Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mobile Home Deposit Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Theresa Wood introduces H.565 after constituent says mobile-home park demanded 12 months’ prepayment

House Committee on General and Housing · January 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Theresa Wood, chair of the House Human Services Committee, introduced H.565 to the House Committee on General and Housing, citing a constituent whose mobile home purchase led a park owner to demand 12 months’ payment up front; the bill would create a statewide standard and include provisions about interest-bearing deposit accounts.

Theresa Wood, chair of the House Human Services Committee, introduced H.565 to the House Committee on General and Housing on Friday, describing a constituent case in Waterbury in which a mobile-home park owner told a young purchaser she would have to pay 12 months in advance. Wood said she brought the bill to treat such demands as an unfair practice and to create a statewide standard for park owner deposit practices.

Wood said the constituent’s daughter, a first-time buyer with strong credit and two jobs, was told by the park owner she must pay 12 months’ rent up front; Wood said the owner did not require that practice for everyone and had not checked the young buyer’s credit history. Wood characterized the bill as "fairly simple" and said she is open to the language appearing in a different housing bill if the committee prefers.

The bill would establish a statewide guardrail so localities without specific ordinances could not be left without protections. Wood noted questions remain about how the bill’s interest-bearing account provisions would operate in practice and suggested the committee could solicit testimony to clarify mechanics such as whose name an account would carry and how small owners with many lots could manage the requirement.

Committee members pressed two technical points: one question asked whether the bill’s language exempted owners who had already collected such funds (a retroactivity concern), and another noted the text appears to require depositing any excess over three months into an account after a set period. Wood deferred legal-mechanic questions to legislative counsel and said the committee could take testimony if it moves forward.

No vote or formal action on H.565 occurred during the morning session; Wood said she would return for a longer briefing to continue discussion and answer operational questions.