as less offensive than a legal Seven Day Notice, and it just might work. Effective communication with park residents is essential to avoiding misunderstandings and can be a useful tool in avoiding costly litigation. But not all residents take warning letters seri- ously. If the resident does not come into com- pliance with the rules after receiving a warning letter, then the park may need to proceed with serving a Seven Day Notice to effectively en- force the rules. As the name of the notice implies, the resi- dent served with a Seven Day Notice has seven days to come into compliance. MRL § 798.56(d). If the resident has not corrected the rule violation or otherwise complied with the Seven Day Notice within seven days, then the MRL permits the park to proceed with serv- ing a Sixty Day Notice to terminate the ten- ancy. MRL § 798.56(d). If, however, the resident does comply with the Seven Day Notice within seven days, but then later violates the same rule or regulation, then the park may issue another Seven Day No- tice to the resident. After the park has served the same resident with three Seven Day Notices within a twelve month period for violation of the same rule or regulation, upon the next vi- olation of the same rule or regulation, the park may serve a Sixty Day Notice without giving written notice. MRL § 798.56(d). This is es- sentially a "three strikes and you're out" proce- dure built into the MRL for habitual rule violators. Once the park serves the resident with the Sixty Day Notice to terminate tenancy, and once the sixty days expire, the park may pro- ceed to file an unlawful detainer action, which provides for expedited access to a trial date for an eviction proceeding. The park has the op- tion to institute legal proceedings, but is not re- quired to do so. As such, even if the park does not want to ultimately evict a resident, or is un- sure whether it will eventually attempt to do so, serving the Seven Day Notice protects and pre- serves the park's interests and rights to do so later on. And hopefully, the Seven Day No- tice, with the threat of eviction, will serve as sufficient motivation for the resident to comply, such that the park will not have to later decide whether to institute the legal proceedings. Not every rule violation lends itself to a Seven Day Notice. And sometimes a Seven Day Notice, alone, may not be sufficient to ef- fectively and swiftly enforce the park's rules. If a resident is in violation of park rules regarding maintenance of the homesite, then in addition to, or in lieu of, a Seven Day Notice, the park can serve a Fourteen Day Notice to perform space maintenance or clean-up pursuant to MRL § 798.36. To be effective, the Fourteen Day Notice needs to identify the specific rules violated, the specific conditions to be corrected or property to be removed, and an estimate of the charges that the park will charge the resi- dent if the resident does not make the necessary repairs or undertake the necessary maintenance or clean-up within fourteen days. The conse- quence of non-compliance with a Fourteen Day Notice is not eviction, as may be the case with a Seven Day Notice, but rather, that the park may enter the homesite to make the necessary repairs or conduct the necessary maintenance, charging the resident for the costs involved. If a resident's behavior is par- ticularly egregious or threatening, then in addition to calling the po- lice, which may be necessary, the park can consider filing a petition for injunctive \ 23