An Act to amend and reenact §§ 55.1-1300 and 55.1-1302 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 13 of Title 55.1 a section numbered 55.1-1320, relating to Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act.
HB374 revises Virginia’s Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act. The bill updates statutory definitions used in the chapter governing manufactured home parks and lots, including terms such as landlord, manufactured home park, manufactured home lot, tenant, rent, rental agreement, and abandoned manufactured home. It also amends the rules for rental agreements for year-round residents, requiring landlords to offer a lease term of at least one year and to do so on the same terms and conditions as shorter-term leases, subject to limited exceptions such as rental discounts for longer commitments.
The bill further adds a new section to Chapter 13 of Title 55.1, expanding the legal framework for manufactured home lot rentals. While the provided text is truncated before the full details of the new section, the act clearly continues the General Assembly’s regulation of manufactured home park relationships, likely addressing notice, disclosures, renewal, or related tenant-landlord protections within this housing sector. As enacted, it amends existing landlord-tenant provisions specific to manufactured home communities rather than the broader residential landlord-tenant code.
HB374 changes state law in Title 55.1 by refining definitions and rental-agreement requirements for manufactured home parks and lots, and by adding a new section to the Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act. Its practical effect is to standardize and strengthen the legal rules governing manufactured home park leases, especially for year-round residents, and to clarify the rights and obligations of park owners, operators, and tenants. The bill affects manufactured home park landlords, residents, and related parties such as secured creditors in abandoned-home situations.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote detail indicating opposition, and the bill was enacted as Chapter 598. That suggests the measure had generally favorable or at least uncontroversial support in the legislative process. Because no debate excerpts are provided, there is no evidence of significant public disagreement in the supplied materials.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. Based on the subject matter, any potential concerns would likely center on the balance between tenant protections and landlord flexibility, especially the requirement to offer at least one-year rental agreements to year-round residents and any new obligations created by the added section. However, the supplied materials do not identify any named opponents or disputed provisions.