How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Maverick Your Own Question
Maverick, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 5749
Experience:  20 years experience as a civil trial and appellate lawyer
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Maverick is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I own a trailer in a 55+ mobile home and RV Park in

Customer Question

I own a trailer in a 55+ mobile home and RV Park in Mesa/Apache Junction Arizona. I am widowed, 81, and live alone. The ownership of the park in which I pay lot rent has just changed and the new owner's rules include what I consider to be a prohibitive rule barring a visitor from spending more than 30 days in anyone year at a relatives trailer. I have a son in UK who comes out by visa waiver and usually spends 90 days, the term of the Visa Waiver, with me, doing repairs, and catching up on our lives.
Do you believe this rule is fair and does it contravene the tenant-landlord act? Have I a case to nit agree to this rule before the end of the month when I will be required to sign the new agreement or get out.
Submitted: 5 months ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Maverick replied 5 months ago.
Welcome to Just Answer (“JA”)! My name is Maverick. Please note that: (A) The information we provide is general information. No attorney-client relationship or privilege is formed by communicating with me. If you want legal advice, you must consult with a local attorney in person before acting or deciding not to act based on any information given here; (B) Experts answer questions based on the honor system. When I feel that I have provided you with a complete answer, I will ask for you to assign a feedback rating so that JA will compensate me for my time; and (C) You should not be concerned about any short delays between your questions and my replies. Please know that I answer most questions within the hour if I am signed on. If I am not signed on, then I still make every attempt to respond within 24 hours. Thank you for taking the time to understand how this site works. By continuing, you confirm that you understand and agree to these terms. Answer will follow in the pane below as per above parameters…. This is a very unique issue; let me see what can be done here and I will be back...
Expert:  Maverick replied 5 months ago.
The proper way for you and the park owner to handle this is to make sure you son's stay does not violate any county occupancy ordinances, or increase the owner's utility usage if the owner pays for it and then simply create a lease addendum that adds the additional occupant to the lease, by name, and have everyone sign it. In your case there is no reason why the owner should not allow this and the rule may be considered an invasion of privacy if the owner tries to enforce it. I don't believe the rule is fair under your circumstances. Further the new provision may violate this law: 33-1434. Landlord to maintain fit premises B. A mobile home park landlord shall not impose any conditions of rental or occupancy which restrict the mobile home owner in his choice of a seller of fuel, furnishings, goods, services or mobile homes connected with the rental or occupancy of a mobile home space unless such condition is necessary to protect the health, safety, aesthetic value or welfare of mobile home residents in the park. However, the landlord may impose reasonable conditions relating to central gas, oil, electricity, or water meter systems in the park. You may be able to sign the new lease agreement now and still reserve your right to challenge the new provision in court using the declaratory judgment law below and argue that it violates you right to quiet enjoyment and the 33-1434 law above. A declaratory judgment is where the court signs an order saying that the new regulation is unenforceable because it violates 33-1434. Here is a sample complaint. Article 2Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act12-1831Scope12-1832Power to construe, etc.12-1833Before breach12-1834Personal representatives, etc.; declaration of rights12-1835Enumeration not exclusive12-1836Discretionary12-1837Review12-1838Supplemental relief12-1839Jury trial12-1840Costs12-1841Parties; notice of claim of unconstitutionality12-1842Construction12-1843Words construed12-1844Provisions severable12-1845Uniformity of interpretation12-1846Short title

Related Legal Questions