Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/06/1996 03:10 PM L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 487 - LANDLORD/TENANT TRAILER PARK ISSUES                                
 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 487,                   
 "An Act amending the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act              
 and the civil remedy of forcible entry and detainer as they relate            
 to mobile home park operators and mobile home park dwellers and               
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON, sponsor of HB 487, said she has                
 given the committee a proposed committee substitute.                          
 Number 1455                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved to adopt CSHB 487, Version F, Cook,                
 2/28/96, for the purpose of discussion.                                       
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none, CSHB
 487(L&C) was before the committee.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the bill attempts to address problems            
 experienced by some owners of mobile homes which was brought to her           
 attention by residents in Juneau.  She noted she has tried to                 
 remedy these problems not interfering with landlord's absolute                
 right to collect space rent and balancing the concern of home                 
 owners that they may lose their home and their investment in their            
 home without leaving a loophole for deadbeat tenants.  Current                
 landlord tenant laws include a special section that relates only to           
 evictions from a mobile home park.  The law includes this special             
 section because the legislature recognized that there is a big                
 difference between being evicted from an apartment you rent and               
 being evicted from a piece of land on which your home sets.  She              
 explained HB 487 does three specific things.  First, it allows the            
 court to take into consideration whether the landlord was adhering            
 to the spirit as well as the to the letter of the law.  Currently,            
 courts are not permitted to consider whether or not the landlord              
 was motivated by a dishonest purpose or by a reason different than            
 the one given for the eviction.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained the second thing is it requires             
 the landlord to serve an eviction notice in one of three ways.  The           
 first is to deliver it in person to an adult member of the                    
 household.  The second is to post it securely on the main entrance            
 of a home.  The third is to send the notice by certified or                   
 registered mail.  Currently, landlords are allowed to simply post             
 the notice anywhere on the premise and also they can give it to               
 anyone at the trailer, including a child.  Finally, it requires the           
 court to ask the homeowners how long it might take to move the                
 home.  There is no specific time line set out in the current law.             
 It can be difficult and even impossible to move a mobile home,                
 especially if the home is an older home and/or if there is no place           
 to move it.  It also gives you a time to sell the home.                       
 Representative Robinson said the court should be able to allow a              
 reasonable period of time to sell or move a trailer.  An important            
 aspect of the bill is that the homeowner must pay rent, in full,              
 and on time during this time.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she knows there are deadbeats out                
 there and there are probably too many of them.  A majority of                 
 mobile home park owners and landlords are honest hardworking people           
 who are trying to do their best for their tenants, but there are              
 some homeowners that have been the victims of the current law and             
 there are certainly some landlords who act with less than honorable           
 motives.  Representative Robinson said we all know that life can              
 sometimes deal all of us a wildcard and that we've all probably, at           
 some time, asked for a break from a bill collector or the bank who            
 holds our mortgage or car payments.  She said HB 487 attempts to              
 provide those special circumstances and to make sure that people do           
 not lose their homes due to one unfortunate circumstance.  The bill           
 also tries to make sure that landlords are not stuck with a bad               
 tenant or situation that they've made every legal effort to                   
 correct.  In relation to that, she said she wanted to point out               
 that even though the committee substitute is not perfect, both                
 groups will be addressing the committee with some of their                    
 concerns.  She asked that the committee members work with her in              
 trying to get a fair piece of legislation through that takes into             
 account both the landlord and tenant.                                         
 Number 1653                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Robinson to address the changes            
 from the original bill.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to page 2, lines 21 through 23,              
 and said originally she had asked that 120 days be granted to                 
 relocate the mobile home after eviction.  Now it requires that for            
 an eviction the judge include a specific period of time to vacate             
 the space or to move or sell the mobile home.  She said the section           
 speaks to what the judgement must include.                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if those lines also correlated with paragraph             
 3 on page 2, lines 16 through 18.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained that is a new section which also            
 refers back to the (indisc.-coughing).  She referred to page 3,               
 lines 1 through 4, and said it adds two additional ways for a                 
 notice to be served.  One is by securely posting the notice on the            
 main entry of the premises.  In talking with landlords, they felt             
 that there are often situations where someone avoids receiving an             
 eviction notice.  She said she believes the current practice is               
 that the notice can be placed anywhere on the premise.  This change           
 would make it clear that it had to be securely posted on the main             
 entry of the premise or sending it by certified or registered mail.           
 Representative Robinson said the original version gave one means of           
 serving the notice which was in person to an adult.                           
 Number 1757                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to leaving the period of time to be            
 determined by the court and said if the court elected to find out             
 how long it generally took to sell a trailer in Anchorage, and that           
 turned out to be six months, would she guess that the court would             
 then allow six months.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her original language was 120 days,              
 but after talking with the mobile home park owners in Juneau, they            
 felt that it was better to leave the decision in the hands of the             
 judge.  She came up with the 120 days originally by talking to                
 different real estate agents where they were asked what the                   
 approximate time is to sell a mobile home.  Currently, in some                
 cases, people get only 30 days.  That is adequate time to move a              
 mobile home if there is a place to move it to.  In most cases,                
 especially if it is an older mobile home, there really is only one            
 option and that option is to sell it.                                         
 Number 1827                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the committee substitute and              
 said it appears that in order to get any kind of disposition of the           
 property, you'd be forced to go to court and get a judgement.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON pointed out the only reason that would be             
 is if the eviction was being contested.  Again, if you own a mobile           
 home and you can't move or sell it within the period of time that             
 you've been given to be evicted, she would assume in most cases it            
 probably would go to court.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the existing landlord tenant              
 law and said a landlord can evict a tenant, for no cause, from an             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that is not true for a mobile home.              
 She referred to a person who rents mobile home that may be owned by           
 someone else and said you'd still fall under the same laws as any             
 other eviction regarding owning a piece of property.  What is                 
 different here is "I own the mobile home and it is on your                    
 property."  That is where the difference lies.  "If you evict me              
 from you're land, if I can't move my home or if I can't sell my               
 home, then I lose my home to you."  She said all she is asking for            
 is a fair playing field.  Representative Robinson said, "If you               
 evict me, that I have adequate time.  First of all I have good                
 notice.  I have been noticed that I'm being evicted and that's why            
 we have put please post it, don't just post it anywhere on the                
 property.  Please give it to an adult, not a child because this is            
 a very serious matter.  And then thirdly, if I am going to be                 
 evicted, give me time - adequate time to basically sell and move my           
 home during the time I'm paying the rent.  And again, I'm not                 
 saying they can do it without paying the rent.  As I understand, in           
 some cases, the judge actually has ordered that if they didn't pay            
 their rent that they could be evicted within five days."                      
 Representative Robinson said there are people in attendance at the            
 meeting that might be able to give a little more understanding of             
 some of the circumstances and things that have occurred.                      
 Number 2004                                                                   
 SHELDON WINTERS, Attorney, Lessmier and Winters, came before the              
 committee to testify on HB 487.  He informed the committee trailer            
 park owners have a vested interested in keeping tenants.  Mr.                 
 Winters pointed out that currently any eviction for nonpayment of             
 rent or violation of a safety rule, etc., requires notice and an              
 opportunity to cure.  You don't pay your rent, the landlord has to            
 give you notice.  He referred to legislation passed last year and             
 said if you give written notice, you've got seven days to cure.  He           
 said he thinks one of the reasons why they gave it seven days was             
 because of you give ten days or two weeks to cure, if they don't              
 cure then you have to go to court.  When you get a court date, you            
 could be looking at six weeks.  When two or three months go by,               
 you've got someone who hasn't paid rent.  Mr. Winters pointed out             
 there is a notice and a cure provision that is already in effect.             
 MR. WINTERS said Representative Robinson told the committee that              
 there are already strict limitations on trailer park owners.  You             
 can only evict for four reasons.  One is if you decide to change              
 the use of the land.  You have to give the tenants six months of              
 advance notice.  The second reason is if the tenant has actually              
 been convicted of a crime, that crime continues and it deals with             
 safety and health issues.  The third is if you're in violation of             
 the lease rules that are detrimental to the health, safety and for            
 nonpayment of rent.  He said absent one of those four criteria, you           
 could stay there forever.                                                     
 MR. WINTERS explained there is a statute in effect, that was                  
 addressed in the Sharp case, which is a good faith requirement.  In           
 every case the court has to look at it in good faith whether it is            
 an apartment owner or a trailer park owner.                                   
 MR. WINTERS referred to the bill and said the first two sections              
 deal with the good faith requirement.  He referred to being                   
 involved in the Sharp v. Trail case and said he would tell the              
 committee some of the facts of that case.  The Trails had a trailer           
 park business and a construction business.  Mr. Trail wanted to use           
 part of his land to park his construction equipment on.  Mr. Trail            
 gave notice to the Sharps that he wanted to use some of his own               
 land for his construction business.  He gave the Sharps 180 days              
 notice.  The Sharps abandoned their trailer, they stopped making              
 payments and left.  A year goes by and the trailer stays there, no            
 payments are made on the trailer and, of course, their lender says            
 that they are going to repossess the trailer.  They repossess the             
 trailer.  Two years go by and the Sharps decide to sue the trailer            
 park owners.  The trailer park owners go to court and say, "Look,             
 we wanted to change the use of the land, we gave them notice, we              
 did change the use of the land, we've always kept the use                     
 consistent, it wasn't any side effort to try to get rid of these              
 people."  Mr. Winters said the trailer owners came back and said,             
 "Well, wait a second, we remember a few years ago that you said               
 something like you didn't like the looks of our trailer and that              
 creates an issue of fact and we want a trial on this good faith               
 issue."  Mr. Winters said the owners moved for summary of judgement           
 and the case went to the supreme court.  The supreme court said,              
 "Yes, there is a good faith requirement and yes it does require               
 objective good faith, and yes, it even requires subjective good               
 faith and you have to look at that, but you have look at it in the            
 context of what was done - the conduct that was taken and if there            
 was a change in the use of land.  If in fact the change was in good           
 faith and all evidence shows it was in good faith, we're not going            
 to have a full blown trial just because these people come in and              
 say, `Well I remember a few years ago that you thought my mobile              
 home didn't look good'."                                                      
 MR. WINTERS said that was basically the ruling of the Sharp case              
 which he thinks is good law.  He said the bill would require, in              
 every single case, this determination of whether there was any                
 other motive.  You will always go to trial.  All the tenant has to            
 say is, "I think this is bad faith and you're going to end up in a            
 trial."  Mr. Winters said he believes the good faith provision in             
 the bill should go forward.  He said there is already a good faith            
 Number 2251                                                                   
 MR. WINTERS referred to Section 2, subsection (2), and said before            
 granting or denying the plaintiff recovery of possession, the court           
 must consider what is equitable to the parties.  That basically               
 throws out any standard we have.  If someone doesn't pay rent, then           
 the court is going to have a trail on what's equitable, what's fair           
 and whether there was a good reason for not paying rent.                      
 MR. WINTERS said the problem with the good faith requirement and              
 the things this bill wants the court to inquire into is that in               
 some cases you shouldn't have to go into the existence of a bad               
 faith motive.  If you don't pay your rent and you are two or three            
 months in arrears, that ought to be grounds for eviction.  You                
 shouldn't have to have a full blown trial if a tenant says, "Well,            
 I think you're also evicting me because you don't like my looks."             
 He said that is what the bill would require.                                  
 MR. WINTERS referred to subsection (3), and said before granting              
 the plaintiff recovery of possession, the court should inquire into           
 what would be an appropriate and sufficient time for disposition of           
 a mobile home.  He said he has problems with the language.  Mr.               
 Winters said this applies to any reason.  He said if he has already           
 given six months advance notice, would he have to ask the court to            
 determine how much longer they need.  They have already been given            
 six months notice for change of use of land.  Mr. Winters said he             
 doesn't think the issue should be disposition.  If these people are           
 evicted because they violated a crime or they're committing safety            
 violation, are we then going to allow them a time to figure out how           
 long it takes to sell their trailer?  Mr. Winters said the bottom             
 line is that they are evicted, they're out of the park.  It doesn't           
 really matter whether they can sell it, transfer to another park or           
 store it in some other place.  The issues is eviction, not                    
 disposition of the trailer.                                                   
 MR. WINTERS said another concern is the issue of paying rent in the           
 interim.  If the court says, "You have four more months to dispose            
 of the trailer," how are we going to ensure that person pays rent?            
 Mr. Winters said the court already, in any eviction situation,                
 doesn't say "You're evicted, get the trailer out of here today."              
 The court always looks at how much time you need.  Basically, it's            
 varied, it's been from two weeks to six weeks.  They do say, "You             
 need to pay rent during the interim."  He noted they very rarely              
 pay rent during the interim.  Mr. Winters said if there is going to           
 be a provision allowing these people to stay, there has got to be             
 some remedy for the landlord to receive the rent.                             
 MR. WINTERS referred to what type of eviction is at issue and                 
 asked:  If a person has been convicted of a crime and is violating            
 safety and health regulations, should they be allowed to stay                 
 another four months?                                                          
 MR. WINTERS stated there is already a system in place.  He said he            
 thinks the system really works and it is fair.  There are ways to             
 go about doing this that is more fair to the landlord.  Mr. Winters           
 referred to a concern mentioned by Representative Robinson about              
 losing the home.  He referred to people who have house payments and           
 said if they miss their payment, they're going to lose their home.            
 That is no different in this situation.                                       
 Number 2445                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if a trailer owner falls behind in their           
 space lease...[END OF SIDE A]                                                 
 TAPE 96-16, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MR. WINTERS said, "assumed that has progressed down where they                
 can't move that trailer, then the trailer park owner obviously has            
 a space that's not collecting rent.  And so they declare the                  
 trailer abandoned, they put it up for public sale.  Anybody can bid           
 on it, including the owner, to pay the back rent, and then whoever            
 ends up owning that trailer, even the current owner, has to get it            
 out of there.  And more often than not, you find a situation where            
 no one shows up for public bid and it's the obligation of the                 
 trailer park owner to move it out of there, $500 to haul it out to            
 the dump or wherever.  And they've just lost -- they don't recover            
 the space rent and they don't recover the cost of moving it.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there is a requirement in any of the           
 scenarios where the original owner would receive the balance of               
 MR. WINTERS said it is a public sale and the owner of trailer would           
 receive the balance of the funds.  First, the back rent is paid and           
 the cost of the sale, etc.  The law requires them to receive                  
 whatever that balance is.                                                     
 Number 046                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Winters if he has a problem with the           
 notice requirements in the bill.                                              
 MR. WINTERS said he and his clients do not have a problem with the            
 notice requirements.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there may be a determination where the              
 court says you have six months to sell or move the trailer.  The              
 way he reads the bill is that a trailer owner is required to keep             
 paying their space rent and if they don't, there is every                     
 opportunity to use the remedies Mr. Winters was talking about                 
 earlier.  He said a landlord wouldn't lose rent under the                     
 provisions of the bill, as he reads it.  If you don't pay your                
 rent, you're out of there.                                                    
 MR. WINTERS pointed out the bill doesn't provide for that.  He said           
 the way he reads the bill is if the court gives you six months to             
 try to dispose of your trailer and the court will say, "And I                 
 hereby order you to pay rent."  It is just an order and even the              
 court can not get blood from a stone if the guy doesn't have money            
 to pay rent.  The question is, "What happens then?"  This bill                
 doesn't address that.  He questioned whether they go back to court            
 and go through the same thing.  Mr. Winters said the courts already           
 do give a period of time, but if they want to make it say, "The               
 court shall consider," and give it a period of time, he would                 
 suggest that if they are given two months, the court should also              
 require that they pay a month in advance.                                     
 Number 125                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 2, lines 23 and 24, and said            
 the way he reads those lines is if the rent isn't paid when due,              
 then the provisions allowing the extra time for moving or selling             
 the mobile home are kind of null and void.  The park owner then has           
 the option of just telling those people, "You're gone!"                       
 MR. WINTERS said Representative Elton's point is well taken in the            
 sense that this has some doubt in it.  He said it should be spelled           
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Winters if he is saying it should be           
 paid in advance rather than when it is due.                                   
 MR. WINTERS answered in the affirmative.                                      
 Number 169                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to there being a public sale and                
 asked if some park owners don't just take over the trailer and then           
 rent it out to somebody else.                                                 
 MR. WINTER said if they do, they're doing it illegally because they           
 don't have possession of that trailer.  He said you have the right            
 to evict the trailer, but you don't have a legal right to go in and           
 occupy and re-rent it.  If the park owner bought the trailer at a             
 public sale, then they could rent it.                                         
 Number 208                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Winters if that is the only way             
 an owner can take possession.                                                 
 MR. WINTERS said that is the only way he knows of legally.  He said           
 it is not the mobile home park owner's property to take.                      
 Number 231                                                                    
 BRAD BRINKMAN, Attorney, Botelho, Brinkman and Pearson, was next to           
 address HB 487.  He noted he represents Switzer Village Mobile Home           
 Park.  Mr. Brinkman said he has been an attorney for 19 years and             
 used to work for Alaska Legal Services.  He informed the committee            
 Switzer Village Mobile Home Park has 300 trailer spaces and HB 487            
 would have a large impact on running that operation.  Mr. Brinkman            
 said he agrees with Representative Robinson that the bill is not              
 perfect.  It needs an awful lot of work.                                      
 MR. BRINKMAN said the legislation was for the purpose of agreeing             
 with the dissent in the Sharp case.  The problem is that the Sharp            
 case is not a breach case, it is not really the normal case for               
 landlord/tenants.  It is where a trailer park said, "You're not in            
 breach, you paid our rent, you haven't had loud parties, we haven't           
 been getting phone calls from your neighbors, you don't have trash            
 all over the household.  What we do is we want your space, you've             
 been paying everything - get out.  He said that is a totally                  
 different situation, but that is what the purpose of the                      
 legislation is about, and it has no bearing on what the issues that           
 the committee is talking about.                                               
 MR. BRINKMAN said, "In a breach situation there is a contract, a              
 lease, that says `Don't have loud parties, we don't want phone                
 calls from your 14 neighbors, don't throw trash all over the place,           
 don't leave your boats and cars parked at an angle, don't fight               
 with people, don't have your dogs bite people, pay the rent on                
 time.'  There is a breach, then the landlord must already, by law -           
 - this is why I don't think that this bill is necessary, but by law           
 and I refer to Alaska statute 34.03.220 (a), that says, `If there             
 is a material noncompliance by the tenant of the rental agreement             
 or by statute, then the landlord must give a written notice                   
 specifying - specifying the acts and the omissions (indisc.) breach           
 and shall specify that the rental agreement will terminate upon a             
 date not less than ten days after service of the notice.'  Now if             
 the breach is not remedied, not cured, the rental agreement                   
 terminates and, of course, the person can go in and ask for an                
 eviction order by the court.  Section (b) of that same statute says           
 the same thing only it refers to rent.  So we've got a lease that             
 says pay the rent by the first of the month.  That goes by, at                
 least in our case, we give them five days grace period.  We send              
 out a notice.  It may be four or five days to get that done.  We              
 tape it on the trailer - the door.  Then they don't pay or another            
 party occurs or the cops show up again.  And so we've given them              
 time to cure and they don't cure and then we go to court and have             
 a hearing to evict the trailer.  Why I disagree with the first                
 section of this bill is, for example, it says `The court shall,               
 notwithstanding any provisions of the contrary, inquire into                  
 whether the plaintiff has acted in good faith.'  Well out of                  
 default the plaintiff knows he didn't pay the rent.  The plaintiff            
 knows they've had the cops there five six times, the plaintiff                
 knows they're in breach.  Why then does the court have to inquire             
 whether the plaintiff acted in good faith when the defendant hasn't           
 even shown up."  Mr. Brinkman suggested that should probably be               
 changed to a "may."                                                           
 MR. BRINKMAN explained that the bill says the court should inquire            
 into the good faith of the tenant, anytime, for any reason set out            
 in AS 34.03.225 (a) which discusses when you can evict a mobile               
 home.  Mr. Brinkman said since this talks about the Sharp case, the           
 only portion of that statute the Sharp case addressed was AS                  
 32.03.225 (a) (4).  That is the change of circumstances where the             
 landlord can say, "Get out, we don't need a reason.  We just want             
 to change the park."  Mr. Brinkman said, "But in this case, because           
 the prior statute says, `O.K.' and this is what the language I                
 don't understand in this says `The court should look at the motive            
 of the plaintiff and you should not have - do an eviction for any             
 reason not expressed in the notice and you should not do it for any           
 dishonest motive.'  But in all landlord/tenant cases the notice has           
 to say, `Here's the breach.' You have to specify it.  Secondly, you           
 have to give them an opportunity to cure the breach.  Thirdly, if             
 the breach is cured, you cannot evict."                                       
 MR. BRINKMAN referred to the second point and said, "If the notice            
 does not specify the reason why they're being evicted and give them           
 the opportunity to cure, if for example, there is some unexpressed            
 or some ulterior motive, then the tenant has not had an opportunity           
 to cure, the court will not grant the eviction, and in fact the               
 court will turn around and order attorney fees assessed against the           
 mobile home park operator.  So what I'm saying is the bill is                 
 already addressed with regard to these breach provisions in AS                
 34.03.220, and it's not necessary with regard to that portion of              
 the bill.                                                                     
 MR. BRINKMAN said, "With regard to the second section, `before                
 denying or granting the plaintiff recovery of possession, consider            
 whether plaintiff's recovery of possession is equitable to the                
 parties,' that is a Pandora's box.  I mean gee, I admit I didn't              
 pay the rent, and you probably will hear single horror stories from           
 individual tenant around the (indisc.).  But frankly, I've done               
 perhaps 100 eviction notices in 20 years and I've heard a lot of              
 things and it is much like this:  `I got back to drinking last                
 month, I lost my job, I drank up all the money, I didn't pay the              
 rent for the last couple of months but - and I admit all of these             
 things - and the cops came and everything else, but gee it would be           
 equitable if you would let me stay there because I got a couple               
 kids to take care of, it's the winter time - and if you do this to            
 me you're gonna ruin my recovery.'  I mean if that's what provision           
 2 is, you have listed a Pandora's box that you're gonna have                  
 differing judgements from differing judges through every judicial             
 district throughout the state.  And I would ask that the committee            
 simply contemplate wiping that out because that's no standard                 
 MR. BRINKMAN said he agrees with Mr. Winters in that if you're                
 going to inquire into someone's subjective intent or whatever,                
 you're going send everybody to the court house and you're going to            
 send them there for a day or two of trial.  If there is a breach              
 and everybody admits it, then there should be an eviction.                    
 MR. BRINKMAN referred to granting the plaintiff recovery of                   
 possession as to inquire about appropriate and sufficient time for            
 disposition and said he has a couple of points to address.  Mr.               
 Brinkman said, "I think the committee was saying `Well, gee, if               
 they don't move the trailer, then I think there is a                          
 misunderstanding that the park ends up owning it.'  That's not                
 true.  Mr. Winters was correct, there is a public sale done.  In              
 the majority of cases, the bank owns the trailer.  There is a lien,           
 there is UCC financing lien on this property.  So if the owner is             
 not paying the rent, they're usually not also paying the bank.  The           
 park just can't come in take the bank's trailer or the person's               
 trailer.  All they're entitled to possession of the land underneath           
 - their land underneath.  The mobile home operator can take it and            
 store it some place until another opening opens up in another park.           
 They can sell it, but it's not the park owners right to go back in            
 take possession of the trailer."                                              
 MR. BRINKMAN referred to Section (b) and said, "The courts already            
 do this.  I had an eviction last month and the court said, `How               
 long is it gonna take you to move the trailer?'  And he said `Oh,             
 two months or whatever.'  And I said `You know, we're trying to get           
 the months down -- the next rent down the line.  Could we perhaps             
 do it in six weeks or whatever?'  And the court inquired to the               
 parties and I think the court gave him the six weeks to move the              
 trailer.  But the court already does that on a case by case basis."           
 MR. BRINKMAN said he has the same problem as Mr. Winters with the             
 statement about the rent should be paid when due.  He said in 80              
 percent of the eviction cases, it is for nonpayment of rent.  Mr.             
 Brinkman said they've already served notices, paid processors and             
 filing fees, and have already gone through a trial.  The person               
 didn't pay the rent.  The courts already found that.  Under the               
 legislation we would be saying, "Well, lets let them stay."  Then             
 it will be the landlord's responsibility to incur further legal               
 fees to go back in and have another hearing about whether or not              
 rent was paid for month three, four, five, six or however long it             
 takes to either move the trailer or dispose if it.  Mr. Brinkman              
 said they've already had that hearing.  The tenant has already                
 breached and the court has already made findings.  Now it is                  
 incumbent upon the mobile home park operator to go back in and get            
 another fine that was already done in a previous hearing.                     
 Number 698                                                                    
 MR. BRINKMAN referred to the notice provision and stated he doesn't           
 have a major problem with it.  He noted they do it by posting it on           
 the door.  Mr. Brinkman said he has a problem with the main                   
 entrance as on some mobile homes there are two or three doors.  The           
 park operator may not know which door is the main door, so maybe it           
 should be posed on all three doors.  Mr. Brinkman said certified              
 mail doesn't work because if a person knows they haven't paid their           
 rent or there are bill collectors, they're not going to sign for              
 the certified copy of the mailing.                                            
 MR. BRINKMAN said he has a very strong problem with the equity                
 argument.  He said he thinks that if a court says, "Well gee, this            
 person has more money than this person, so lets let the other                 
 person stay in there even though they haven't been paying rent,"              
 that would be unconstitutional.  It is a taking without just                  
 MR. BRINKMAN said, "The last point I would like to make is that               
 this bill - the effect of this bill, if you're going to put                   
 trailers in who are not paying rent and let them stay for five or             
 six months and put in provisions about how long a trail is and                
 everything else, the ultimate affect of that is that the mobile               
 home park operator is gonna have to recoup his cost.  He's got a              
 mortgage, he's got employees, he's paying for sewer, on going to              
 the tailer while it is still in eviction statutes, water electrical           
 lines to it usually, snow plowing and everything else.  And if you            
 put onerous provisions upon his ability to get out breaching bad              
 tenants, people who have the police show up, people that don't pay            
 their rent, people who have garbage everywhere, then the ultimate             
 victim is not the park owner.  The ultimate victim are the 295                
 other good tenants at Switzer Village Mobile Home Park who pay                
 their rent on time, who don't get into fights, who don't have                 
 problems.  And that is where the cost is going to be passed on to.            
 So I would ask that the committee take a hard look at this bill."             
 Number 847                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the statute in the supplement             
 and said he noticed that Section 34.03.225 was amended two years              
 ago.  He asked Mr. Brinkman to comment on what was amended.                   
 MR. BRINKMAN explained the amendment says, in subsection (a), you             
 cannot evict unless the person hasn't paid rent.  It says that                
 mobile home park tenant has been convicted of a federal or state              
 law and that the violation continues.  The third part is that it is           
 detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the tenants.                 
 Number 1003                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to Mr. Brinkman's testimony where            
 it could be five or six months for the eviction and asked if he               
 sees anywhere in HB 487 where she wants somebody to have five or              
 six months before they would leave.                                           
 MR. BRINKMAN referred to HB 487, paragraphs 2 and 3 (b), and said             
 they indicate that the court can make any determination it wants as           
 to what is appropriate and sufficient in a disposition by sale or             
 by moving.  He referred to Representative Robinson saying that she            
 spoke to realtors who said it takes 120 days to sell a trailer.               
 That is four months.  He pointed out in a recessionary period it              
 may be longer.                                                                
 Number 1084                                                                   
 KAREN MORGAN came before the committee to testify in support of HB
 487.  She explained she was 14 days late on her space rent in                 
 January, 1995.  Her check was sent on January 14, however, the                
 following Monday was a holiday and her rent check didn't get                  
 postmarked until January 17.  Ms. Morgan explained an eviction                
 notice had been given to her thirteen-year old daughter at her                
 home.  She pointed out the assistant manager did not tell her                 
 daughter that the document was an important document.  The notice             
 fell behind the telephone stand until she had a knock on her door             
 where she was served with eviction papers.  Ms. Morgan said her               
 litigation has continued for a year.  Her daughter, feeling                   
 distraught and responsible for not giving her the notice, tried to            
 commit suicide.  Ms. Morgan said the decision was reversed by a               
 judge in that the eviction notice was not sufficient delivery to a            
 thirteen-year old.  She said the notice should be handed to an                
 adult at the mobile home or it should be sent by certified mail.              
 MS. MORGAN stated she would also like to discuss the issue of                 
 reasonable time to move.  Ms. Morgan said if she had been evicted             
 in October, November or December, even if she found a space to move           
 her trailer to, it probably couldn't be done during those months              
 because of weather.  During those months the ground is frozen and             
 her trailer couldn't have been set up for sewer and water.  She               
 noted she has called several trailer parks inquiring about space              
 and there wasn't any space available.  One trailer park manager               
 said if she were ten feet shorter, they would have given her a                
 MS. MORGAN referred to another option which was to purchase private           
 land.  She noted there are zoning problems with moving trailers on            
 to private land.  Private land is very expensive in the Juneau                
 Number 1328                                                                   
 MS. MORGAN explained when she bought her trailer in 1989, it was a            
 foreclosure and one of the clauses in her contract was that she pay           
 the back space rent.  Ms. Morgan stated her rent was 17 days late             
 and she included her late charges in her rent check.                          
 MS. MORGAN noted many mobile home parks won't take 15 plus year old           
 trailers.  Her is 20 years old.  If she can't purchase private                
 land, her only other option is to abandon her trailer.                        
 Number 1429                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Ms. Morgan if she believes there was              
 another motive for eviction besides being late with her rent check.           
 MS. MORGAN said she believes her park owner has a very hidden                 
 agenda.  He has been forcing people out and has been buying brand             
 new mobile home.  There is a manufacturer who has been giving                 
 people good deals on mobile homes.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to the time while Ms. Morgan was in            
 court and asked if she paid her rent.                                         
 MS. MORGAN said she paid it to the court.                                     
 Number 1533                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if before Ms. Morgan was served with             
 the eviction notice, did she pay her rent on time.                            
 MS. MORGAN explained she had been late before.  She pointed out               
 when she signed the lease it said, "If you are late, if you do not            
 pay by the fifth, there is a $25 charge and then it is $5 a day               
 after that."  She said the lease didn't state a cutoff time.  The             
 late charges were always included.  She said she would say they               
 were late maybe once every two years.                                         
 MS. MORGAN explained she received a packet of information from the            
 manager of her trailer park that stated, "Oh, we understand that              
 you're interested in selling your mobile home.  If you'd like to              
 sell your mobile home, here are some applications because in order            
 to sell your mobile home, that's fine, you can sell it but we've              
 got to preapprove your buyer to rent the space."                              
 Number 1970                                                                   
 SHEILA FOULKS was next to address HB 487.  She referred to housing            
 in Juneau and said there are more and more park owners who are now            
 also selling trailers.  she said she feels more people are being              
 evicted to make more room for the new trailers.  Ms. Foulks said              
 she has at least a $30,000 investment on someone else's land and              
 the land investment is a month to month tenancy with rules that               
 seem to change.  The landlord/tenant laws are to protect the                  
 tenant, but there is not enough protection or reasonable time to do           
 anything.  Currently, there are no spaces in Juneau to move                   
 trailers to.                                                                  
 MS. FOULKS indicated that trailer parks don't always meet some the            
 city and borough ordinances.  It seems the city and borough                   
 ordinances seem to go one way - against the tenants.  Trailers get            
 evicted for not being up to city and borough codes.  She explained            
 she had received some "fix up notices" and said when she replied to           
 some the things she didn't feel should be applicable, she received            
 another notice, "Notice of Intent to Terminate."  This was not                
 because she was behind in her rent.  She felt she shouldn't have to           
 do some of the things she was asked to do.                                    
 MS. FOULKS said if you own a trailer and you rent it out, the                 
 notice would be tacked on the door and the owner may never know.              
 The management knows who owns the trailer because you have to                 
 notify them that you're renting your trailer.  Ms. Foulks said the            
 bill is not a perfect bill, but she feels there needs to be some              
 added protection.                                                             
 Number 1970                                                                   
 CHRISTINE BRITZA was next to address HB 487.  She explained she               
 bought herself a trailer in Sprucewood Mobile Home Park in                    
 February, 1993.  Ms. Britza noted she works for the state.  She               
 said she rents a room out in order to help her pay space rent.  On            
 November 11, she was given a notice of termination of tenancy                 
 because she paid her rent late.  The reason was because she to make           
 payments for car insurance, IRS, her mortgage payment, trailer                
 insurance and property taxes.  Ms. Britza said she tried to get in            
 touch with the owners of the trailer park on November 16, and                 
 couldn't reach them.  She said she called the Coogan Development              
 office in an effort to obtain the telephone number for Sprucewood             
 Park.  She obtained the number and called twice and her phone call            
 was never answered.  Ms. Britza said she mailed her check on                  
 November 20, which was the last day for her to make her payment.              
 She said she put it in the mail at 4:30 p.m. and had thought the              
 sign on the mail receptacle had stated that the last pick up was at           
 5:00 p.m.  Ms. Britza later found out it said, "In this area."  She           
 stated she finally found where Coogan Development's business                  
 trailers were.  She noted in the area of the office there are two             
 streets with similar names.                                                   
 MS. BRITZA explained James and Sheila Wilcox owned Sprucewood Park            
 when she moved in, she and her lienholder had to sign the lease               
 agreement.  They considered the lienholder an equitable interested            
 party to the property.  When the new park owners took over, they              
 didn't notify the lienholder of taking over the park.  They didn't            
 get the lienholder to sign the lease agreement and didn't give him            
 notice of eviction.                                                           
 MS. BRITZA referred to the check she mailed to the landlord and               
 said it was one day late, post marked for November 21.  The check             
 was sent back to her and she was notified that her landlord was               
 taking her to court to evict her.  Ms. Britza informed the                    
 committee of the different ways she had tried to satisfy the                  
 landlord.  She stated she believes eviction notices should be                 
 posted on the front door and also should be sent by certified mail.           
 TAPE 96-17, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MS. BRITZA discussed her experience in attempting to find land to             
 put her trailer on.  She pointed out everything was due to being              
 one day late on a notice of termination of tenancy even though she            
 took good faith action to try to rectify the situation.  Her                  
 landlord isn't giving her any alternatives other than to move the             
 Number 102                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Ms. Britza if she is still in court.              
 MS. BRITZA said she went to court on December 8, they granted the             
 order to vacate.  She was told by Coogan Development, on December             
 7, that they were willing to work out something reasonable about              
 whether or not she intended to sell or move.  On December 13, she             
 called Coogan Development to set up an appointment to discuss what            
 her options were.  She said she spoke to Lloyd Coogan and he told             
 her he would check with his attorneys to find out the legal                   
 ramifications of allowing her to stay.  Ms. Britza continued to               
 inform the committee of her dilemma.  She told the committee she              
 missed her 30 day time period to appeal the decision, but is still            
 going to appeal under Court Rule 60 B, because she believes they              
 breached the contract and there is a premeditated intent to upgrade           
 the park.                                                                     
 Number 350                                                                    
 KAY MONTES was next to testify.  She informed the committee she               
 works as a paralegal for Alaska Legal Services.  Ms. Montes                   
 explained she has been an owner of mobile homes for approximately             
 the last 16 years.  She discussed a situation that occurred in                
 Juneau where over 100 low income families were evicted from their             
 homes.  She indicated very few of the mobile homes were ever                  
 actually moved to new mobile home parks and the ones that were                
 moved were the newer homes.  Almost of all the homes were stored              
 and were eventually destroyed for scrap metal.  The reasons other             
 mobile home parks refused these trailers was due to the lack of               
 space and the age of the trailers.                                            
 MS. MONTES informed the committee she currently has a mobile home             
 in Sprucewood that she rents out.  She said at one point in time              
 she received a notice to quit because of some technical things that           
 needed to be done as the owners were making an effort to upgrade              
 the park.  However, despite the fact that she had notified the                
 owner of the park she wanted all notices sent to her at her                   
 address, the notice was given to the ten year old son of her                  
 renter.  The child didn't give the notice to his mother until two             
 days prior to the expiration of the notice period.  Ms. Montes said           
 the notice needs to be given to the owner of the mobile home and              
 not to the tenant of the mobile home.                                         
 MS. MONTES referred to owners of trailer parks being in the                   
 business of keeping tenants and said that is true, but they're not            
 necessarily in the business of keeping the tenants they have.  To             
 her knowledge, there is not one trailer park in Juneau, with the              
 exception of newly developed parks in North Douglas, that actually            
 meet current City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) mobile home park                
 codes.  However, all of the parks are grandfathered in under the              
 old code as long as they don't increase their number of spaces.               
 She said it was explained to her by the CBJ Planning and Zoning               
 Commission that if a mobile home park owner were to actually add a            
 space, then they would be required to bring the entire park up to             
 code including playgrounds, lighting, etc.  Therefore, a mobile               
 home park owner may be highly motivated to evict an older mobile              
 home in order to have the ability to move a new trailer in.  It is            
 becoming more common for mobile home park owners to purchase new              
 trailers and as soon as they can seize the opportunity to get rid             
 of one tenant, they move a new trailer in for their financial gain.           
 MS. MONTES pointed out a mobile home park owner has the right to              
 refuse to enter into a new rental agreement with a potential buyer            
 for a mobile home.  Likewise, a mobile home park owner has the                
 right to refuse a particular mobile home owner to rent to a                   
 particular new potential tenant.  Ms. Montes said it is very                  
 important that adequate time be granted to mobile home park tenants           
 to attempt to sell their homes or secure new spaces.  She discussed           
 problems that could occur if somebody is in the hospital and                  
 doesn't receive a notice.  Ms. Montes urged the committee to                  
 consider moving the legislation.                                              
 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that it was not his intent to            
 move the bill at this time.                                                   
 Number 1034                                                                   
 JIM DAVIS, Attorney, Alaska Legal Services - Southeast Alaska, was            
 next to come before the committee.  He said he would like to point            
 out that in the real world in Juneau there are people who have                
 lived in their mobile homes for 15 to 20 years.  After being late             
 one time, some of them are homeless.  He said he isn't talking                
 about deadbeat people, he is talking about people who want to pay             
 their rent.  He said Alaska Legal Services has represented people             
 who have offered to pay their rent three months in advance and the            
 landlords refused.  He said the business of landlords is not to               
 keep tenants, it is to make money.  If the landlords in Juneau and            
 elsewhere in the state find that it is more profitable to evict an            
 older mobile home and put a brand new one in and make $15,000, that           
 is what a business person will do.                                            
 MR. DAVIS informed the committee of a situation where a tenant was            
 late on her rent because she was in the hospital having a baby.               
 She tried to pay her rent and offered rent in advance when she was            
 released from the hospital and the mobile home park owner refused.            
 Mr. Davis said the landlord had purchased a new mobile home to put            
 on her spot.                                                                  
 MR. DAVIS said he thinks the bill is trying to get at what the                
 system is designed to do which is fairness and equity.  He pointed            
 out that if an owner doesn't receive a notice because it was served           
 to a child, etc., and then they receive a notice to go to court, it           
 is too late once you're in court to cure the problem, you've lost.            
 Mr. Davis said he would never ask that a deadbeat person be given             
 a break, all he is asking for is fair notice so that the problem              
 can be fixed.                                                                 
 MR. DAVIS said the bill talks about "May a judge look behind what             
 a landlord says."  It is important that the bill pass for that                
 reason.  He said he had a case where a woman is being evicted and             
 it was because a landlord wants to get the old mobile homes out of            
 the park.  Mr. Davis said the landlord even admitted to this in               
 court.  He explained that what is really happening in the courts is           
 judges feel constricted and prohibited from going beyond the stated           
 legal reason.                                                                 
 MR. DAVIS informed the committee that when there is a public                  
 auction, buyers come and they are told, "Guess what, in the city of           
 Juneau the supply and demand is such that you can't move this                 
 trailer anywhere, and guess what else Mr. perspective buyer or Ms.            
 perspective buyer, we're not going to let you keep the trailer                
 here.  So your options are you can buy it, you can't move it                  
 anywhere within 50 miles of here and you can't keep it here."  He             
 said nobody will want to pay anything for it.  Mr. Davis suggested            
 looking at previous public auctions that have occurred to see who             
 buys the trailers.  He stated the landlords buy every single                  
 MR. DAVIS pointed out that everybody sometimes makes a mistake.  In           
 this case, if a tenant makes a mistake, the result could be that              
 they lose everything.  Mr. continued to give testimony in support             
 of the legislation.  He asked that the committee move the bill                
 forward and said it is a step in the right direction.                         
 Number 1501                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned what the most commonly used                
 methods are for eviction.                                                     
 MR. DAVIS said it is either because you're late on paying your rent           
 or it is because of a rule or regulation.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the right of a landlord is on              
 raising rent.                                                                 
 MR. DAVIS stated it is unlimited.  If they wanted to double their             
 rent, they could.                                                             
 Number 1558                                                                   
 TRACI WALKE, Manager, Thunder Mountain Trailer Park, was next to              
 address the committee.  She informed the committee she manages a              
 mobile home park for her father that he has owned for 28 years.               
 Ms. Walke noted she has managed the park for 11 years.  In 28                 
 years, there has been three evictions.  She noted during her                  
 working experience over the 11 years, she did two of those                    
 evictions.  One was for nonpayment of rent.  The second wasn't                
 actually an eviction as the judge terminated the lease because the            
 people were having parties, fighting, walking into other people's             
 homes.  Of the two she evicted, the trailers went to public auction           
 because they were abandoned.  The owners of both of the trailers              
 were given the option to sell them prior to abandonment.  At the              
 public auction the owners didn't show up.  When the first trailer             
 was auctioned, somebody outbid the opening bid and they got the               
 unit and then moved it to another park.  She explained the trailer            
 park had to clean up the space in which there was collapsed                   
 structure.  It cost thousands of dollars that the park never                  
 recovered.  Ms. Walke referred to the second trailer and said by              
 default, the trailer park ended up with it because nobody out bid             
 the minimum bid which was approximately $4,000.  She noted the                
 minimum bid was what the park had incurred in expenses.  Ms. Walke            
 said they ended up selling the trailer for less than what they had            
 into it after they obtained possession through the public sale, by            
 default.  She noted that home has also been moved to another park.            
 Both of those homes are over 20 years old, both were moved and both           
 found other spaces.                                                           
 MS. WALKE explained over the last three years she has sold over 26            
 new units and they are located in four other parks in the Juneau              
 area.  There are also units in Skagway, Haines and Gustavus.  She             
 explained the size of her trailer park has been increased and they            
 have also made sales within the park.  Improvements have been done            
 that benefit the tenants.  Ms. Walke said she doesn't agree with HB
 487.  The Alaska Manufacture House Association (AMHA), based in               
 Anchorage, doesn't agree with it.  She noted the AMHA represents              
 about 6,500 spaces in 30 mobile home parks across the state.                  
 MS. WALKE informed the committee if the bill passes as it is                  
 written, she is going to use AS 34.03.225 (A)(4) and will close her           
 mobile home park and build apartments.  Because the trailer park is           
 paid for, they can afford to do it and will.                                  
 Number 1764                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked, "Are there though -- do you know of a            
 person, I mean you probably know every park person - park manager             
 here.  Are there people that you feel like do not..."                         
 MS. WALKE said there are a few bad apples, but not everyone should            
 be punished for a few bad apples.  She noted she agrees something             
 should be done to stop the bad apples that gives all of them a bad            
 reputation.  She said there are people she has had to take to court           
 and evict and then turned around and let them stay because they               
 were able to do what they were supposed to do - pay up their rent.            
 Some had extenuating circumstances and were afraid to talk to her.            
 Ms. Walke said you have to work with each person in each situation.           
 Number 1833                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Walke if she believes a notice              
 should be given to a child.                                                   
 MS. WALKE indicated she doesn't believe a notice should be given to           
 a child.  She said she sends certified letters and most of them               
 come back.  She said she posts notices on the front door and also             
 mails notices by regular mail.  You can't take a child to court,              
 you shouldn't be serving a child.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Walke if she believes there                 
 should be a certain period of time for people to sell or move.                
 MS. WALKE said reasonable time.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it is the good faith section she             
 believes should be removed from the bill.                                     
 MS. WALKE said if the section was written appropriately, she would            
 tend to go along with it.                                                     
 Number 1985                                                                   
 WALLACE POWERS, Bering Straits Development Company (BSDC),                    
 testified via teleconference from Nome.  He informed the committee            
 BSDC is also the owner of Valdez Mobile Home Park which has about             
 185 spaces.  He pointed out his business doesn't have many of the             
 problems that are in occurring Juneau.  He said he is opposed to HB
 487 for a number of reasons.  Mr. Powers explained BSDC does not              
 generally post notices under the rear bumper of the trailer anyway.           
 They are adequately posted.  They frequently have contact with the            
 tenant before they begin any proceedings on eviction.  There is               
 ongoing discussion with the tenants who are delinquent in their               
 rent.  It is not a surprise to them when it comes time for an                 
 eviction.  He said they could live with the idea of posting notices           
 on the door and sending them by registered mail.  He referred to              
 the time to vacate a space and said they are not in a situation, in           
 Valdez, where they typically evict people quickly.  They enjoy                
 having them live in the trailer court.  They are in the business to           
 rent the space.  Mr. Powers explained that they deal with people              
 who have seasonal jobs, so they go a little extra distance trying             
 to work with some of the people who have seasonal incomes.  In many           
 situations, they may go two or three months without collecting rent           
 because they don't want to go through the eviction process as it is           
 expensive.  Mr. Powers said, "We're concerned about any extension             
 of time that may be required.  I guess if in practice the courts              
 start extending more time to these people to allow for their                  
 circumstances, then ya, we're going to bring the period back and we           
 start requiring evictions, way back.  I mean instead of three -               
 four months, we're gonna start doing it much sooner."  Mr. Powers             
 said the rest of Alaska might have some slightly different                    
 circumstances than what is happening in Juneau.   The idea of there           
 being an extension of time, assuming the rent is paid, that is                
 fine, but it also leaves the door open if the judgement is not                
 worded correctly, if it is not self executing, they are back in               
 MR. POWERS referred to the good faith provision and said he knows             
 there are a lot of professions where everything one does that                 
 someone else disagrees with is an act of bad faith.  The courts               
 already bend over backwards trying to afford mobile home park                 
 tenants against eviction.  This is due to the difficulty of trying            
 to relocate these trailers.  The court recognizes it and they allow           
 for these things.  Mr. Powers pointed out that at the Valdez Mobile           
 Home Park they have implemented one change of land use in the 20              
 year history they've owned the park.  It is not a frequent                    
 occurrence.  He said he believes the other provisions being                   
 included in the bill are rather onerous in the day to day                     
 activities in term of routine evictions.  Mr. Powers said they have           
 probably done about six evictions during the five years he has been           
 employed by them.  He noted his company doesn't own a single                  
 trailer in that park.  If other operators of parks were to abuse              
 their tenants unreasonably, his company would welcome those tenants           
 with open arms.                                                               
 Number 2158                                                                   
 BEN MARSH, Executive Secretary, Alaska Manufacturers Association,             
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage, stating his                      
 association has passed a resolution opposing HB 487.  He noted he             
 would send a copy to the committee.  Mr. Marsh said in Anchorage,             
 he hasn't heard of any complaints of the nature of the horror                 
 stories he has heard that have taken place in Juneau.  He said the            
 reports he has received from mobile home park owners is that it is            
 difficult to effect an eviction and if you do effect one, you spend           
 a lot of money and lose substantial rent on spaces.  In Anchorage             
 there is space available, they don't have the same situation that             
 exists in Juneau.  Mr. Marsh said HB 487 seems to open the                    
 opportunity for tenants to string out eviction processes that are             
 already loose.  He said the courts have the ability to effect                 
 equity and in almost every case he is aware of, the courts do grant           
 extra time.                                                                   
 MR. MARSH said HB 487 is vague and opens up a whole can of worms as           
 far as providing opportunities for tenants to overcome evictions              
 which are probably legitimate.  He said his organization is opposed           
 to the bill.                                                                  
 Number 2283                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Marsh what the space rent is in             
 the Anchorage area.                                                           
 MR. MARSH said it ranges from $200 to $285 per month, in which most           
 of the utilities are paid for by the park owner.                              
 Number 2302                                                                   
 There being no further witnesses, CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public                 
 testimony.  He said it is his intent to put the bill into a                   
 subcommittee chaired by Representative Rokeberg.  The members will            
 be Representatives Kubina and Sanders.                                        
 CHAIRMAN KOTT recessed the meeting at 5:25 p.m. to the call of the            
 chair.  The meeting was called back to order at 6:00 p.m.                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects