Summary#
A-11701 would amend New York’s Real Property Law, section 233. Its goal is to clarify how certain required payments are treated when enforcing eviction provisions in resident-owned manufactured home communities. The bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Housing Committee; it is not law.
- A community would fit the new definition if a cooperative, nonprofit, LLC, or other legal entity owns the park’s land and most resident homeowners are members, shareholders, or voting participants with governance rights.
- In such a community, monthly occupancy charges, assessments, and other mandatory payments required for occupancy and adopted under the community’s governing documents would count as rent only for enforcement under a specified eviction provision, including a summary proceeding for nonpayment.
- The bill says it would not create or expand a lien, foreclosure remedy, or security interest for unpaid fees or assessments.
- It would not apply to condominiums, homeowner associations, planned unit developments, or other common-interest communities that are not regulated as manufactured home parks under section 233.
- The bill says it would take effect immediately if enacted.
What it means for you#
- Residents of qualifying communities: Certain required payments could be treated as rent for the specified eviction enforcement. The bill does not say that every payment or every dispute would qualify.
- Community entities: The rule would apply only where the entity owns the park land, the community meets the new definition, and the payment is mandatory, required for occupancy, and adopted under governing documents.
- Residents and entities outside that definition: The bill expressly excludes the listed types of communities if they are not regulated as manufactured home parks under section 233.
- People concerned about property remedies: The bill does not create or expand a lien, foreclosure remedy, or security interest for unpaid assessments or fees.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The bill does not specify public spending, fees, fines, or a cost estimate.
What is unclear#
- The current text of Real Property Law section 233 and the laws it refers to were not supplied, so the bill’s effect compared with current law—and the exact eviction process it refers to—could not be verified.
- The bill does not explain how a court would decide whether a payment is mandatory, required as a condition of occupancy, or properly adopted under governing documents.
- It does not set out added notice, review, or appeal procedures for these payment disputes.
- It does not define how “governance rights” or a “majority” would be measured in different entity structures.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it gives qualifying resident-owned communities a clear way to enforce required occupancy payments through the specified eviction process.
- The bill limits that treatment to certain payments and a particular enforcement purpose, rather than making those payments rent for all legal purposes.
- The express exclusions and no-lien provision could help distinguish this rule from broader property remedies and from other common-interest communities.
Case against#
- One concern is that treating an unpaid assessment or other required charge as rent for eviction enforcement could expose a resident to an eviction proceeding over a payment that is not ordinarily described as rent.
- The bill does not spell out how disputed charges or compliance with community governing documents would be assessed before that enforcement is used.
- The new definition relies on ownership and governance terms that the bill does not further explain, which could leave uncertainty about which communities qualify.