Layes v. RHP Properties

Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2019 · Property

PropertyManufactured HousingLandlord-TenantConsumer ProtectionClass ActionsUtilitiesmanufactured housing communitymobile home park

Facts

Rosa and Francis Layes owned their manufactured home but rented the site at Chelmsford Commons, where they, like many residents, heated their home with oil stored in an above-ground tank adjacent to the home. After purchasing the park, the defendants adopted a policy and lease language requiring residents to maintain and replace above-ground oil tanks, and they never maintained, repaired, or replaced any exterior components of residents' oil systems. When the Layeses' tank leaked, the defendants told them they had to pay for a replacement, and later removed a temporary tank, leaving the family unable to obtain oil and with indoor temperatures routinely falling into the 50s in the mornings. The plaintiffs also sought to represent a class of similarly situated park residents affected by the same policy and lease provision.

Issue

Whether the Manufactured Housing Act regulations permit a manufactured housing park operator to shift to residents the duties to maintain, repair, and replace exterior components of individually metered home-heating oil systems, including above-ground oil tanks. The court also considered whether the defendants' conduct supported liability under G. L. c. 186, § 14 and whether denial of class certification was proper.

Rule

Under 940 CMR 10.05(4)(d), a manufactured housing park operator must install basic utilities to the point of connection at each manufactured home and maintain them in good repair and operating condition without charge to residents, except for damage caused by a resident's negligent act, omission, or willful misconduct. Under 940 CMR 10.03(2)(n), a park operator may not require a resident to pay for removal or replacement of an oil storage tank to meet environmental concerns or risks unless the resident's negligence caused those concerns or risks. Lease provisions that release or limit the operator's legal liability for these duties are void and unenforceable, and transferring those utility-service responsibilities without valid consent can violate G. L. c. 186, § 14.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Sonia Patel owns a manufactured home in a park outside Worcester, Massachusetts, and rents the lot from Pine Hollow Communities. Her home is heated by propane stored in an above-ground tank next to the home, and her lease says she must buy her own propane because the system is individually metered to her home. The lease also says Sonia must paint, inspect, repair, and replace the exterior tank and fuel line at her own expense.

If the tank rusts through from age and ordinary wear, and there is no evidence Sonia damaged it, who is most likely legally responsible for replacing the tank under the governing regulations?

Explanation. Heating fuel is a listed basic utility. The operator must install basic utilities to the point of connection and maintain them in good repair and operating condition without charge to residents, except where damage is caused by the resident's negligent act, omission, or willful misconduct. The fact that the fuel is individually metered and the resident pays for consumed fuel does not shift the maintenance and replacement duty for exterior utility components. A lease clause attempting to do so is unenforceable. (Derived from Layes v. RHP Properties (n.d.).)