HB 305 would create a new Montana Mobile Home Park Dispute Resolution Program within the Department of Commerce to handle complaints between mobile home park landlords and tenants. The department would be required to publish and distribute educational materials on rights and responsibilities, receive and investigate complaints, facilitate negotiations, issue written determinations, and impose penalties or corrective orders when violations are found. The bill also allows either landlords or tenants to file complaints, provides for administrative hearings to contest agency actions, and states that the administrative process is not the exclusive remedy, preserving the ability of parties to pursue court action.
The bill also adds a statewide registration system for mobile home parks. Landlords would have to register parks, renew annually, report ownership changes, and pay an annual assessment of $24 per mobile home, with authority to pass through up to half of that cost to tenants. Revenue from assessments, fines, and penalties would fund a dedicated dispute resolution account, which would be statutorily appropriated to the department. In addition, the bill would require notice to tenants and the department before a mobile home park is sold, and it gives tenants, through a resident association or eligible organization, an opportunity to compete to purchase the park and a right of first refusal in the sale process, subject to exceptions for transfers to family members, heirs, or estates.
HB 305 would amend Montana law in Title 70, chapter 33, the Residential Mobile Home Lot Rental Act, by adding new definitions and enforcement mechanisms and by expanding the department’s role in regulating mobile home park operations. It also amends the statutory appropriation law in 17-7-502 to include the new account and updates 70-33-103 to define terms such as complainant, respondent, eligible organization, and resident association. The practical effect would be to create a more formal state oversight structure for mobile home park disputes, registration, and sale notifications, while also imposing new compliance obligations and potential financial liabilities on park owners.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available vote history appears supportive at the committee stage, as the House Judiciary Committee voted 20-0 to table the bill, indicating unanimous agreement in that action. However, the bill ultimately died in process, suggesting it did not advance through the full legislative path. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the supplied materials to show detailed arguments for or against the measure.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s regulatory and financial burdens on mobile home park landlords, including mandatory registration, annual assessments, tenant pass-through charges, fines for noncompliance, and a lien for unpaid penalties. Another likely issue was the tenant purchase-right provision, which could affect owners’ ability to sell or transfer parks freely. At the same time, the bill’s supporters appear to have been focused on tenant protections, dispute resolution, anti-retaliation safeguards, and preserving affordable housing by giving residents a chance to buy their communities.
HB 305 would substantially expand state involvement in mobile home park landlord-tenant relations by creating a new administrative enforcement program in the Department of Commerce, adding park registration and fee requirements, and establishing a dedicated funding account with statutory appropriation authority. It would amend the Residential Mobile Home Lot Rental Act to add new definitions, complaint procedures, penalties, anti-retaliation protections, and sale-notice requirements, affecting mobile home park owners, tenants, resident associations, and eligible nonprofit or public organizations.
The limited voting history suggests the bill had at least some procedural support in committee, with a unanimous 20-0 vote to table it, but the measure ultimately died in process. Because no committee transcript is available, the record does not show detailed public debate, but the bill’s structure indicates a generally pro-tenant policy direction that likely appealed to housing advocates while raising concerns among property owners and others wary of new regulation and costs.
The most notable areas of contention were likely the new obligations imposed on mobile home park landlords: annual registration, per-home assessments, potential tenant pass-through charges, mandatory posting and compliance duties, and fines or liens for violations. The tenant right to compete to purchase a park before sale, including a right of first refusal through a resident association or eligible organization, may also have been controversial because it could delay or complicate sales. Supporters would likely emphasize dispute resolution, transparency, and tenant protections, while opponents would likely focus on administrative burden, property-rights concerns, and the financial impact on park operators.