I do not agree with Greg’s assumption. When I illustrated the valuation example previously, I based the value of the park solely on lot rent, giving it a value of $440,000.
I assumed the homes to be worth $180,000 whether you keep them or sell them. Of course you will have to validate this by inspecting each of the homes before you buy them to see if they should be worth more or less based on their physical condition.
If you sell the homes you will have $180,000 in cash, and your remaining investment is $440,000 for the park only. If you keep the homes you will earn home rent, which will offset holding and maintenance costs on them. After this offset, you still have $440,000 invested in the park.
I do agree that ownership of the homes will drive increased efforts for maintenance and management, but my opinion is that those costs can be absorbed by the rent achieved on the homes. The park is not worth less because the homes are owned by the park.
If you want to see this illustrated in the real market, take a look how the offering memoranda provided by the major brokers are structured. They are almost always structured with a price for the park based on lot rent, and an ADDITIONAL price for the homes. I have never seen where the park is worth less because homes come with it, unless they are dilapidated and have to be torn down. In that case, you will have to remove the demolition costs from the value of the park.