Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House advances bill to limit no-cause evictions for mobile-home residents
Summary
After extensive debate, the House passed HB1001, a bill that restores cause-based protections for many mobile-home park residents and clarifies cure periods for repairs and nuisances; the motion and subsequent amendments reflect a split over tenant protections and property rights.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives on June 18 passed House Bill 1,001, a mobile-home resident amendment aimed at reversing an unintended change that had allowed some park owners to remove residents without cause at the end of a lease.
Sponsor Floyd W. Francis told the House the bill restores what the legislature intended: extended cure periods for expenditure-related repairs (he described a 60‑day cure period for repairs that require money) while retaining shorter cure windows for nuisances and maintenance issues (seven or 15 days in specified cases). Francis said the clause permitting 60‑day no‑cause termination at the end of some leases was “unintended” and should be removed.
Supporters of the bill described cases in which older mobile homes’ owners had been given short notice and faced losing most of the value of their homes because there are few places to relocate or new parks to accept older units. Several backers argued the statute’s prior interpretation had left tens of thousands of mobile-home residents vulnerable; the sponsor noted there are about 20,000 mobile-home dwellers across the state.
Opponents — including members who identified themselves as property owners or developers — warned the legislation risks undermining private property rights and discouraging future investment in parks. Representative Hickman and others said requiring renewal or perpetual tenancy could make owners reluctant to upgrade, reduce available space and raise rents in the long run. Some members urged addressing zoning and local land-use barriers rather than imposing further constraints on park owners.
During floor debate the House considered and rejected several substitute amendments. Representative Howard offered a clarifying amendment (the ‘pink sheet’) that would insert language about leases and rentals; the House approved an amendment package after extended discussion. The sponsor emphasized the bill would require a two‑thirds vote to take effect immediately in some instances.
The clerk recorded an earlier House tally, announcing HB1001 had received 57 yes votes and 16 no votes on the motion to pass and would be transmitted to the Senate for consideration. Later floor action recorded additional interchanges with the Senate over amendments; the House ultimately concurred with a Senate amendment and recorded the final concurrence vote in the transcript record.
The bill seeks to balance tenant protections with the park owners’ ability to maintain the quality and marketability of their properties; lawmakers on both sides asked for further work in the interim on zoning and other structural causes of limited mobile‑home capacity. The special session record shows the House planned additional interim work and signaled intent to reconvene if unresolved issues remained.
Next steps: HB1001 was forwarded to the Senate for further action after the House vote; the record includes later messages exchanged between chambers about specific amendment language.
