Hello, I recently had to buy back a home that I had sold a few years ago in my park for a lot more than I originally sold it for (thanks to market conditions and some renovations made). The seller was getting offers from many people interested in moving the home out and did not care about the 5 year home residency commitment we had signed.
This got me thinking besides a home residency agreement, what other options are there to protect homes from being poached? I know I could plant trees in the front of the home and assume this works? To be honest if the residency commitment had expired I would still want to keep this home in the community do that is not enough obviously even if a tenant does take it seriously.
Anyone doing right of first refusal? Other methods?
I’ve found that the best way is to prevent it is to find out if the tenant is thinking about selling. If you ever talk to your tenants ask them if they have future plans to move. And ask them if they have heard of anyone else in the community that is thinking about it. Also ask you manager and have your manager ask tenants the same questions. Tell the tenants you can make their life easier by offering them a fair price for their home, cash offer and make the transaction smooth.
I do a right of first refusal - most tenants come to me first.
Definatly include a right of first refusal in your community rules. With that if they try to sell to a poacher you threaten to take the seller to court. That will usually stop the sale and allow you to match the offer using your right of first refusal clause. The key is to drill it into your tenants that when they intend to sell if they do not come to you once they recieve an offer you will stop any sale.
In addition make it maniditory that the tongue and axles be removed from all homes. This does not stop poching but does make it more difficult.
We encourage and often build items that makes the home more valuable if it stays, and more expensive to move, therefore worth less to other park owners.
Examples would include sheds, decks, awnings, carports (which help block a move), porches, add on’s and garages.
Most homes we rahab, we build decks and sheds before we sell them.
Poaching is a huge issue every time a tenant puts their home on FB. Poachers are scanning FB daily like vultures here. If a tenant has an issue with management they dont notify them of a sale even tho we have the first right of refusal in the lease. Means nothing to them, cash does. A lawsuit threat means nothing if they have nothing to lose or garnish. Poachers playing ‘musical chairs’ with MH’s is a disgusting business plan! The overpriced and low availability of new MH’s has created it I guess. Im anxiously awaiting others tactics against poaching.
Have a nice size deposit, try to expand on what the writer above suggests. With over 35 years experience and lots of different location (poaching) has not occurred . Someone removing a home you do not own we don’t consider poaching, the owner of the home has choices. The cost of removal and resetting of MOBILE HOMES is not cheap thus there is probably AN ISSUE you are missing. Presently we are asking owners to remove their old homes (when they want to sell them) so newer units can come in, plus change the overall aesthetics.
If pulling a MH from one Park to sell and move to another isnt ‘Poaching’ then I dont know what is. A small deposit wont stop them in my view. Market here is not large enough for the high price of new MH’s. I do like the tactic of surrounding the home with carports and etc.
It is called capitalism, freedom of choice which makes the business world more efficient and competitive and allows winners more reason to grow. As mentioned above moving homes is expensive and WHY would their homes really be moved to another park?
Why not a large deposit if your are the owner–you make the rules. You asked for some solutions Check out FB every day for homes in your park put up for sale and start bidding. EVERY park has some nagging issues, sometimes we find good solution, that is part of being a wise business person. Keep trying and will look forward to you posting GOOD RESULTS.
JAY-E - If a person is interested in purchasing a home that a tenant owns and they agree on a price, why is that poaching? As Carl said it is a free market. If I am looking for a home for a park that I own and find one for sale in your park I would be doing my business a disservice by not purchasing the home. The fact is your tenant owns the home. Why try to put up obstacles so the home that they own cannot be moved out? I have owned 5 mobile home communities and I am now retired at a young age because of the way I ran my business. To be honest I find it terrible that people treat their tenants this way. To try to make it so the home that they own cannot be moved out is a terrible business practice as well as, in my opinion, morally wrong. You are taking advantage of people with limited means.
There are groups of people/entities who directly solicit tenants with flyers, phone calls, etc. that state that their landlords are evil, greedy, uncaring wealthy business people that will not offer a fair price for their home if they choose to move. These entities will low-ball the tenant by thousands of dollars so that they can recoup their transportation cost when they move the home to whichever park/park owner purchased it… these are the poachers and they are out there. I suppose you can call this capitalism, but I don’t. If I am looking for a home for one of my parks and find one for sale in another park I feel I’m doing that park owner a disservice if I don’t reach out to him to let him know the home is for sale and I’m interested in buying it. I also tell the tenant that the landlord likely doesn’t want the home to be moved and they should chat with him. I also explain why the landlord doesn’t want the home moved. If the landlord approves then I move forward. If he is surprised and wants to try to keep the home by offering to buy it from the tenant I respect that and follow up later with him and the tenant.
I agree 100% with Tmperraults assessment. Todays Park owners have no respect for each other anymore. The poacher gets to use ‘Capitalism’ for his reasoning and the mean Park owner is infringing on the poor tenant cause hes trying to keep his Park full. Sounds like ‘Social Justice’ of today strikes again. Go to court and guess whose favored? The tenant who hasnt paid his water or rent because a socialist govt interfered with the law during the pandemic. Used the pandemic to gain more control over citizens, [Landlords, investors and others] Playing musical chairs [MH’s] is wrong and the park owners who buy them wouldnt like their Park’s sellers targeted and homes moved out. We’re not talking average tenants and their homes. We’re talking tenants who may not sell to a Landlord because they owe them money and are grifters. Save me the speech on admitting only perfect tenants as that only works 95% of the time in this market. Im all for free markets and that includes trying to keep your lots occupied. Nothing immoral about that.
Same situation at my parks in Illinois, so I have recently bought back several homes to keep them in the parks. We are buying the homes back at higher prices and of course, the homes need work before we can turn around and re-sell them - this is making the process longer and more expensive versus a fast & easy turn.
There is no need to pull a MH out of a park when the park would prefer to keep it - I choose to err on respecting my fellow operators.
I also live by the fact that you attract the energy that you put out!