SB 1393 makes a set of targeted changes to Arizona’s Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act governing abandonment, removal, and post-termination handling of mobile homes in parks. The bill requires landlords, owners, or managers to inspect a mobile home and its contents before authorizing removal or executing a writ of restitution to ensure the unit is not occupied and does not contain human remains or an animal. It also reinforces that a mobile home cannot be removed from a space without written clearance from the landlord, and it adds or clarifies procedures for abandonment, lienholder notice, and standardized registration information for mobile home spaces.
The bill also expands the rules for removing a mobile home from a park by requiring advance written notice identifying the removal party and the party responsible for restoring the space. It allows landlords to require a security deposit or surety bond, up to $2,500 minus any prior deposit, if the restoration party is not licensed by the Arizona Department of Housing or the Registrar of Contractors. The bill further requires removal of accessory structures, debris, trash, and personal property unless the landlord agrees otherwise, and it authorizes landlords to recover restoration costs from the tenant, successor in interest, mobile home owner, and responsible party on a joint and several basis if the space is not restored.
In practical terms, SB 1393 would amend A.R.S. sections 33-1478, 33-1481, and 33-1485.01 to strengthen landlord control over mobile home removal and to create clearer procedures for abandonment, eviction-related removal, and space restoration. It would affect mobile home park landlords, tenants, successors in interest, mobile home owners, lienholders, and contractors involved in moving or restoring mobile homes, while also touching sheriff and constable execution of writs of restitution.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as an administrative and property-protection update rather than a broad policy change. The likely policy emphasis is on preventing unsafe removals, ensuring unpaid rent and restoration costs are addressed, and clarifying responsibilities when a mobile home leaves a park.
The main points of potential contention are the added landlord authority and the financial obligations imposed on tenants and related parties. The requirement for written clearance, the inspection requirement before removal, the ability to demand a bond or deposit, and the joint-and-several liability for restoration costs could be viewed by tenants and mobile home owners as burdensome, while park operators may view them as necessary protections against unpaid charges and damaged spaces. The bill also preserves a narrow exception for lienholders of record, which may be relevant in disputes over who can recover or move a home.
SB 1393 would amend Arizona’s mobile home park landlord-tenant statutes to add inspection, notice, clearance, and restoration requirements tied to abandonment, eviction, and removal of mobile homes. It would give landlords clearer authority to block removal until amounts due are paid or otherwise resolved, require inspection for occupancy or human remains/animals before clearance, and allow recovery of restoration costs from multiple responsible parties. The bill would primarily affect A.R.S. §§ 33-1478, 33-1481, and 33-1485.01 and would impose new procedural and financial obligations on tenants, mobile home owners, successors in interest, lienholders, and removal/restoration contractors.
The available record shows no committee discussion and no votes, so there is no direct evidence of partisan or stakeholder sentiment in the legislative history provided. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be a landlord-protective, process-oriented update intended to reduce disputes over removal and cleanup, suggesting likely support from mobile home park operators and property-rights advocates. At the same time, the added clearance, bond, and liability provisions could draw concern from tenant advocates or mobile home owners who may see the bill as increasing costs and giving landlords more leverage.
The most notable areas of contention are the bill’s expanded landlord controls and the financial exposure it creates for tenants and related parties. Opponents could object to the requirement that a landlord sign off before removal, the authority to require a security deposit or surety bond for restoration, and the joint-and-several liability for cleanup and repair costs. Supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s safety checks, its requirement to confirm the mobile home is unoccupied and free of human remains or animals before removal, and its effort to ensure parks are restored and unpaid charges are collected. The exception for lienholders of record may also be a point of legal interest in disputes over priority and removal rights.