HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-3489 CivilVILLAGE ASSOCIATES,
Plaintiff
VS.
JAMES JACKSON and
CAROLYN W. JACKSON,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-3489 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POSTTRIAL RELIEF
BEFORE HESS. J.
AND NOW, this
ORDER
day of March, 1998, the posttrial motion of the plaintiff
is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
Steven E. Gmbb, Esquire
P. O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Forthe Plaintiff
KT~. He , .
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
2 East Main Street
Shiremanstown, pA 17011
For the Defendants
:rlm
VILLAGE ASSOCIATES,
Plaintiff
VS.
JAMES JACKSON and
CAROLYN W. JACKSON,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-3489 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POSTTRIAL RELIEF
BEFORE HESS, J.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on posttrial motions of the plaintiff, Village Associates t/a
Hampden Village (Hampden Village). The court entered a verdict in favor of the defendants,
James and Carol Jackson (the Jacksons) in an action in which the plaintiff sought to evict the
defendants from the plaintiff's mobile home park for a violation of park rules.
The facts adduced at the nonjury trial in this case revealed that Hampden Village had
received numerous complaints about children playing in the streets. In an attempt to correct the
problem and make the residents aware of the park rule prohibiting playing in the streets, the
plaintiff sent a certified letter to all residents. The letter, mailed on April 18, 1996, indicated
inter alia that "from now on it will not be permitted for the children to play hockey and other
games in the street." Subsequent to this letter, the plaintiff received complaints about the
Jackson children playing in the streets. On May 29, 1996, the Jacksons received another certified
letter addressed to them personally. The letter informed them that there were "many complaints
from other tenants in the park" about their children, and that the only recourse available was to
begin eviction proceedings. An eviction action was filed, leading to our nonjury trial in this case.
96-3489 CIVIL
In rendering a verdict in favor of the defendants, we concluded that they had not received
sufficient notice in accordance with the Mobile Home Park Rights Act (MHPRA), 68 P.S.
Section 398.1 et seq. We continue to believe that our conclusion was correct. Specifically, we
are satisfied that the plaintiff did not comply with Section 398.3 of the MHPRA which deals with
the proper procedure for eviction from a mobile home park. Prior to eviction for a violation of
park rules, a park resident must be notified in writing of a particular violation of park rules by
certified mail. 68 P.S. Section 398.3(b)(2). This notification triggers a six-month statutory
period during which a second violation may result in eviction. The first notice must address a
"particular breach or violation." In this case, the first letter sent to the defendants did not address
a particular violation or even suggest that the Jacksons had violated the rule with regard to
permitting children to play in the streets. It simply indicated that "from now on" the rule against
children playing in the streets would be enforced. Thus, the notification received by the Jacksons
on May 29, 1996, was a notice of a first violation and not a second notice.
The strict notice requirements of the MHPRA are clearly due to the unique nature of
tenancy in a mobile home park. A mobile home owner cannot move from a park without
incurring substantial expense and inconvenience. "The purpose of this legislation is to give
special protection to mobile home owners in mobile home parks." Malvern Courts Inc. v.
Stephens, 275 Pa. Super. 518, 522,419 A.2d 21, 23 (1980).
... [T]he purpose of requiring a particular method of
giving notice and including therein a description of
the particular breaches or violations is not only to
prevent disputes over whether notice was received
2
96-3489 CIVIL
but also to fix a six-month period within which a
second or subsequent violation may result in the
mobile home park owner commencing eviction
proceedings. Moreover, the notice must specifically
describe the violations so that a resident may correct
them and commences the running of the six-month
limitation period during which a further violation
creates the right to bring an eviction proceeding.
Id~ at 23-24.
In this case, the April 18th letter did not specifically describe a violation committed by
the Jacksons. The notice requirements of the Mobile Home Park Rights Act are strict but easily
understood. As there was not compliance with the notice provisions in this case and because
proper notice is a prerequisite to eviction, we are satisfied that our verdict should stand.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of March, 1998, the posttrial motion of the plaintiff
is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
Kevi/n~. Hess, J.
/