Appeals court weighs whether park owners followed statutory procedures before discontinuing and selling a mobile‑home park
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Appellants argued owners violated a 1988 settlement and statutory notice/right‑of‑first‑refusal rules when discontinuing park operations and pursuing sale; defense disputed applicability and timing of the settlement and said statutory procedures were followed or interpreted differently.
The court heard extended argument in the Blackman’s Post matter (Docket 25P1078) about whether the owners’ discontinuance and sale process complied with statutory protections for mobile‑home owners and with a 1988 settlement agreement covering the park.
Donald Solomon, for the appellants, argued that defendants’ representations in notices and dealings led tenants to rely on the 1988 agreement and that defendants later treated the agreement as a nullity while relying on it in communications — conduct Solomon described as inequitable. He argued the agreement and statutory protections together required procedural notice, a proper 100‑mile survey and an appropriate right‑of‑first‑refusal process before any sale or removal of tenants.
Defense counsel disputed the claim the settlement remained enforceable without limit, pointing to assertions that the 30‑year term had expired and to later litigation positions. The parties disputed whether discontinuance could precede a sale, whether the owner could clear the park and then market it to maximize value, and whether tenants’ right of first refusal requires an owner to present a signed purchase contract before discontinuing.
The attorney general’s amicus position (discussed at argument) urged robust tenant protections and emphasized that statutory notice requirements and the sequence for discontinuance and sale matter to preserve tenants’ opportunities to remain. The panel probed whether the different practical facts on the ground (seasonal tenants, some with other homes) affected statutory protections and what remedy and sequencing the statute required.
The court recessed after argument.
Why it matters: The outcome will affect how owners must sequence discontinuance and sale, the notice and survey obligations owed to tenants, and the interpretation and enforceability of long‑standing settlement agreements in the mobile‑home context.