AB 813 rewrites the grounds and procedures by which a mobilehome park manager may terminate a homeowner’s tenancy. It keeps familiar termination categories (noncompliance with law, disruptive conduct, certain criminal convictions, violation of park rules, nonpayment, condemnation, and change of use) but layers detailed notice, cure, and third‑party intervention rules onto nonpayment and change‑of‑use evictions.
Practically, the bill creates a three‑strike procedure for repeat nonpayment notices, establishes time windows during which legal owners, junior lienholders, or registered owners may cure a homeowner’s nonpayment (with limits), and bars termination under nonpayment or change‑of‑use grounds unless the park holds a valid operating permit. For park operators, lienholders, and homeowners, AB 813 reshuffles who gets notice, when money can cure a default, and when a manager can force removal of a unit from the park—details that will shape collection strategies, litigation risk, and transactional exposure among titleholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prescribes specific notice and cure procedures for nonpayment (a five‑day pre‑notice period, then a three‑day pay‑or‑vacate notice) and allows legal owners, junior lienholders, or registered owners to cure a default within a 30‑day window in certain circumstances. It also conditions termination for nonpayment or change of use on the park’s holding a valid operating permit.
Who It Affects
Homeowners in California mobilehome parks, park management and owners, junior lienholders and other titleholders, and local enforcement agencies that issue park operating permits. Mobilehome dealers and financial institutions are treated differently under the cure rules.
Why It Matters
AB 813 reassigns practical leverage in eviction and cure scenarios: it creates formal rights and limits for third parties to cure defaults, adds procedural steps before removal of a home, and links eviction authority to permit status—changes that affect eviction workflows, loss‑mitigation options, and potential creditor exposure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 813 restates the existing list of reasons a park manager may terminate a tenancy—failure to comply with law, conduct that substantially annoys others, specified criminal convictions on park premises, failure to follow park rules, nonpayment, condemnation, and change of use—but then builds a granular set of procedures around the most contested grounds: rules violations and nonpayment. For rule violations the bill requires written notice and a seven‑day opportunity to cure for a first offense; repeated violations (three or more in 12 months) remove the need for additional written notice for subsequent breaches of the same rule.
Nonpayment gets the most attention. The bill requires that an amount be unpaid for at least five days after its due date before management may serve a statutory three‑day pay‑or‑vacate notice.
That three‑day notice must include a bolded warning if it represents the homeowner’s third such notice within 12 months. If a homeowner has already received three such notices in the preceding 12 months (and each included the warning), management may skip a new three‑day notice for a later missed payment and instead serve a 60‑day removal notice to the homeowner to remove the mobilehome from the park.The bill creates a safety valve for third parties with an interest in the mobilehome.
Where a three‑day notice or a 60‑day removal notice is sent to the homeowner, the legal owner, junior lienholder, or registered owner (if different from the homeowner) can cure the default by paying the amounts due within 30 calendar days after the notice is mailed—subject to conditions that prevent repeated or institutional bailouts (a cure by those parties can be used no more than twice in 12 months and is not available to financial institutions or mobilehome dealers in certain contexts).AB 813 also ties eviction power for nonpayment and change‑of‑use terminations to the park’s regulatory status: the park must possess a valid operating permit under the Health and Safety Code for those grounds to justify termination. Finally, the bill spells out notice timing around change‑of‑use applications and approvals, requires disclosure to incoming homeowners when a change‑of‑use request is pending, and defines ‘‘financial institution’’ for purposes of the cure mechanics.
The statutory text also contains an operative date provision.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Management must wait five days after a payment’s due date before serving the three‑day pay‑or‑vacate notice, and that three‑day notice is then the statutory cure window.
If a homeowner receives three three‑day nonpayment notices within 12 months (each containing the required boldface warning), management may skip a new three‑day notice on a later default and serve a 60‑day notice requiring the homeowner to remove the mobilehome.
A legal owner, any junior lienholder, or the registered owner (if different from the homeowner) may cure a nonpayment default by paying amounts due within 30 calendar days after mailing of the notice to those parties, but such third‑party cures are capped at twice in any 12‑month period.
Third‑party cures are not available if the potential curer is a financial institution or mobilehome dealer; the bill explicitly excludes those entities from curing under select provisions.
The park must have a valid operating permit under the Health and Safety Code for a termination based on nonpayment or change of use to be valid—management cannot rely on those grounds if the permit is not in force.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Noncompliance with laws or orders
This subsection authorizes termination when a homeowner fails to comply with a local ordinance, state law, or regulation related to mobilehomes after receiving notice from the appropriate agency. Practically, it ties park managers’ ability to terminate to prior agency action: termination requires that the homeowner was already notified of noncompliance by the relevant governmental body rather than by the park alone, shifting the evidentiary trail toward agency records.
Conduct constituting substantial annoyance
The bill retains termination for conduct on park premises that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners, residents, park staff, or contracted service providers. That phrase remains fact‑specific and invites a factfinder to weigh frequency, severity, and context when disputes reach court; managers still need to document incidents to justify termination under this subjective standard.
Criminal convictions on park premises
This provision allows termination when a homeowner is convicted of listed offenses (certain assaults, prostitution, child sexual abuse, firearm possession, or felony controlled substance offenses) if the underlying act occurred anywhere in the park, including inside the mobilehome. It also adds an explicit exception: tenancy cannot be terminated on this basis if the convicted person permanently vacates the mobilehome and does not reoccupy it, which narrows park managers’ latitude where the offender has left the dwelling.
Rule violations and notice/cure process
AB 813 requires that a manager give written notice of an alleged rule violation and a seven‑day cure period before treating the act as noncompliance—unless the homeowner has already been warned for the same rule three or more times within the prior 12 months, in which case further written notice for that same rule is unnecessary. The manager still bears the burden to prove a violation occurred. For compliance systems this means maintaining dated notices and a violation history to rely on the three‑strike exception.
Nonpayment: timelines, warnings, and third‑party cures
This long subsection sets the timed sequence for nonpayment: an amount must be unpaid for at least five days after the due date before a three‑day pay‑or‑vacate notice is served; that three‑day notice must use a prescribed delivery method and include a bolded warning if it is the third such notice in 12 months. If a homeowner has been given three such notices in the past 12 months, management may skip a new three‑day notice and instead issue a 60‑day notice to remove the mobilehome, with certified copies sent to the legal owner, each junior lienholder, and the registered owner. The law creates a 30‑day window after mailing in which those third parties can cure the default under specific eligibility rules, and limits third‑party cures to two per 12 months.
Condemnation and change‑of‑use procedures
Subdivision (f) keeps condemnation as a termination ground. Subdivision (g) establishes staged notice duties when management seeks permits to change park use: at least 60 days’ notice before an appearance seeking permits, six months’ notice after permit approval (or 12 months if no permit is needed), and disclosure to prospective tenants about pending change‑of‑use requests. Subdivision (h) directs that the Government Code report tied to conversion requests be provided to homeowners at the same time as change‑of‑use notices, adding transparency around municipal conversion processes.
Permit linkage, definitions, and operative date
Subdivision (i) bars termination under nonpayment or change‑of‑use grounds unless the park holds a valid Health and Safety Code operating permit, shifting some of the verification burden back onto managers and creating a statutory defense for homeowners where permits lapse. Subdivision (j) defines ‘‘financial institution’’ and cross‑references the mobilehome dealer definition for the cure rules, important for determining who may or may not step in to cure. Subdivision (k) states an operative date for the statute.
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
- Homeowners who fall behind on payments: they receive an explicit five‑day grace period plus a three‑day cure window, and cannot be removed without the specific sequence of notices unless they've already reached the three‑strike threshold — this provides additional procedural protections and predictable cure opportunities.
- Junior lienholders and other nonowner titleholders: the bill grants them a limited, statutory right to cure a homeowner’s default within 30 days after notice is mailed, creating a narrow loss‑mitigation mechanism that preserves their security interests.
- Homeowners facing change‑of‑use evictions: linkage of termination authority to a valid park operating permit and timing requirements around permit applications give homeowners clearer notice and a defensible position when parks lack current permits.
Who Bears the Cost
- Park management and owners: they must track notice histories, serve certified mailing copies to multiple titleholders, verify operating permits before proceeding with evictions, and maintain documentation to rely on the three‑strike rule—raising administrative overhead and potential litigation risk.
- Junior lienholders and registered owners who may cure defaults: while given a legal right to cure, these parties face new short‑term cash exposure (a 30‑day window) and caps on how often they may bail out homeowners, altering their liquidity and loss‑mitigation planning.
- Local enforcement agencies and courts: agencies may see increased requests to confirm permit status and courts may face disputes over whether permit lapses invalidate termination notices, imposing additional review burdens and evidentiary fights.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension pits homeowner stability against owners’ and managers’ ability to enforce payment and repurpose park land: the bill strengthens procedural protections and third‑party cure options to prevent abrupt losses of homes, yet those same protections increase administrative costs, create timing ambiguity, and can delay or complicate an owner’s efforts to collect rent or change park use—there is no mechanism that fully protects both interests without imposing costs on the other side.
AB 813 introduces concrete procedural protections but leaves several practical implementation questions unresolved. The ‘‘substantial annoyance’’ standard remains deliberately fact‑specific and litigation‑prone; managers will need incident logs and witness statements to prevail.
The rule‑violation three‑strike exception eliminates repetitive notice requirements, but it also creates an evidentiary race: parks must show prior notices were properly given and tracked within 12 months. The statute’s third‑party cure mechanics create a predictable window for titleholders to avert removal, yet the 30‑day mailing trigger and the two‑cures‑per‑year cap produce edge cases—what if notices are misaddressed, delayed in transit, or challenged as untimely?
Missteps here could create disputes over whether the cure period ever properly began.
Tying nonpayment and change‑of‑use evictions to a ‘‘valid operating permit’’ is conceptually protective of homeowners, but it shifts to managers the burden of verifying permit status and to courts the task of policing administrative records. Where permits are contested, expired, or in process, eviction timelines may stall, producing mixed incentives: homeowners gain leverage, but managers face prolonged uncertainty over collections and park operations.
The bill also excludes financial institutions and mobilehome dealers from third‑party cure rights in certain contexts; the exclusion reduces the risk of institutional bailouts but raises questions about secured creditors’ remedies and the interplay with foreclosure or repossession regimes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.