An Act to Protect Residents Living in Mobile Home Parks
LD 1145 amends Maine’s mobile home park sale notice and resident purchase-option law to give manufactured home park residents stronger rights when a park owner seeks to sell the property. The bill requires park owners to provide notice to each mobile home owner and the Maine State Housing Authority, and it delays a final unconditional acceptance of a sale offer until at least 60 days after the notice is mailed and received by the authority. The notice must disclose either the owner’s intended sale terms or the terms of an acceptable offer already received, and if the park is being sold as part of an investment portfolio, the notice must identify the park-specific terms.
The bill also revises the “first option to purchase” process for a group of mobile home owners or a mobile home owners’ association. To trigger the right to have an offer considered, at least 51% of occupied homes must support the effort in writing. The owner must negotiate in good faith, cannot unreasonably refuse or delay a bona fide purchase and sale agreement, and may not reject an offer solely because it includes a financing contingency or require a nonrefundable deposit at signing. If the residents’ offer matches the accepted or intended offer on price and substantially equivalent terms, they get the first option to buy; if they cannot secure financing or close within the required period, the owner’s obligations under this section end for that proposed sale.
The bill further allows resident groups, by majority vote, to assign their purchase rights to the municipality, the Maine State Housing Authority, a municipal housing authority, or a nonprofit organization, so long as the assignee agrees to continue operating the property as a mobile home park. This expands the range of entities that can step in to preserve the park as affordable housing if residents cannot complete the purchase themselves.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests substantial support for the bill, but not unanimity. The measure advanced through a divided vote on an amended report and then passed the House and Senate with comfortable margins, indicating broad agreement with the goal of protecting mobile home park residents and preserving park ownership opportunities for residents or public/nonprofit entities. The main point of contention appears to have been the balance between resident protections and the property owner’s flexibility in selling the park, especially around timing, financing contingencies, and the obligation to negotiate with resident groups.
This bill amends 10 MRSA §9094-A, Maine’s mobile home park sale notice and resident purchase-right statute, by strengthening disclosure requirements, extending and clarifying the resident response window, and imposing additional good-faith negotiation duties on park owners. It also creates a new assignment mechanism allowing resident groups to transfer their purchase rights to public or nonprofit entities that will keep the property operating as a mobile home park. The practical effect is to increase the likelihood that parks remain in resident, municipal, housing authority, or nonprofit hands rather than being sold to outside investors, while preserving a structured process for owners to complete a sale if residents cannot finance a purchase.
The bill appears to have been generally well received as a housing-preservation and tenant-protection measure. The recorded votes show clear majority support in both chambers after amendment, suggesting lawmakers broadly favored giving mobile home residents more opportunity to buy their parks or to have public/nonprofit partners do so. At the same time, the existence of a divided committee vote and the need for amendments indicate that some legislators were concerned about the burden on park owners and the mechanics of sale timing and financing.
The main points of contention centered on how far to extend resident purchase rights without unduly restricting a park owner’s ability to sell. Likely areas of debate included the 51% support threshold for resident offers, the requirement that owners negotiate in good faith, the prohibition on rejecting offers solely because of financing contingencies, and the limits on deposits and closing timelines. Another likely issue was whether resident groups should be able to assign their rights to municipalities, housing authorities, or nonprofits, which supporters would view as a preservation tool and opponents might see as expanding government or third-party involvement in private sales.