Search

The nationwide need for affordable housing is a boon to our wider industry. Many factories across the US are operating at capacity, or even adding shifts. In recent years, customers could expect their homes delivered within three or four weeks after ordering; due to current production demands, it's now common to wait six or eight weeks, or even longer.

Financing for buyers of manufactured homes in parks is STILL very difficult and expensive.

The collapse of the manufactured home consumer lending market in the late 1990s and early 2000s resulted in far fewer lenders, and more stringent underwriting standards. As a result, qualifying for a manufactured home loan is a real challenge to the consumers who most need affordable housing.

I just sold a new home in my park and saw firsthand how difficult it is for a buyer. The buyer was a parent who would be the sole borrower, but needed his daughter on title to comply with my park's requirements. This is known as a 'Buy-for' and has for decades been a common scenario for the major lenders who fund home sales in parks; but this particular bank had recently changed its underwriting guidelines and the Buy-for became an issue at the 11th hour, resulting in a two-week delay.

Then, the bank realized it had somehow transposed the borrower's social security number with another application throughout the process, and upon discovering my buyer's credit score was lower than they thought, demanded 35% down payment instead of the 20% they were prequalified on. Another two-week delay. At that point, the buyer bypassed the mortgage broker and started calling the bank directly, pleading and on the verge of a nervous breakdown because he'd passed on other housing options for his daughter on the bank's assurances that this loan was teed up and closing imminently.

The end results:

• A ten-week process from buyer's initial loan application to funding of loan (from one of the largest providers of such loans).
• An appraisal that valued the brand-new Energy Star, option-loaded home at less than 70% of what I paid the factory for it.
• The buyer paid 35% down payment ($17,500) on a $50,000 purchase.
• Closing fees, points and broker's commission were added into the loan balance and amortized.
• The buyer was subjected to stressful false starts and apparently unanchored underwriting standards...
• ... and he's paying 13.5% APR for the privilege of getting the loan!

These types of lending barriers -- combined with the restrictions and liability risk foisted on park owners under the Dodd-Frank act - illustrate the pressures of the market that are suppressing manufactured housing sales, compared to past markets where credit was more accessible.

Though the process was sometimes excruciating for the buyer, he and his daughter (my new resident) are thrilled with the outcome: They own a brand new, warrantied, Energy-Star rated 2 bed/1 bath home with covered front porch, gabled entry, lap siding, 12" eaves, stainless appliances, gas furnace/water heater/range, skylights, upgraded cabinets and carpet, set up in the middle of the hottest real estate market in the nation... and purchased at $72/square foot. See photo at top of page.

Federal Section 8 Vouchers can now be used to purchase manufactured homes

President Obama signed the Housing Opportunity through Modernization Act of 2016 (H.R. 3700) into law on July 29th, 2016. Among other actions, this law authorizes Section 8 housing vouchers to be used toward the full annual cost of purchasing a manufactured home.

As there are more than two million households in the US receiving federal housing assistance through Section 8, this could be a significant boost to the industry, and to low-income residents who desire to be homeowners.

Perhaps this is an early indicator of evolving social attitudes towards manufactured housing, and the benefit we provide to our residents as community owners..?

Sell your park to residents and pay no state capital gains tax

Did you know that Oregon law provides a full state capital gains tax exemption to park owners who sell their communities to a tenant's association, or similar entity? Depending on your individual tax situation, this exemption could save you many thousands of dollars in tax liability upon sale!

ORS 316.792 amended Oregon tax law to authorize the exemption. It reads in part: 'To qualify, the park must have been sold to a tenant's association nonprofit organization, community development corporation, or a housing authority.'

As a mobile home park real estate broker, I often work with CASA (Community Assistance and Shelter Association), a nonprofit organization that assists park residents in creating tenant's associations to purchase their communities. If you are considering selling your park, there are several advantages to considering a resident purchase through CASA. Call me at 503-653-3887 if you have any questions.

Contact Information:

Multifamily and Mobile Home Park Investing
3215 SE Raymond St.
Portland, OR 97202

Tel: 503-242-0033
Fax: 503-281-4054
Cell: 503-653-3887
tydowning@westernequities.com

For several years, the husband had been taking care of the wife after her stroke. Within the last month, the husband had had a heart attack, and was no longer able to care for his wife alone.

Throughout this recent period of decline, their only child, a daughter in her late 40's, had been caring for them. The daughter had retired within the past year, so she was in a perfect position to care for her parents.

Now, the community manager learned that the daughter had moved into the spare bedroom, preparing for her father's return home from the hospital. Not only had the daughter moved into the spare room, she had sold her home, put her furniture up for auction, and was literally moving into her parents' home with no thought of moving back out. The mother reportedly had just been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and been given less than six months to live. The father's prognosis was grim, although he was coming home. As an only child, the daughter would obviously inherit the home upon their passing.

It appeared to be a situation that would resolve itself within a few years when the daughter reached the minimum secondary age of 50, as stated in the Community Guidelines, however the manager feared losing her exemption status granted under federal law for a 55+ community. And, also contained in the Community Guidelines was a restriction on the length of time a person could have a guest visit them.

Another issue was that their company policy required proof of ownership of the home. If the legal affairs of the parents were not in order, or if there were another sibling not known to management, this might also present a future problem.

And, with all the health and emotional issues going on, the manager didn'twant to bother the family unnecessarily with details that would just burden them.

What to do? First, remember that as a "caregiver" there is no age requirement or limitation that applies. Simply changing the status of the daughter from "guest" to "caregiver" eliminates part of the problem. Then, the age limitation also becomes no problem as long as at least one of the parents is still living and the daughter continues as a caregiver, because they are not subject to agent restrictions, either. And, with at least one of the parents alive, the household still qualifies as one of the required 80% households with at least one person 55 years of age or older.

Then, we are down to ownership of the home, future problems with the legalities of ownership should there be another sibling, and the timing for discussion with the family. Do not wait to have this discussion. Yes, the family is extremely busy, but it doesn'tsound as if it will ease up any time soon. Yes, they probably have their legal affairs in order, but as long as it is handled tactfully, a visit doesn'thave to be an intrusion.

Start the visit by offering your help and asking what you can do. Then proceed into the legalities of home ownership, etc. And, remember, you do have the ability to allow 20% of your households to be occupied by a resident under 55 years of age.

By: Dale Strom

Dale Strom is a second generation Manufactured Home Community landlord. He is a Board Member, past President and current Treasurer of MHCO.

This is the fourth of a multiple part series on a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR.

In the third part, the meeting with the tenants is held in Clatskanie, OR. The turnout of the tenants was overwhelming to the author, as well as the enthusiasm of those in the Clatskanie PUD board room. The Author ends this day feeling that this purchase will, more than likely, have a good chance to occur.

In this fourth part, the author now awaits hearing from CASA the Association is formed and learning about the steps being taken during the due diligence, fund acquisition and appraisal periods. Soon, the closing date, November 1, will be here.

*****

Now that I'm home, and just spoken with my onsite manager about what occurred at the meeting, unknowingly, I am entering the Michael Collins phase. Who is Michael Collins you ask? The end of part 3 of this series will give you a hint. I will bring the Michael Collins analogy full circle later in this article.

The meeting at the Clatskanie PUD with the tenants was on June 26, a Tuesday. Other than my manager, I get no feedback from anyone at the meeting. It was either that Thursday or Friday that I call the phone number of the Development Director. No answer; so a message is left on the voice mail. The purpose of my call was to get a summary of what occurred after I exited the meeting.

No response to my message. I'm not going to send another message or phone call. Maybe I'm not to know what went on. Maybe there are things in flux where the information that I'm looking for is not solid. I will wait.

On July 5, nine days after the meeting with the tenants, I get an email from First American Title that a Title Report will be sent to me for my review and approval. I am given a gesture of a happy closing from the Escrow Officer. I guess this purchase is going through.

In a sale to a tenant group in order to form a cooperative, all homes must be owned by the occupants. There can be no park owned homes in a cooperative. OK, this is a small part of this process that I wasn't aware of. Not that it is a problem; but my manager lives in one home and another tenant that is on Section 8 assistance lives in another home that I both own. The home that my manager lives in shouldn't be a problem. I can finance that home to her and her husband, change the ownership documents to their names and I will become a lienholder.

The other home may be an issue. How do you sell a home to a person that doesn't have the proverbial pot to pee in"? To sell Riverbend

In response to the COVID 19 epidemic, Governor Kate Brown joined nearly a dozen other governors on Monday issuing a sweeping order (Executive Order 20-12) that essentially requires people to stay home except for essential travel, such as to the grocery store or for medical needs. Violation of the Order is a Class C misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and/or a fine of $1,250.

As of 12:01 a.m. on March 24, a long list of businesses (from amusement parks to youth clubs) were ordered shuttered. Most likely, the list of businesses ordered to close does not affect a manufactured home park, RV park or floating home community; however, community owners should review the list of businesses to ensure compliance.

Although “campgrounds” were ordered closed, RV parks are exempted.

Pools, sports courts and playgrounds must be closed. 

The Governor's order does not change her previous order (Executive Order 20-07) with respect to restaurants, bars, and other establishments that serve food and drink, which Order prohibits on-premises consumption of food or drink but allows take-out or delivery services.

Outdoor Activities

Governor Brown's order specifically allows people to be outside for walking or hiking but any outdoor activity that cannot be done while maintaining social distancing (i.e. basketball) is prohibited. State and community parks may remain open if social distancing can be maintained and signage about social distancing must be prominently displayed.

Employees

Effective March 25, all businesses in Oregon shall facilitate telework and work at home by employees, to the maximum extent possible. Work in offices is prohibited whenever telework and work at home options are available, in light of position duties, availability of teleworking equipment, and network adequacy. In other words, your employees do not have to work from home if their duties require them to be on site (maintenance workers) or if they are not set up to work from home (they don’t have the ability or capability from working from home).

Social Distancing Policy

When telework is unavailable, businesses must designate an employee to establish, implement and enforce social distancing policies, consistent with the guidance from the Oregon Health Authority. Such policies must address how the business or non-profit will maintain social distancing protocols for business-critical visitors.

Bill Miner | Davis Wright TremaineLLP

1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 | Portland, OR 97201

Tel: (503) 778-5477 | Fax: (503) 778-5299 

Email: billminer@dwt.com| Website: www.dwt.com

If you do not yet have a policy in place, you should contact your legal or human resource advisor to assist you with the drafting of a social distancing policy. Please note that DWT is offering a draft policy at a fixed price for MHCO members.

Answer: Bad news on both fronts. Let me answer your second question first. You may NOT share in a real estate commission unless you have your own Oregon real estate license. This prohibition against commission sharing even applies between real estate agents and the homeowner they represent. Here is the applicable Oregon Law:

ORS 696.290 [Sharing compensation with or paying finders fee to unlicensed person prohibited]

(1)A real estate licensee may not offer, promise, allow, give, pay or rebate, directly or indirectly, any part or share of the licensees compensation arising or accruing from any real estate transaction or pay a finders fee to any person who is not a real estate licensee licensed under ORS 696.022 (Licensing system for real estate brokers and property managers). However, a real estate broker or principal real estate broker may pay a finders fee or a share of the licensees compensation on a cooperative sale when the payment is made to a licensed real estate broker in another state or country, provided that the state or country in which that broker is licensed has a law permitting real estate brokers to cooperate with real estate brokers or principal real estate brokers in this state and that such nonresident real estate broker does not conduct in this state any acts constituting professional real estate activity and for which compensation is paid. If a country does not license real estate brokers, the payee must be a citizen or resident of the country and represent that the payee is in the business of real estate brokerage in the other country. A real estate broker associated with a principal real estate broker may not accept compensation from any person other than the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated at the time. A principal real estate broker may not make payment to the real estate broker of another principal real estate broker except through the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated. Nothing in this section prevents payment of compensation earned by a real estate broker or principal real estate broker while licensed, because of change of affiliation or inactivation of the brokers license.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prohibits a real estate licensee who has a written property management agreement with the owner of a residential building or facility from authorizing the payment of a referral fee, rent credit or other compensation to an existing tenant of the owner or licensee, or a former tenant if the former tenant resided in the building or facility within the previous six months, as compensation for referring new tenants to the licensee.

(3)(a) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prevents an Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker from sharing compensation on a cooperative nonresidential real estate transaction with a person who holds an active real estate license in another state or country, provided:

(A)Before the out-of-state real estate licensee performs any act in this state that constitutes professional real estate activity, the licensee and the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker agree in writing that the acts constituting professional real estate activity conducted in this state will be under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon broker and will comply with all applicable Oregon laws;

(B)The cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker accompanies the out-of-state real estate licensee and the client during any property showings or negotiations conducted in this state; and

(C)All property showings and negotiations regarding nonresidential real estate located in this state are conducted under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker.

(b) As used in this subsection, nonresidential real estate means real property that is improved or available for improvement by commercial structures or five or more residential dwelling units.

As for requiring that residents use your preferred agent, that too is a No-No. Here is that statute [I've underscored the applicable provision in subsection (1).] The term "services" can clearly be applied to real estate brokerage services, and as such, I cannot recommend that you impose that condition on residents when they want to sell their home.

90.525 [Unreasonable conditions of rental or occupancy prohibited.]

(1) No landlord shall impose conditions of rental or occupancy which unreasonably restrict the tenant or prospective tenant in choosing a fuel supplier, furnishings, goods, services or accessories.

(2) No landlord of a facility shall require the prospective tenant to purchase a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer or one of a group of dealers.

(3) No landlord renting a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall give preference to a prospective tenant who purchased a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer.

(4) No manufactured dwelling or floating home dealer shall require, as a condition of sale, a purchaser to rent a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home in a particular facility or one of a group of facilities. [Formerly 91.895; 1991 c.844 _7]

The Manufactured Housing Landlord - Tenant Coalition (negotiations) convened again the end of last month (August 2014) to further discuss a number of issues that may potentially be adopted into legislation in 2015.  Here is a summary of the latest developments on several key issues.

The $6 Assessment.  The coalition spent a considerable amount of time discussing the $6.00 assessment that community residents pay to finance Oregon Housing & Community Services Manufactured Communities Resource Center.  Oregon counties are increasingly not collecting property taxes on homes in communities and hence the $6 assessment is not being collected.  Both the residents and the agency are concerned about continued funding.  MHCO is concerned that community owners will be given the responsibility of collecting the assessment from the residents and handing it over to the government.  MHCO is adamantly opposed to landlord's becoming tax/assessment collectors.

The tax assessor association floated the idea of the residents paying more - sort of a surcharge on the assessment in order to cover the cost of the counties in collecting the assessment.  No decision was made on this issue - we will see what the next meeting brings.

Abandoned Manufactured Homes and Unpaid Taxes.  The coalition continued to discuss ORS 90.675.  Currently, Oregon law causes a landlord to throw or give away a manufactured home worth more than $8,000 if the back taxes exceed the value of the home. The back taxes owed on some abandoned MHs may be significant, even exceeding the value of the manufactured home. In these cases, the financial incentive for the landlord, assuming there is no purchaser at the required abandoned property sale, is to destroy or give away the manufactured home. This creates a vacant space in the park.

MHCO would like to see all taxes on an abandoned manufactured home waived.  The tax assessor association proposed waiving the first $8,000 of taxes owed to be waived if the landlord buys the home.  At this time the MHCO is considering options to raise that amount or to completely waive the taxes owed.  Again, no final decision has been made and negotiations continue.

Cure Period for Discrete vs. Ongoing Violations.  As we have mentioned in earlier legislative updates, MHCO would like to see the 30-day cure" (ORS 90.630) period reviewed with some changes.  Allowing a resident to continue disruptive behavior for 29 days and then correct the behavior just before the 30 day "cure" period ends does not seem fair to the other residents in the community and management.  We continue to discuss options.  MHCO has proposed  that anything that impacts the resident's "peaceful enjoyment" should require a shorter "cure" period.  Again - no final decision was made and we will continue to discuss this at the next coalition meeting.

Manufactured Home Sales - Conflict Community Owner Sales vs. Resident Sales.  The Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) has been investigating conflicts between community owner sales of homes and resident sales.  DCBS has met with the coalition on several occasions but no specific proposal has been put on the table.  This is the issue that MHCO is most concerned about as we head into the 2015 Legislative session.  There will be a more in depth discussion on this issue at the next meeting.  MHCO will keep you posted as this issue develops.

Fixes to Resident Purchase.   There are several issues that have been discovered regarding the resident purchase program (HB 4038) that was passed in the 2014 February session.  Below is a brief summary of the issue and the proposed solutions. 

A. The loophole is in favor of tenants

The thought "Stick with the MHPs, Stevens" may have occurred to you. There is a point to the Camp David Accords reference. The point is, President Carter would not settle for anything other than peace. MHP park owners & managers can borrow this theme. Eviction (one could argue a violent action), is a last resort. Peace in the valley, while not easy, may be less stressful for manager and residents, as well as a better solution for all.

Key Points:

• It is stressful for managers and owners to deal with the same problems month in and month out, which might lead to burn-out. Burn-out may lead to a manager quitting or worse, just not giving the job 100%

• Budget: One manager sold life insurance for a national company, prior to being a park manager. In his training to sell life insurance, he was told the first thing to do is a monthly budget with the prospect. This way, the prospect quickly ascertains there is money to buy life insurance as long as they stick to a budget. Do a budget for the chronically late residents. Perhaps they truly cannot afford to live on the property.

• Earn More: In this full employment economy, it is reasonable to expect a struggling resident to ask for a raise, ask for more hours or get a second job. don't assume the resident realizes this.

• Resolve to take action on any resident that is consistently using up the manager's time and company resources with no resulting progress.

• What MHP projects and initiatives are delayed or not getting sufficient attention (buying homes, marketing homes, green initiatives, resident relations), because of time spent on this handful of residents?

• The residents are stressed too, when they are delinquent. Maybe forcing a resolution ultimately helps them to figure out what it will take for them to continue living in the park.

Gray Gardens Gail hails back to the movie "Grey Gardens":

It was about the once (but no longer) wealthy Bouvier mother and daughter that were called out by the local health department for the enormous number of cats in their home and on their property that had created a public health hazard. What made this "cat house" newsworthy is, the occupants were Jackie Kennedy's and Lee Radziwill's aunt and cousin, both of whom were suffering from mental health issues. And the "home" was a mansion in East Hampton, Long Island. The filth from the cats, the garbage and lack of litter boxes in the mansion made the property a fixer-upper extraordinaire. The decrepit mansion was purchased and beautifully restored, and in December 2018, it sold for $15.5 million.

Who among us does not have or had a Grey Gardens Gail in our parks? Not only is there no reasoning with Gail, there is usually no emergency contact person, let alone someone famous and rich to help this resident. To compound the dilemma, the government officials do not want to get involved. In Grey Gardens Gail's case, filing an eviction might be the only way to get the residents' attention and ideally, cooperation. This is a health issue for the resident, the animals and the property.

Carmen Sans Communicato:

Carmen's deal is she always pays her rent but is chronically delinquent. In addition, Carmen has a phone and face-to-face conversation phobia that often leads you to wondering. That is to say, she does not care to, want to, or cannot meet with the manager. She does not take the manager's calls (is this really a phobia and a mental health issue?). What to do? With Carmen, the only way to get the real story is to file an eviction. If the court allows the eviction, then Carmen will have to move. At the very least, the manager just might get a new application from Ms. Carmen Sans Communicato. This way, the manager can determine if Carmen can afford to live in the park.

Deadly Disease Donna:

Have you had a Deadly Disease Donna who has been informed of every non-profit, church and government agency under the sun as resources for assistance? But Donna doesn'twant to ask for help. Meanwhile, there is a healthy adult living in the home who does not work. Maybe the healthy adult is taking care of Donna. Recently, a new company bought Donna's park. The new owner has a policy of "No Pay, No Stay". What the new owner discovered is, Donna and her family actually moved into the home of the former owner for a time. That is, until the former owner couldn'ttake it anymore. Then Donna and her brood moved back to the park. The new owners commenced to send to Donna the proper legal Notice and an attorney has been hired to file for eviction. It is doubtful this will end up in an eviction, though. Donna paid off all but $150, once the Notice arrived. The next step is that two relatives will co-sign the lease and guarantee rent payments. This is a good outcome for all.

Joanne Stevens is a National Mobile Home Park Broker with NAI Iowa Realty Commercial, a Berkshire Hathaway Company.

Email: joannestevens@iowarealty.com

Website: www.joannestevens.com

Phone: (319) 310-0641

By Phil Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel, Querin Law, LLC

Under Oregon law, a security interest on a manufactured home must be recorded on the structure’s Ownership Document. (ORS 446.571(3)). The Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services administers the Manufactured Home Ownership Document System, available at mhods.oregon.gov.

Click the article above for a complete guide to accessing lien holder information.

By Mark L. Busch, P.C., Attorney at Law Question: Can our park use the regular MHCO manufactured home rental agreement for RV tenants who are allowed in certain spaces throughout our manufactured home park? Answer: No, the park should definitely not use a regular manufactured home rental agreement for RVs. By doing so, the park might inadvertently give the RV tenants more rights than they are otherwise entitled to under Oregon's Landlord-Tenant Laws. Specifically, the MHCO manufactured home rental agreement (and most other, similar manufactured home rental agreements) typically define the rented space as being used for a manufactured home." This could used against the park in an eviction action. The RV tenant's attorney could very well argue that the RV is a "manufactured home

Yesterday, the Senate Banking Committee released a bipartisan agreement to clarify that a manufactured housing retailer or seller is not considered a "loan originator" simply because they provide a customer with some assistance in the mortgage loan process.  This is a key tenet of the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, which excludes manufactured housing retailers and sellers from the definition of a loan originator so long as they are only receiving compensation for the sale of a home. 

MHI successfully argued that just as a real estate agent's sales commission does not make him or her a loan originator under current law, a similar distinction is needed for those selling manufactured homes.  While they are only in the business of selling homes and do not originate loans, manufactured home retailers and sellers currently run the risk of being considered mortgage loan originators. This is problematic because loan originators must comply with licensing or qualification requirements that are completely unrelated and irrelevant to manufactured home retailers and sellers.  This agreement affirms MHI's longstanding position that it is inappropriate for a manufactured housing retailer - whose business is to sell homes and who is not receiving any gain or compensation for minimally helping the borrower with the mortgage loan process - to be subjected to costly and labor-intensive activities that are clearly designed to apply to the actual individual making the mortgage loan.

The manufactured housing language was a part of a bipartisan regulatory reform package drafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID). A bipartisan group of nine Republicans and nine Democrats cosponsored the measure, including: Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), David Perdue (R-Georgia), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), Jon Tester (D-Montana), Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Angus King (I-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), and Gary Peters (D-Michigan). 

The provision is in Section 107 of the package, which is within the title of the bill dealing with improving consumer access to mortgage credit.  Specifically, Section 107 amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to exclude from the definition of "mortgage originator" an employee of a retailer of manufactured or modular homes who does not receive compensation or gain for taking residential mortgage loan applications while maintaining consumer protections. Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN), author of the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act (S. 1751) and long-time supporter of manufactured housing, strongly advocated for inclusion of this important consumer access provision in the package. 

The Senate's bipartisan reform package is expected to be considered by the Senate Banking Committee in the coming weeks. MHI will continue working with its champions as the package moves through the legislative process. 

The inclusion of this language in the Senate's financial regulatory relief package is the result of MHI's persistent efforts to ensure the needed changes contained in the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act are passed into law as soon as possible. In addition to the Senate regulatory reform package, the full Preserving Access to Manufactured House Act was passed as a part of the House's financial reform package (H.R. 10) in June.   In September, the House also passed the bill's provisions as a part of its Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations package.