Determining Value of MH

I am not to fond in spending $20 for a Nadaguide ball park appraisal. Any other methods in figuring out value of a MH?This is just for insurance purposes for replacement value… I am only considering this as I normally only get liability insurance. I checked if the park is close to any flood zone and it isn’t also tornadoes are not too common in that area in Ohio. 

NADA is not accurate.  MHs are worth what they can be sold for on terms in a MHP.  You’ll simply need to run some test ads to determine what your MHs are worth. A 1972 12-wide in Ada, OK is worth $0.  In San Jose, CA (heart of Silicon Valley) they bring $40,000+.Also look into your local CraigsList.  Call sellers of MHs.  Negotiate with them.  Learn your market.  Every market is different.  That is why one-size-fits-all publications are not worth much.Good luck,-jl-

As discussed earlier, test ads are fraudulent and illegal. It’s a scam. The poster is advertising something they do not have and have no intention of providing at that time. Search the web to confirm this. A few web sites confirming this are:

http://www.aconsumerfraudlawyer.com/false-advertising/

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/false-advertising/

Each occurrence I find of someone using or recommending the use of the test ad scam is being reported to the FTC, FCC and Attorney General. This establishes a record of the people involved in the scam so they may be held responsible for their actions.

Everyone is entitled to run their business as they see fit, but they are also liable for their actions and complying with the law.

I don’t know who it is that keeps posting this on the forum, but there are many problems with your argument (which hold true every time you post this nonsense):1)  The advertiser IS advertising something that have or have an intention of providing at that time. We use any results from the test ads fully, either by renting/selling homes to this list once we complete the purchase, or by providing the list to the seller in the event that we do not buy the park, so that they can rent or sell the homes to this list.2) Your first link pertains to deceptive content. We are offing nothing but what we physically have in the park, namely mobile homes for rent. We are not offering diet pills that claim to make you lose 100 pounds in a week. We make no erroneous claims of performance. As a result, this link does not apply.3) Your second link is regarding fraudulent “quality, nature, price or purpose” in advertising. Again, none of these apply. We are offering exactly what exists, with no over-statement or deception. So this link, again, is irrelevant.4) The third link clearly defeats the purpose of your post, as it states the concrete facts concerning false advertising, which is defined as (in the link itself); " Private parties, such as consumers or competitors, can file a complaint for false advertising under the Lanham Act. To establish a violation under the Lanham Act, consumers and competitors must prove the following: (1) the advertiser made false statements of fact about its product; (2) the false advertisements actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the target population; (3) the deception was material; (4) the falsely advertised product was sold in interstate commerce; and (5) the party bringing the lawsuit (plaintiff) was injured as a result of the deception. Injury is construed as a likelihood of injury, rather than actual injury." Your theory falls apart in all five facts of law.I think the problem is that you are not grasping the law correctly. To even qualify under any of these laws, you have to actually sell a product under false pretenses. If we put in our ads "5 bedroom mobile home’ and it was actually a 3 bedroom, or if we put in an ad “1990 mobile home” and it was a 1970 mobile home, then you would be correct. But even then, the law requires that the customer actually buy the home and that money is transacted to create damages. Do you see the problem with your argument yet?There is a sign on a corner near my house that says “mini-storage coming soon: call for leasing information”. There is another sign by the interstate that says “shopping center coming soon, for leasing information call”. Of course, there is no mini-storage yet or shopping center. So this would also be “forbidden” under your theory, right? You can find around 1,000 of these advertisements in every major city in the U.S. Unlike our ads, these real estate ventures rarely even get built, as a result of the level of demand and available financing. However, our ads come to fruition every time, as the homes are already there and will be available going forward, either under our operation or, if we don’t buy the deal, the current owner.Just for fun, I researched for 20 minutes under the Google search of “are real estate test advertisements illegal?” and found not a single item there, either an existing lawsuit, an article from a state real estate agency, or any other post. If your argument was solid, I would certainly have found at least something under this concept. The only thing you will find is real estate broker advertising instructions for all 50 states, on what they can and cannot say in an ad to sell real property. I also ran a search under “are mobile home test advertisements illegal?” and also found nothing. If this was a real issue, I would find page after page of warnings from state mobile home associations, a hundred articles, and listings of current lawsuits, etc. For fun, enter “mobile home SAFE Act” in Google and see what you get. Notice the difference? Here’s what I found on Wikipedia under your topic, and it’s much better than your links, but too long to post on the forum:False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising, and misrepresentation of the product at hand, which may negatively affect many stakeholders specifically consumers. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. “Truth” refers to essentially the same concept, that customers have the right to know what they are buying, and that all necessary information should be on the label.False advertising, in the most blatant of contexts, is illegal in most countries. However, advertisers still find ways to deceive consumers in ways that are legal, or technically illegal but unenforceable.Contents  [hide] 1 Pricing-based methods1.1 Hidden fees and surcharges1.2 “Going out of business” sales1.3 Misuse of the word "free"2 Other deceptive methods2.1 Manipulation of measurement units and standards2.2 Fillers and oversized packaging2.3 Manipulation of terms2.4 Incomplete comparison2.5 Inconsistent comparison2.6 Misleading illustrations2.7 False coloring2.8 Angel dusting2.9 Bait-and-switch2.10 Guarantee without a remedy specified2.11 "No risk"2.12 Acceptance by default2.13 Undisclosed dishonest business practices3 Regulation and enforcement3.1 United States3.1.1 Federal advertising regulations3.1.2 State advertising regulation4 See also5 References6 External linksWhat’s missing from this list? That’s right, TEST ADVERTISING. Although, it was interesting to read that “bait and switch” is LEGAL in the U.S. as long as you add in the advertisement “quantities limited”. So I actually learned something new from this post. So I guess I could legally run a mobile home ad stating “4 bedroom mobile home (quantities limited)” and divert all the traffic to 2 bedrooms. Since even that is legal apparently, I don’t think the test ad concept is much of a big deal anyway, right?I have no idea if you are a park owner or not. If you are a park owner, then you should know that there is a state mobile home association (MHA) for all 50 states except Hawaii. Contact them and see if you can get a better handle on this issue, since it concerns you so much. If you are a park owner and have such a hatred for market research, then don’t do any. But heaven help your investors!

The FTC, FCC and Attorney General recieve this type of information from overly obsessed and fixated citizens all the time. These concerned citizen letters are placed in a large file titled “things to investigate when all other criminal activity ends”
 
They probably also have a “special” file on Tejas himself. 

1 Like

This issue keeps coming up since the test ads are fraudulent and illegal. Some people insist on continuing to run this scam and recommend the scam to others. The test ad supporters are advertising something they do not have and have no intention to provide at that time. You are harming the consumers responding to the ad and other investors.

The test ad discloses a huge shortcoming in your investment strategy. You don’t know your local market conditions and have resorted to the test ad scam to try to obtain the market conditions at a low cost rather than obtain the local market conditions legally at a higher cost.

Frank, your argument is not supported by the facts.

1)The test ad poster does not have what they are advertising. The test ad poster has no intent to provide the advertised service at that time.

2), 3), 4): All the provided links refer to fraudulent advertising and confirm your test ad usage is fraudulent and illegal.

Whether you advertise “5 bedroom” or “3 bedroom” is irrelevant. You don’t have either at the time you are running the ad and have no intention to provide either at that time. Your test ad is a total lie.

A sign in an open field or construction site stating “mini storage coming soon” or “shopping center coming soon” clearly indicates the advertised service is not currently available and will be available in the future. Where in your test ad do you state “may be available in the future if I purchase the park”? You don’t include this in your test ad because nobody would respond to the ad.

Search for “fraudulent advertising” on the web. I found 11 million hits. They all say the same thing, the ad must be truthful. Your test ad is a total lie.

Wikipedia covers your test ad scam in the first sentence: “False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising”. Your test ad is a total lie.

Frank, you’ve already confirmed that your test ad usage is fraudulent and illegal. When this issue was raised earlier, you then claimed that you would forward the responses to the mhp owner/seller to cya. This does not change the fact that you are advertising something which you do not have and have no intention to provide at that time.

Greg, there may be a file on me, but there is also a much larger file on the test ad supporters involved in this scam. Keep in mind that you are liable for criminal activity and civil activity. If you slip under the FTC/FCC/AG/BBB/etc radar, you still are liable for civil action from consumers and other investors. The damages are potentially in the millions if the test ad scam is related to giving yourself an unfair advantage in a mhp purchase.

The test ad scam and the participants will continue to be reported to the regulatory agencies. This will create a record of the scam and the participants involved for use in criminal and/or civil action.

I find it amazing that many test ad supporters recommended extensive due diligence and at the same time ignore the criminal and civil liability from their test ad scam.

Tejas,I disagree with each and every assertion you make. But it doesn’t matter what I think or you think, what matters is case law. Can you please post a link to the case law regarding mobile home park test ads? I’ve looked and there are none. So unless you can produce a link of a case regarding the illegality of advertising mobile homes for rent or sale in a park that you have under contract and that you have the likelihood of closing on in the immediate future, then there’s no point in talking about it further.

I have no dog in the Tejas -vs- Rolfe debate. That said- I did review this subject last time it reared it’s head- and have again spent a few minutes this time. It is a good intellectual exercise for me, and I do enjoy observing from the cheep seats. I am sure- to really review this correctly one would need a series of rulings, and briefs, and policy statements. So in that spirit I was seeking such data and found a policy statement from the FTC on Deceptive Advertising. It was a wonderful read- and I printed it, and highlighted in differing colors the points in the letter that would ‘lean’ to the Tejas side, and the Rolf side. Oh- I am sharing the link- not this highlighted copy! http://www.ftc.gov/ftc-policy-statement-on-deception

This is not a “Tejas vs. Rolfe” debate. The forum is for the purpose of discussing relevant park ownership information and ideas. This is not an issue that should be left up to armchair attorneys, whether it be Tejas, Rolfe, Johnson, or anyone else. Facts are all that are important, and random articles from the FTC or any other group (of which the internet has millions) are meaningless. If someone can post here actual case law concerning this specific issue, then that’s great. But if there’s no case law, then I’ll assume that there’s no issue with advertising mobile homes for rent or sale. And, I’ll add, the case law must be specific, not just case law of a guy running an ad for widgets. It has got to be specific to mobile home test ads. Otherwise, all this is just a bunch of meaningless conjecture, and not worthy of any further discussion.That being said, those who are morally opposed to advertising are certainly welcomed to not do any.

Wow- thanks for setting me straight Frank… non relevant random meaningless conjecture not worthy of any further discussion… I will sit in the corner and keep my thoughts to myself for a while… and for the record- there are exactly 21 FTC Policy Statements, not millions.  

Jim,I’m sure your silence won’t last long :slight_smile:

Jim, thanks for the link and input.

Frank, the test ad usage has nothing to do with morality, it is fraudulent and illegal. It also exposes the test ad user to criminal and/or civil charges.

The main federal laws governing false advertising are the FTC Act and the Lanham Act. Each state may have their own laws against false advertising. In general, each of these laws have the same basic claim that the advertisement must be truthful.

The test ad scam is a specific violation of the general laws requiring truthful ads and covered by the truth in advertising laws.

If you want a specific case law for your test ad scam, then I will volunteer to participate with you (or any other test ad supporter) in a lawsuit to determine the legality and damages of your test ad scam. You can present your argument for the test ad usage to the judge and jury. After you are done, I will submit documents (i.e. forum posts, boot camp training material, newsletters, your instructions on setting up a google phone answering system to complement the test ad scam, etc.) in which you and the other test ad supporters confirm the test ad is a total lie and scam to obtain market data rather than rent or sell homes. We can then let the judge and jury decide. The loser then pays all expenses and damages for the prevailing party. Since the test ad supporters are using the test ad scam to gain an advantage when purchasing a mhp, the damages may be very high.

As described earlier, your test ad scam discloses a deficiency in your mhp investment strategy across the country. You don’t know the local market conditions and have resorted to the test ad scam to try to obtain them.

Jim has already posted earlier that you can legally obtain the market data without using the test ad scam. Legally obtaining the market data may be more time consuming or expensive, but would avoid the use of the test ad scam and possible criminal and civil liability. All park owners and investors should be aware of the criminal and civil liability they are exposing themselves to with the test ad scam.

Your test ad scam is harming consumers and other investors. It must be stopped.

I’d also like to clarify that stopping the test ad scam is strictly a business issue, nothing personal. That being said, I encourage all honest investors and park owners to protect their interests against the test ad scam. If legal action is required against the test ad scam users to protect your interests, then it is part of running a business and must be done.

One of the keys to winning a lawsuit is to first prove damage was done. In the case of a test add, I cannot see the damage suffered by the person answering the add. My guess is they may be answering many ads, and will do so until housing is secured.This practice is no different than a private company running and ad for a job they do not have. This is practiced by many and will only hire of the PERFECT candidate is found.I take it by your earlier comment, you could not find any case law to back up your claim. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, which reminds me of another saying that opinions are like … 

Tejas,There is nothing illegal about running an ad for mobile homes for rent/sale in a park that you are buying. It is not a “scam”, unless you were to do it on a park that you are not buying and have no affiliation with (although even then, I’m not sure anyone would care as there are no damages). If you do not want to do any due diligence on a mobile home park you are buying, then feel free to do just that. But do not state your opinion as a fact, as there is no evidence (as I discussed at length on my last post) to support your position. None. When I can Google case law that states “advertising for mobile homes to be sold or rented in a community you are buying is illegal” then that’s something else. Until then, this is just your opinion, nothing more, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else on the Forum. I noticed that you have been posting on the same old concept since July 2012, so it’s obviously extremely important to you (but apparently not to the advertising free world).This forum is for the free flow of information between park owners and those who are buying parks. You have made your point (as much as I don’t agree with it). So can we please move on to something else? When the case law hits Google, let us know.

The sole purpose of this forum is to help anyone that is interested in entering the field or looking to improve their existing portfolio. It is not to cause arguments. Everyone has their own opinion on everything in life.  This argument is helping no one. Tejas, if you truly have issues with how we run our business, I kindly invite you to remove yourself from the forum, so we can continue to assist people, instead of them having their question hijacked by an argument that has been had numerous times in the past. I am truly sorry to everyone that have not been able to get an answer to their questions, our sole goal is to help people. They have the option to use our suggestions or try it their own way.  I believe we are going to close this discussion from any further comments. Thank you to everyone that helps make this forum a center for learning.Thank you,Kirsten