AB 391 amends Civil Code §798.14 to change who receives statutorily required mobilehome park notices and how those notices may be delivered. The bill requires that notices be addressed to both the homeowner (titleholder) and the resident (occupant), allows certain annually required notices to be delivered by email if the homeowner or resident provides affirmative, written consent separate from the lease, and creates a simple revocation process for electronic delivery.
The practical effect is twofold: it expands the class of recipients that managers must notify, and it creates a narrowly defined path for digital delivery that reduces postage costs but imposes new consent, recordkeeping, bilingual notification, and proof‑of‑delivery obligations on park management. Compliance officers and property managers will need updated procedures; tenant advocates and residents should reassess how they receive and revoke communications.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires all notices required by the Mobilehome Residency Law to be delivered to both the homeowner and the resident at the site by personal delivery or U.S. mail, and allows certain pre‑February 1 notices to be sent by email if the recipient gives separate, affirmative written consent. It also lets recipients revoke email consent at any time without penalty and requires management to send a specific confirmation notice within five days of obtaining consent.
Who It Affects
Mobilehome park owners, on‑site management, and property managers who prepare and send statutorily required notices; homeowners (titleholders) and residents (occupants) in mobilehome parks; tenant advocates and attorneys who handle notice disputes and administrative compliance.
Why It Matters
The bill modernizes communication options while formalizing consent and revocation mechanics, shifting administrative burdens onto managers to prove consent, deliver confirmation notices in the negotiation language, and maintain records. That changes how evidence of delivery will be litigated and how parks balance cost savings against access risks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 391 revises the delivery rules that govern the Mobilehome Residency Law's notices. First, it broadens the list of persons who must receive notices by requiring that they be addressed to both the homeowner (the person who owns the mobilehome) and the resident (the person who occupies it).
That removes any ambiguity where notices might previously have been sent only to the homeowner listed on the rental agreement.
Second, the bill defines “affirmative, written consent” as a separate, express written agreement that is not contained in and not a condition of the lease. Under this standard, a homeowner or resident who wants to receive certain combined annual notices by email must give a standalone written authorization that clearly and conspicuously states the agreement to receive notices electronically and provides the email address to which they should be sent.Third, AB 391 allows management to combine the notices that the law requires them to deliver before February 1 of each year into a single mailing or electronic transmission.
If the recipient has given the required separate written consent, those combined notices may be sent by email. Consent is revocable at any time in writing, without fee and without affecting tenancy terms; management must honor written revocations.Finally, the bill imposes a short procedural duty on managers who accept electronic‑delivery consent: within five days they must give the consenting homeowner or resident a written confirmation (in English and the primary negotiation language as defined by Section 1632) using clear type of at least 10‑point Arial equivalent.
That confirmation must include prescribed language telling the person they agreed to electronic notices, that they might not receive paper notices, and how to revoke consent, plus the name and address of the entity to which revocations should be sent. These requirements carry practical consequences for recordkeeping, proof of delivery, bilingual communications, and operational workflows for park management.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “affirmative, written consent” as express written authorization obtained separately from, and not part of, any lease or rental agreement.
All notices required by the Mobilehome Residency Law must be delivered to both the homeowner and the resident at the site, either by personal delivery or U.S. mail.
Notices that the law requires to be delivered before February 1 may be combined and sent by email only if the homeowner or resident has provided affirmative, written consent that includes the email address.
A homeowner or resident may revoke their consent to electronic notices at any time, in writing, without any fee, charge, penalty, or effect on tenancy terms; management must honor written revocations.
Within five days of obtaining electronic‑delivery consent, management must send a written confirmation in English and the primary negotiation language (per §1632) in at least 10‑point Arial equivalent type that contains prescribed text and the name and address for revocations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of affirmative, written consent
This section requires consent to be separate from the lease and not a condition of tenancy. Practically, that means checkboxes, form clauses within the lease, or broad click‑through consents tied to rental terms are insufficient; managers must obtain and retain a standalone written document or comparable signed form showing explicit agreement to receive electronic notices.
Delivery to both homeowner and resident
This provision changes the default recipient list by naming both the homeowner and resident as the addressees for statutorily required notices and requires either personal delivery or U.S. mail addressed to the site. Compliance will require managers to track occupants as well as titleholders and update address and contact records to ensure both classes receive required communications.
Combining annual notices and email option
The bill permits management to combine the specific notices that must go out before February 1 into one document and to send that combined notice by email if the recipient gave the separate written consent. The consent must clearly state the agreement to electronic delivery and include the email address. This creates a limited digital‑delivery pathway tied to a particular set of annual notices rather than blanket email notice authority.
Revocation of email consent
Consent to electronic delivery is revocable at any time, without payment or tenancy consequence, provided the revocation is in writing and indicates the intent to stop electronic notices. Management must honor written revocations; the provision leaves open the acceptable forms of written revocation (e.g., email vs. paper) but requires parks to accept them and cease electronic transmission.
Five‑day written confirmation and bilingual requirement
If management obtains electronic‑delivery consent, it must within five days send the consenting person a conspicuous written notice in English and the primary negotiation language per §1632, in at least 10‑point Arial equivalent. The required language warns that the recipient will receive only electronic copies, explains the right to revoke, and provides the name and address of the entity that will accept revocations. This creates an affirmative documentary trail managers must produce in disputes and imposes multilingual obligations tied to the lease negotiation language.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents (occupants without title) — They gain statutory notice rights that previously could have been limited to titleholders, reducing the risk they miss park rules, fee changes, or other critical communications.
- Homeowners who prefer electronic delivery — Those who opt into email delivery get a formal, revocable pathway to receive consolidated annual notices electronically, which can speed receipt and lower paper handling.
- Tenant and legal advocates — Clearer consent and revocation standards, plus the bilingual confirmation requirement, give advocates concrete procedural claims to enforce and help tenants understand their communication options.
Who Bears the Cost
- Park owners and on‑site management — They must update recordkeeping to track both homeowners and residents, implement separate consent forms, send five‑day confirmation notices in multiple languages, and handle revocations without charging fees.
- Property managers and third‑party vendors — Those who operate mailing and notice systems will need procedural changes and possible software updates to log consents, store bilingual templates, and prove timing of delivery.
- Low‑income or digitally disconnected residents — Those without reliable email, limited English proficiency beyond the negotiation language, or low digital literacy risk losing paper notice receipt if managers rely on emailed notices and fail to ensure informed consent.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 391 balances two legitimate goals — reducing administrative cost and modernizing communications through email, and protecting access to critical legal notices — by requiring explicit, separate consent and a bilingual confirmation. The central dilemma is that the same digital path that makes notice delivery cheaper and faster also increases the risk that vulnerable residents will lose effective notice unless managers implement robust, multilingual consent processes and maintain airtight records.
The bill creates a well‑defined consent path but leaves several operational details unresolved. It defines consent as separate from the lease, which narrows acceptable proof, yet it does not prescribe a specific consent form or retention period; managers must determine what documentation courts will accept.
The requirement to send a confirmation in the primary negotiation language imports Section 1632's language rule, but parks will need a process to identify that language for each tenancy and to maintain translations — a nontrivial administrative task for parks with diverse populations.
Electronic delivery shifts the evidentiary battleground to records: parks will rely on stored consent forms and email logs to prove delivery, while residents can claim nonreceipt or technical failures. The statute requires revocations be “in writing” but does not expressly say whether a revocation by email counts; that ambiguity will matter in close cases.
Finally, AB 391 authorizes email only for the pre‑February 1 combined notices tied to specific statutory sections, so parks cannot unilaterally convert all park communications to email without additional consent or statutory authority — a limitation that may complicate operational choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.