Manufactured Housing Tenant’s Bill of Rights Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 27, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to protect manufactured home residents from predatory practices by tying access to federal financing to the adoption of a 'Tenant's Bill of Rights' and establishing a framework for future protections and enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that owners of manufactured home communities must implement specific minimum consumer protections in lease agreements to be eligible for federally backed financing from programs like FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. It also establishes a commission to propose additional consumer protection standards and outlines penalties for non-compliance, including exclusion from future federal financing and direct monetary compensation to tenants.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that manufactured home residents, often on fixed incomes, are uniquely vulnerable to predatory practices by community owners, including sudden rent increases, unfair evictions, and restrictions on selling their homes. This bill provides essential protections, stabilizes housing for a vulnerable population, and leverages federal financing to incentivize responsible landlord behavior across a broad range of communities.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that these mandates could increase the cost and complexity of operating manufactured home communities, potentially leading to higher rents for residents or reduced investment in these communities. They might also contend that federal intervention in private lease agreements is an overreach into private contracts and could create an uneven playing field for community owners not seeking federal financing.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for a reader to understand its main intent and mechanisms within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Eligibility for Federally Backed Financing
This provision makes loans from FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac for manufactured home communities conditional. To be eligible, the community owner (borrower) must certify that all lease agreements in all manufactured home communities they own (or an affiliate owns) include the minimum consumer protections outlined in the bill. They must also provide documentation, including a copy of their standard lease agreement, to prove compliance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for leveraging federal financial power to ensure basic tenant rights, as many community owners rely on these loans. It creates a strong incentive for compliance without direct federal regulation of all communities.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this creates an unfunded mandate on community owners, forcing them to adopt specific lease terms to access capital, potentially increasing operational costs or reducing the availability of financing for some.
Tradeoffs
Balances the goal of tenant protection with potential impacts on the cost and availability of financing for manufactured home communities.
Section 3(b)
Manufactured Housing Tenant's Bill of Rights
This section details a comprehensive set of tenant protections that must be included in lease agreements. These include 1-year renewable lease terms, 60-day written notice for rent increases (with additional notice for larger increases), a 5-day grace period for rent, a 15-day right to cure defaults, rights to sell manufactured homes in place, rights to sublease/assign leases, rights to post 'For Sale' signs, 60-day advance notice of community sale/closure (with a right to negotiate purchase), and limits on tenancy termination to 'good cause' with written notice.
Section 3(c)
Incentivizing Enhanced Resident Protections
This provision states that any pricing discounts (covered pricing incentives) offered under federal loan programs must reward community owners for implementing resident protections that are more protective than the minimums established in Section 3(b). It prohibits offering incentives that do not meet this higher standard.
Section 3(d)
Public Transparency of Protected Communities
The Secretary of HUD and the Director of FHFA are required to create and maintain a single public website listing all manufactured home communities covered by the minimum consumer protections. The website must also list properties already covered by existing Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac tenant protections and explain how those differ from the new minimums.
Section 3(e)
Enforcement and Penalties
This provision mandates penalties for borrowers or their affiliates who willfully and materially violate the consumer protections or fail to include them in lease agreements. Penalties include a minimum 2-year prohibition from securing future federally backed financing or housing assistance. Additionally, specific monetary penalties are outlined for material violations of various protection clauses, such as 6 months of rent for termination violations, repayment of increased rent with interest plus 25% for notice violations, and significant amounts for violations related to selling manufactured homes.
Section 4
Establishment of Expert Commission
This section establishes a 16-member commission, including representatives from HUD, FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and appointees from Congress (including academics, former members of Congress, and current manufactured home residents). The commission is tasked with submitting a report within one year, proposing additional consumer protection standards that are more protective than the minimums in Section 3(b). These proposed standards would serve as a basis for future covered pricing incentives. The commission has specific operational rules, including hearings and public notice, and terminates upon submission of its report.
Section 6
Development of a Standard Site-Lease Agreement
The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), in consultation with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is directed to develop a standard site-lease agreement. The purpose of this standard lease is to provide sufficient certainty so that mortgage loans secured by homes in manufactured home communities using this lease will be eligible for purchase under the enterprises' single-family mortgage programs. The Director must submit this standard lease to Congress within one year.
Defines 'affiliate' broadly to include any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the borrower. This means the consumer protections apply not just to the specific community seeking the loan, but to all manufactured home communities owned by the borrower or any related entity.
Section 2(1)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, the broad implications of this definition for the bill's scope might not be immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Supporters argue this broad definition is essential to prevent community owners from circumventing the protections by structuring their holdings through various entities, ensuring comprehensive application of tenant rights across all their properties.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could create an undue burden on large portfolio owners, potentially affecting communities that are not directly involved in the loan application, and could be seen as an overreach.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the number of manufactured home communities and residents potentially covered by the bill's protections beyond just the specific property receiving federal financing.
Specifies that newly required charges without an estimated monthly amount are to be estimated at 5 percent of the previous monthly rent for the purpose of calculating rent increase notice periods.
Section 3(b)(1)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail designed to prevent a specific loophole, which is common in legislative drafting to ensure the effectiveness of the primary provision.
Case for: Supporters argue this is a critical anti-circumvention measure, preventing landlords from avoiding extended notice periods for significant rent increases by introducing new, unquantified fees. It ensures the spirit of the rent increase notice protection is upheld.
Case against: Critics might argue it's an arbitrary estimation that could penalize landlords for legitimate new charges if an estimate isn't immediately available, potentially leading to unintended consequences or disputes over what constitutes a 'newly required charge.'
Estimated impact: Ensures that the extended notice period for substantial rent increases (over 5%) cannot be bypassed by introducing new, unquantified fees, providing greater stability and predictability for tenants regarding their housing costs.