Bought home in a different park to move

I just bought a used mobile home that’s located in someone else’s park. I am moving the home to my park. The moving company’s schedule is booked until 2 weeks later. I am willing to pay the current owner storage fees but they have not responded yet. I am worried that between now and the moving date in 2 weeks, they would file for abandonment and sell this home at an auction. Any ideas on the best strategy to avoid being in that situation?

Probably not an issue regarding abandonment. The bigger question is in regards to the park owner demanding that you sign their lease. Not sure now they operate but in my park no sale is allow to proceed with out me screening the potential buyer and insisting on a signed lease agreement. You could not own the home let alone move it without my approval.
Have you contacted the park owner to find out his business practices. That should be your first move.

Jhu79, Contrary to an opinion shared by Greg, a park owner has no legal right to screen you (i.e., background check) or require a signed lease when you are simply buying private property to move to another park. There are potential problematic issues with you buying and moving a home to another park (you’re not the only owner that can buy and move a home), but not as described above.

1 Like

Storage fees yes, but abandonment process takes months not weeks.

MickG legally the day a new owner takes possession of a home they owe rent on the land. In your state you may have no rights as a park owner but this is not universal.
Jhu79 will be a tenant for two weeks, I would assume that creates some form of a landlord/tenant relationship. Interesting to know if he does not sign a lease can the park owner block assess to his property to remove the home. What rights does a “non-tenant” have. Does owning a home give a non tenant a legal right to enter private property.

Greg, I suspect you have very limited self awareness so I will do the entire MHU reader population a favor by letting you know that you are perceived as the Cliff Clavin of this community… always first to offer an opinion on things and very rarely correct in your assessment.

Also (from a prior post), the expression is “Patience Is A Virtue” not “*Patients Is a Virtue”.

Your welcome.


I am sure the entire MHU population appreciates your candor, for myself, not being self aware allows me the luxury of not caring what others think. Keep in mind “assessments” on the net are generally opinions not to be confused with fact. It’s the internet.

I am sometimes disappointed with my spellcheck but 6 out of 8 letters ain’t bad. I can live with 75%.
What would Cheers be without Cliff.

Greg - just a reminder that you manage 33(!) lots in a jurisdiction (country) that does not apply to 99% of users here.

Have to give you credit though - in terms of (being outspoken + offering faulty advice) / (number of lots) = ratio, you are likely #1 in the forum. Kudos!


mph…in reality every state in the US is a different jurisdiction (landlord/tenant wise) making Canada just one more jurisdiction. However I would guess that 99% of members would dismiss my opinions based solely on the fact that I am Canadian. How could I possibly know or understand anyone else’s legislation. Overall the differences are no greater here in Canada then they are state to state in the US. Understanding individual jurisdictions landlord tenant regulations is not rocket science. Same applies to civil law overall.
As far as only managing 33 lots that is of little relevance. That would be dismissing the opinions of the vast majority of community owners on this forum.
My opinions are based on a combination of 45 years of working within the legal system and managing income investment properties on the ground not from behind a desk.
Many dismiss the opinions of others they do not agree with as faulty. Trumpesque …. fake news.
My apologies for participating in hijacking this thread.

Returning to the subject, a tenancy (agreement with respect to the land rights) is not created between the new owner and the landlord. The tenant is a person, who signed an agreement with the landlord, (i.e.the old owner). The landlord has several options to reclaim the use of the land from the tenant (old owner). The primary problem for the landlord is, how to force the home off at minimal expense. The primary problem for the new owner is, how to remove the home at minimal cost.

By rights the landlord can determine who has access to the property when and where, but I am sure a judge would let the new owner collect their property at/in a reasonable time and method without any tenancy relationship. Of course, the new owner and the property landlord can come to an agreement between themselves, which would be reasonable, pro rata the same rent that was being paid by the existing tenant/old owner for the two weeks…

Brandon you are correct, also the first to actually discuss the subject, and the reason I posed the questions. The answers are dependant on each jurisdictions landlord tenant regulations. Many jurisdictions give supreme authority to park owners to approve or deny a “buyer” provided the reason for denial is fair and justified. “Conditional on park owner approval”. I am fairly certain that my jurisdiction is not the only one in North America that allows park owners to screen buyers/potential tenants. Yes enforcing the regulation obviously is a issue when a buyer and seller chooses to ignore it, even more so where the buyer intends to remove the home from the property. I was suggesting having legal rights not the ability to impose those rights.
The question comes down to cost as you point out (for both parties). A park owner can demand a home owner sign a lease and pay rent or evict that owner. The home owner could choose to sell or remove the home. Either way the park owner has rights.
The big question is in this case with the new owner intending to remove the home what legal rights would the park owner choose to impose. A mutual agreement is most beneficial where as a legal battle could potentially drag on a long time without a winner.
The courts would most likely impose a compromise since the rights of one does not completely negate the rights of the other.
In my Clavin opinion.

No sure who you mean by “owner.” Is that the park owner or the home owner? Don’t pay storage fees to the home owner. Also don’t pay storage fees to the park owner. All you have to do is pay lot rent to the park owner until you move it. If rent is being paid on the current lease (you are paying on behalf of the tenant), then there may not be a legal abandonment. 2 weeks is nothing. Abandonment will take much longer than that.

I do cringe to hear this though, because if you were doing this against my park, I would not be happy with you. If you are actively marketing to take that park’s homes, they may do the same against you starting a war. In the end you take 3 of their homes, they take 3 of yours and you both spent $15,000 on moves.

If I were you, I would call the other park owner and let them know what is happening and work it out. If you cannot do that because your are surreptitiously trying to take their tenants, then the risk is on you.

1 Like

Greg, I do not think you are correct. Perhaps you have a lease and rules that says any new tenant must be approved by you (as we do), but you have to consider the legal nuances. Yes, you can prevent somebody from taking up tenancy on your property without your permission, but you cannot prevent a tenant owned home from being bought by a third party. It could be considered tortious interference to prevent such a sale .

If Sally owns a home at Park A and sells home to Joe one Saturday morning and skips town, the home is legally owned by Joe, but the lease legally remains between Sally and Park A until it terminates due to abandonment, terminates for any other reason, or expires - all of which can take 30 days notice or more. If Joe tries to remove his home, you cannot stop him. We went to court over a similar issue and could not legally prevent the home from leaving.

You can try to file legal proceedings against Sally and claim ownership of the home as abandoned, but time is against you. Before you can gain legal right to the home, the buyer would have removed it making your efforts fruitless.

This is a very frustrating situation but is the law.

mPark … Your assumption that I may not be correct (based on my jurisdiction) is incorrect. The reading/interpretation of your state regulations may be different however I am sure mine are not unique.
Leases and rules are only part of a park owners rights. Legal rights are outlined in your state landlord tenant regulations which every park owner/landlord is required to know. In my jurisdiction all offers to purchase a home in a park must contain the language “conditional on park owner approval” otherwise the park owner could get a court order to stop the sale. I have denied buyers and stopped the sale of many homes.
It would be tortious only if a buyer was denied without justification.
All operating regulations are specific to jurisdiction which is why, on a forum such as this, both giving advice and challenging the opinions of others is risky. Fortunately for me I am not one of those park owners that does not know their own regulations.

IF a home is removed from one of parks there is a procedure: Management will be given notice of the transporter, full name of business, phone number insurance company and 15 days prior to movement of home will meet with park owner the safest way to remove home.
Owner of home will post a $250 cash deposit with management for possible damages and condition of lot when home is removed at 15 day notice. Until management is satisfied that ALL bills are paid, no leases broken, and the safe removal plan is satisfactory–the home will not be moved. Buying a home in another park we stay away from since we rather buy a home from a dealer since moving out of a home maybe nearly impossible and why make another park owner MAD??? You need to talk with the management of the park and be very polite and open your wallet!!! All areas have different jurisdictions to deal with and in some measure as park owners with our guidelines if followed allow it to be a great place to live or a trailer park. As per Greg appreciate your grit and just because someone has more than one park or more than 50 spaces big deal–please respect other peoples opinion and life long experience—WE ALL HAVE VALUE–thank you GREG!!!

Someone hand me a bag of popcorn…
In my state mobile homes are personal property- like cars and motorcycles. If a home owner’s lease is up and they sell the home to someone who wants to move it… well that is how it goes. It kinda sucks but it is what it is. Park owners cannot restrict access, prescreen buyers to ensure the home stays in the park, etc. Hopefully the lease has clauses that ensure the lot is cleaned up when they leave. My only recourse is to buy the home myself and either rent it or sell on terms with a lease that requires home stay in lot until paid off.

Personally though- I have always considered it bad karma to poach out homes from other parks. I won’t do it… feels like one of those ‘comes around/goes around’ things.