Hart King Law

The objective of most mobile home and recreational vehicle park owners is to earn money. However, certain things, when not done diligently, can cost park owners and operators money. Title issues may not seem like a "sexy" issue or concern, but title problems can impact park operations. While parks are not in the business of "monitoring" title, there are at least three scenarios as outlined below that can impede the park's business if neglected. First, it is important to follow through on the transferring of title of a mobile home sold by a resident or third party to the mobile home park or vice versa. Similarly, the park needs to ensure that title is properly perfected in any sales within the park from an existing resident to a new resident. Finally, with respect to recreational vehicles specifically, it can be actual to obtain title paperwork before allowing such a recreational vehicle to remain in the park for an extended period of time.

Bill Hart is the managing partner of Southern California law firm, Hart King,

and is the client relationship partner for the firm's manufactured housing practice group.

He can be reached at (714) 432-8700 or at whart@hartkinglaw.com.

The recent scandal that is rocking Hollywood that has toppled the career of film producer, Harvey Weinstein, is reshaping the national discussion about Sexual Harassment at work. There is still a big gap between what should happen after such claims and what actually does happen.

The following is a brief overview of federal and state law as it pertains to sexual harassment claims that can be brought by employees, independent contractors, vendors, and members of the public against MHC owners and managers.

"Pets" are not service or comfort animals under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). Community residents or prospective residents claiming a disability and desiring to keep a certain "pet" in contravention of a community's "no pet" or "pet restrictive" policy or rules will generally assert, however, that under either or both ADA or FHAA the community must alter its policy or rule to allow a pet as a reasonable accommodation. Evaluating whether an animal is truly a pet or qualifies as a service or support animal requiring a reasonable accommodation can be complex and confusing and should be undertaken seriously, methodically and objectively with the community's counsel. A wrong guess could be costly. Thus, in all cases where either ADA or FHAA may apply, to avoid possible ADA violations the ADA service animal test1 should be applied first. This is because if the animal qualifies under ADA as a service animal it must be permitted to accompany the disabled resident in all areas where persons are normally allowed to go. If the animal does not meet the ADA service animal test, community management must then evaluate a reasonable accommodation request under FHAA statutes and regulations.