Legal Question About Renters...

[Canon Shooter]

This is something I learned of last night, and I think it's pretty fucked up.

A local retirement community (55 and over, I think) has a mix of home owners and renters. The rental homes, which are all manufactured homes, are all owned by the owner of the community, an outfit known as ELS (Equity Lifestyle Properties).

Recently they've started to hold a sort of "lottery" for the renters. Allegedly, they pick a renter's name at random, and that renter is then advised that they either need to purchase the home they're renting or move out of the community. I think they pick two renters every month. The goal is to have all owners and no renters.

Anyone ever heard of this? A friend's mother lives in the community. Her house is paid off, so she's unaffected by this. However, she just shrugs her shoulders and says "Well, that's what they're doing."

If it were me, I think I'd be hiring an attorney, primarily because ELS isn't doing a great deal to market the homes for sale. It just seems like coercion to me. While I understand the desire to have all 100% owners, it just doesn't seem like it could be legal.

Anyone else think this is fucked up?

 

[okfine]

This is something I learned of last night, and I think it's pretty fucked up.

A local retirement community (55 and over, I think) has a mix of home owners and renters. The rental homes, which are all manufactured homes, are all owned by the owner of the community, an outfit known as ELS (Equity Lifestyle Properties).

Recently they've started to hold a sort of "lottery" for the renters. Allegedly, they pick a renter's name at random, and that renter is then advised that they either need to purchase the home they're renting or move out of the community. I think they pick two renters every month. The goal is to have all owners and no renters.

Anyone ever heard of this? A friend's mother lives in the community. Her house is paid off, so she's unaffected by this. However, she just shrugs her shoulders and says "Well, that's what they're doing."

If it were me, I think I'd be hiring an attorney, primarily because ELS isn't doing a great deal to market the homes for sale. It just seems like coercion to me. While I understand the desire to have all 100% owners, it just doesn't seem like it could be legal.

Anyone else think this is fucked up?

I wonder if the renters have cash because financing on those kind of homes, AKAIK, do not exist.
Renters are considered as scum in parks.

 

[Ringel05]

This is something I learned of last night, and I think it's pretty fucked up.

A local retirement community (55 and over, I think) has a mix of home owners and renters. The rental homes, which are all manufactured homes, are all owned by the owner of the community, an outfit known as ELS (Equity Lifestyle Properties).

Recently they've started to hold a sort of "lottery" for the renters. Allegedly, they pick a renter's name at random, and that renter is then advised that they either need to purchase the home they're renting or move out of the community. I think they pick two renters every month. The goal is to have all owners and no renters.

Anyone ever heard of this? A friend's mother lives in the community. Her house is paid off, so she's unaffected by this. However, she just shrugs her shoulders and says "Well, that's what they're doing."

If it were me, I think I'd be hiring an attorney, primarily because ELS isn't doing a great deal to market the homes for sale. It just seems like coercion to me. While I understand the desire to have all 100% owners, it just doesn't seem like it could be legal.

Anyone else think this is fucked up?

Unfortunately it's probably legal but only if they sell it regardless of who's currently renting it now. If they kick out a renter using this tactic then rent it out again the previous renter will most likely be able to sue and the owners could get in serious legal trouble with that. There's also State and local renters protection laws that may or may not protect the renter in this instance.

 

[Ringel05]

I wonder if the renters have cash because financing on those kind of homes, AKAIK, do not exist.
Renters are considered as scum in parks.

Depends on the location and how the "home" is fixed on the property (what is considered a permanent "foundation") as to which mortgage companies/banks will finance.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I assume these are all leases?
If it is a lease, then the landowner has no ability to make someone to leave unless that tenant fails to pay or some other action defined by the lease that gives the owner the right to evict.
If the owner is requiring the renter to vacate at the end of the lease - it is not only legal, but completely ethical.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I wonder if the renters have cash because financing on those kind of homes, AKAIK, do not exist.
Renters are considered as scum in parks.

Oh, that's not really the case here. This isn't a trailer park. These are nice manufactured homes with residents who couldn't be a nuisance if they tried. Driving down the streets there, it's impossible to identify which ones are rentals and which ones aren't; they're all nice. And, as far as I know, financing is absolutely available for these...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Unfortunately it's probably legal but only if they sell it regardless of who's currently renting it now. If they kick out a renter using this tactic then rent it out again the previous renter will most likely be able to sue and the owners could get in serious legal trouble with that. There's also State and local renters protection laws that may or may not protect the renter in this instance.

That's what I was thinking, as well. If they're not actively marketing the home for sale, I would think that could open them up to litigation...

 

[Ringel05]

That's what I was thinking, as well. If they're not actively marketing the home for sale, I would think that could open them up to litigation...

It's possible but that depends on the State and local laws encompassing the whole issue. Most renter protection laws in some states tend to work in the favor of the homeowner with some exceptions.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's the same outside of a community. If I was renting out a house and decide to sell that house, then the renter has to move if I sell it.
A renter can't decide for the owner whether the owner can sale their own property or not.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It's the same outside of a community. If I was renting out a house and decide to sell that house, then the renter has to move if I sell it.
A renter can't decide for the owner whether the owner can sale their own property or not.

As long as it is at the end of the lease period... of course.

 

[Canon Shooter]

It's the same outside of a community. If I was renting out a house and decide to sell that house, then the renter has to move if I sell it.
A renter can't decide for the owner whether the owner can sale their own property or not.

Yeah, but this is being done totally at random. In some instances, we're talking about people in their 80's and 90's being given 30 days notice to vacate. I guess it would seem more palatable if they simply gave all of the renters a date by which they needed to move, but the randomness of it, for me, kinda' increases the ruthlessness of it...

 

[okfine]

Depends on the location and how the "home" is fixed on the property (what is considered a permanent "foundation") as to which mortgage companies/banks will finance.

Even the nicest in appearance still only have 5/8" sub-flooring which doesn't qualify to code. I am referring to CA.

 

[rippy38]

This is something I learned of last night, and I think it's pretty fucked up.

A local retirement community (55 and over, I think) has a mix of home owners and renters. The rental homes, which are all manufactured homes, are all owned by the owner of the community, an outfit known as ELS (Equity Lifestyle Properties).

Recently they've started to hold a sort of "lottery" for the renters. Allegedly, they pick a renter's name at random, and that renter is then advised that they either need to purchase the home they're renting or move out of the community. I think they pick two renters every month. The goal is to have all owners and no renters.

Anyone ever heard of this? A friend's mother lives in the community. Her house is paid off, so she's unaffected by this. However, she just shrugs her shoulders and says "Well, that's what they're doing."

If it were me, I think I'd be hiring an attorney, primarily because ELS isn't doing a great deal to market the homes for sale. It just seems like coercion to me. While I understand the desire to have all 100% owners, it just doesn't seem like it could be legal.

Anyone else think this is fucked up?

I would think a more palatable solution would be for the rental property owner to simply let the leases expire and then not offer another one. Then they could simply put the house on the market and sell.

The only reason ELS may be trying to expedite the sale of the properties is because they see a coming bust in the housing market, and want to sell now, verses waiting for the current leases to expire.

It's rather shitty for the renters either way, but it's just one of the many disadvantages to renting verse owning.

I would think there would be some sort of legal relief for the current renters that would at least give them the right to enforce the lease to term, but I don't know. I do know that tenant/landlord laws vary from state to state.

 

[Ringel05]

Even the nicest in appearance still only have 5/8" sub-flooring which doesn't qualify to code. I am referring to CA.

Well Kalifornia isn't the rest of the country.........

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'm gonna say there is more to this.
1) In no state can a owner simply give an order to evict without cause. And a "lottery" is not a cause.
2) Pretty safe to assume all of these folks do not have a lease. The owner probably gave tenants a letter informing them of intent to sell the land they are sitting on at some point in the past, and the tenants either ignored the warning or thinking they can just keep staying there.

Have you ever thought that this "lottery" is a way the landowner is trying to evict the tenants as humanely as possible?
If these tenants are under no leases, they have the right to evict all of them at once. Gonna say the landowner doesn't want those optics. So they are doing a few at a time.

Bottom line: The owner has a right to sell the property.

 

[Vastator]

This is something I learned of last night, and I think it's pretty fucked up.

A local retirement community (55 and over, I think) has a mix of home owners and renters. The rental homes, which are all manufactured homes, are all owned by the owner of the community, an outfit known as ELS (Equity Lifestyle Properties).

Recently they've started to hold a sort of "lottery" for the renters. Allegedly, they pick a renter's name at random, and that renter is then advised that they either need to purchase the home they're renting or move out of the community. I think they pick two renters every month. The goal is to have all owners and no renters.

Anyone ever heard of this? A friend's mother lives in the community. Her house is paid off, so she's unaffected by this. However, she just shrugs her shoulders and says "Well, that's what they're doing."

If it were me, I think I'd be hiring an attorney, primarily because ELS isn't doing a great deal to market the homes for sale. It just seems like coercion to me. While I understand the desire to have all 100% owners, it just doesn't seem like it could be legal.

Anyone else think this is fucked up?

Why do you believe it should be illegal?

 

[eagle1462010]

Time to write the governor and explain it asking for advice. They would look into it is they think its fishy too.

 

[rippy38]

Why do you believe it should be illegal?

If there are valid leases involved, then the language of the agreement should be enforced through the term of the lease.

The bottom line is, the property isn't owned by the tenant if they are renters, so the property owner definitely has a right to sell the property if they so desire. The lease may simply buy the tenant a little more time to arrange another place to live, but at the end of the day, they will be forced out just the same, unless they want to buy the property themselves.

 

[eagle1462010]

Mobile Homes – Statutes and Rules – MyFloridaLicense.com

www.myfloridalicense.com

Call them

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why do you believe it should be illegal?

Well, presumably, these renters would have a lease in place. Of course, if there's no lease in place this all becomes pretty much moot.

Assuming there's a lease in place, I would think the terms of the lease should be honored. I mean that's pretty basic stuff.

ELS is a big corporation, so it's probably going to be legal. It sure sounds like a dickhead move for them to make, though...