Re: Eviction in Park - Posted by Tony Colella
Posted by Tony Colella on March 23, 2006 at 19:34:30:
From my reading of some of the magistrate writings is that the wording is “may” tow and not “must.”
According to the deputy Scott spoke with (who does most of these evictions) they require a “bondable lot” which is essntially a tow lot or retail lot. The magistrate writings admitted they don’t really know where the home should be towed, if it is towed. Sort of a grey area.
Sheriff depts. probably faced civil suit threats in the past and decided this was the way to handle it. The reason stated by the deputy was the prevention of false claims of stolen property.
Most of my reading simply required a change of locks until the tenant arrives to move the home but again, much of this seems undefined.
We live in an extremely liberal area. One in which they don’t want mobile home parks going up but they really, really like to publicize the closing of parks so that retail stores etc. can be put up.
In fact today they had just such a case on the front page of the paper. They are proponing requiring the owner or new buyer to pay 2 years of lot rent to each tenant or in the case of wal-mart, requiring wal-mart to build affordable housing of equal number of units. (Did I mention how liberal this area is).