Apologies if this question is answered elsewhere- I searched the forum and found nothing.
Does anyone have a system or insight on the legality of requiring TOH’s to stay in the park for a certain number of years? We have a used trailer we’d like to sell outright ($5k-8k cash), but would like to stipulate that it must stay in the park for 24 months after it’s sold.
What are my options? Hold the title for 24 months? Put a lien on the title for 24 months? Make them sign some kind of agreement (probably not legally enforceable)?
In your case, at a value of 5-8K, it probably would not be worth the expense to move assuming your highway regulations would even allow it to be legally moved.
I can not help with the legality of imposing language to insure it stays but I would strongly recomend removing tongue and axles if it has not already been done. I never allow those to remain on any home in my community. Removing them makes it more difficult and costly to move.
Consider adding in “first right of refusal” in your rental agreement. Meaning, you the park owner is requiring tenant to sell home to you first prior to selling to anyone else.
I’m pretty sure it’s not ‘legal’ to require that the home stay for a period of time. But, what you and the others suggested are good ideas to deter home owners from moving their homes. The fear of having to go to court, hire an attorney, take time off work, etc., to challenge the legality of a document they signed is enough to keep them from moving it; share this with them. Also, sharing that you require a licensed transporter that will charge approximately $4,000 to prep, transport and set up their home in addition to the expense of approximately $300 for someone to install their skirting (if it can even be reused - and if not, add $1,100 to this cost), and sharing that their home could be damaged during transportation, the fact that it may have to be inspected by a State licensed inspector (who will charge over $500) who may not be able to inspect the home for a few weeks and until they do they can’t live in the home. Also, if they find something not operable in the home or something that is not up to code, they will have to correct the issue which means the inspector will have to make a second inspection - all the while the tenant can’t live in the home until the inspector signs off on the inspection… this works every time
We have a 5-year minimum that the homes we sell have to remain in the park. It’s in our lot lease and it’s one of the items we go over with every resident when they sign it. It might not be enforceable if it came down to it, but the fact it’s there and that we tell people this up front (and also let buyer inquiries know the same timeline when they ask if the home can be moved) usually scares away those that had plans to eventually move it out, which is the goal/point. And like the previous response said, whether or not it’s actually enforceable would need to be determined by a judge, and the cost/time involved in going through the legal process is also an effective deterrent to would-be violators.
If you have an onsite manager, they’ll know if someone is starting to prep their home to move it and will/should alert you so you can keep tabs on if someone is trying to violate the 5-year stipulation (or however long you choose) so you can step in and put a stop to it. No mover wants to get in the middle of a legal dispute, and they will pull their toter out of there at the first sign that there will be attorneys involved if they move it. Especially if you show them the signed lot lease stating the home had to be kept on the park for X number of years.
these are all some great ideas. Everything listed in the posts from First Right of Refusal to extended term leases. Good ideas.
Another approach is the “carrot” approach. You could incentivize them to stay with little perks. Just off the top, this could include a small discount on lot rent, 1 free month free (tack it onto the end of the lease), or a maybe even a gift card for every year they stay beyond say year #3. Some thoughts.
Something that seems fair is to put a lien position on the home that amortizes out over time. The reality is that many used homes sold in parks are sold at prices that are normally much cheaper than they would be if bought separately, moved, and set up.
This also seems equally applicable for move in incentives as well. I’d want the same security for any tenant owned home, if I covered the cost to move it into the park. I’m sure a smart lawyer could make it work in a way that could hold up in court because its more balanced than just scaring the tenant into not trying to move it. That’s probably why judges have a tendency to throw it out, since that’s not hard to spot for someone like a judge.
I also don’t agree with requiring a first right of refusal on the same basis why I hope others value my own property rights. I just don’t know how to sell that to a tenant, or train someone else to do that, so I don’t fool with it.
