Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,781 chars
The most difficult problem currently experienced by the mobile home plot
tenant is eviction from a lot with insufficient notice and without cause.
Eviction can often be more devastating for a mobile home plot tenant
than for the traditional residential tenant because the tenant of a mobile
home plot must not only move all of his or her personal possessions, but
must also expend in the vicinity of $1,000 - $2,000 to move his or her
mobile home and, what is sometimes even more difficult, find a mover
and a new lot.

1977 FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT, supra, at 168; see a/so Holiday Resort Cmty. Ass'n

v. Echo Lake Assocs., 134 Wn. App. 210, 224, 135 P.3d 499 (legislative purpose in

enacting the MHLTA was to regulate and protect mobile home owners by providing

stable, long-term tenancy for homeowners living in a mobile home park).

The MHLTA provides for stable, long-term tenancy by creating the presumption

of a year-to-year periodic tenancy. Though it may seem counterintuitive to require only

a writing for long-term leases of mobile home lots when other tenancies expressly

require, acknowledgement for leases over a year, MHLTA leases are fundamentally

different from other tenancies. This difference is deliberate, due at least in part to the

fact that '"[t]he park resident is in the unique position of owning his home while renting

the land on which it is placed."' OFFICE OF PROGRAM RESEARCH, supra, at 1 (quoting

Lyle F. Nyberg, Note, The Community and the Park Owner Versus the Mobile Home

Park Resident:
.
Reforming the Landlord-. Tenant Relationship,
' . . . 52 B.U. L. REV. 810, 813

(1972)). This unique position results in unequal bargaining power between the park

landlord and the mobile home tenant; these tenants require the security of a longer