Marmion v. M.O.M., Inc.

ALPERT, Judge. This is a tale of two sections of the same statute in apparent conflict. We must resolve this conflict in order to determine the lease rights of a mobile home park tenant. The Proceedings The appellant, George Marmion, Jr., received a letter dated June 26, 1987, informing him that the owner of the mobile home park in which he lived, M.O.M., Inc. (trading as Parkway Village and hereinafter referred to as “Parkway”) had elected not to renew his “month-to-month term rental agreement.” Mr. Marmion refused to vacate the premises, however, and Parkway filed a complaint in the District Court for Anne Arundel County seeking his eviction.

The case was subsequently transferred to the circuit court when Mr. Marmion prayed a jury trial. At trial, Parkway moved for summary judgment. It argued that it was entitled to terminate Marmion’s month-to-month tenancy and then file suit to evict him as a ³⁸⁹ holdover under § 8A-1702 1 of the Mobile Home Parks Act (hereinafter “the Act”), contained in the Real Prop.Code. Marmion, however, contended that Parkway was not entitled to terminate his month-to-month tenancy.

He relied on § 8A-202(c)(2) of the Act which provides: Upon the expiration of each 1-year term, or upon request of the resident at any time during a month-to-month term, a park owner shall offer to a qualified resident a rental agreement for a 1-year period. He also cited § 8A-1101 which specifies only four grounds upon which a tenant may be evicted. Marmion argued that inasmuch as holding over beyond the termination of a month-to-month tenancy was not one of the four specified grounds for eviction, he could not be evicted. The trial judge granted Parkway’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of § 8A-1702 and a Court of Appeals decision, Cider Barrel Mobile Home v. Eader, 287 Md. 571 , 414 A.2d 1246 (1980).

In doing so, he specifically pointed to dicta in Cider Barrel that said “the [Mobile Home Parks] Act does not prevent a park owner from refusing to renew an expired lease____” Id. at 581 , 414 A.2d 1246 . 2 Obviously unhappy about his pending eviction, Marmion appealed asserting that: I. The trial court erroneously granted summary judgment because there existed a factual question as to whether appellant was a “qualified resident,” entitled to a lease. ³⁹⁰ II. Appellant’s lease may not be terminated except for cause. Legislative History and Purpose The State legislature enacted the Mobile Home Parks Act in 1976 in response to growing concern for the rights of the residents of mobile home parks. See Cider Barrel, 287 Md. 571 , 414 A.2d 1246 .

In 1980, the legislature added § 8A-1702, providing a cause of action for park owners who had tenants who held over beyond the termination of the rental agreement. At the time § 1702 was enacted, neither § 202(a)(2) nor any similar provision existed to give certain tenants the right to demand or be offered a one-year lease. Thus, the Court of Appeals accurately pointed out in Cider Barrel : “[T]he [Mobile Home Parks] Act does not prevent a park owner from refusing to renew an expired lease----” 287 Md. at 581 , 414 A.2d 1246 . Without an obligation to renew, the park owner could refuse to renew a lease, thus making a tenant who remained on the premises beyond the lease expiration a holdover within the purview of § 8A-1702.

Finally, in 1985, the legislature amended the act by adding § 8A-202(c), giving certain qualified tenants the right to a continual renewal of their lease under certain circumstances. The General Assembly expressed its “Legislative Intent” in part as follows: The intent of Senate Bill 869 is to require a mobile park owner to offer a renewal of the rental agreement for a one year period to a specified eligible resident, upon the expiration of an initial one year term, or at any time during a month-to-month term upon request of the resident. The intent is also to define the term “qualified resident”, to require a 6-month written notice of a lease termination resulting from land use change, and to require a written explanation as to why a resident is not a “qualified resident”. ³⁹¹ The purpose of Senate Bill 869 is to provide qualified mobile home owners some degree of protection from certain practices of certain mobile home park owners. See the “Summary of Committee Report” of S.B. 869, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, dated March 21, 1985.

It is the apparent conflict between § 8A-1702 (the tenant holding over provision) and 202(c) (the new annual renewal provision) that provides the genesis of this controversy. Thus, the general rule of statutory construction that an appellate court may not ignore the clear language of a statute in order to effectuate what it perceives to be the legislative intent is inapplicable to the case sub judice. See Newman v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 311 Md. 721, 723 , 537 A.2d 274 (1988) (“[WJhen we seek to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent, the primary source is the language of the statute itself.”) See also G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 308 Md. 746 , 521 A.2d 1225 (1987). A court must construe an ambiguous statute so as to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature expressed in the statute.

See Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513 , 525 A.2d 628 (1987). As Judge William H. Adkins, II explained for the court in Kaczorowski : [W]here a statute is plainly susceptible of more than one meaning and thus contains an ambiguity, courts consider not only the literal or usual meaning of the words, but their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives and purpose of the enactment. State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416 , 348 A.2d 275 (1975); Height v. State, 225 Md. 251 , 170 A.2d 212 (1961). In such circumstances, the court, in seeking to ascertain legislative intent, may consider the consequences resulting from one meaning rather than another, and adopt that construction which avoids an illogical or unreasonable result, or one which is inconsistent with common sense. ³⁹² Id. at 513-14, 525 A.2d 628 , citing Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Ins.

Co., 308 Md. 69, 75 , 517 A.2d 730 (1986) (some citations omitted). A leasehold interest in a lot in a mobile home park is governed by a statutory scheme separate and distinct from that which governs traditional leasehold interests. See § 8A-101 through 8A-1803 of the Real Property Article. The additional protection given a mobile home owner is premised on his inherent vulnerability as a person who owns a home but leases the land on which that home is located.

See Cider Barrel Mobile Home v. Eader, 287 Md. 571 , 414 A.2d 1246 (1980). As explained by the Supreme Court of Florida: Mobile homes come to rest in established parks, the wheels are generally removed, they are anchored to the ground, because of forces of the wind, connections with electricity, water and sewerage are made, awnings are frequently attached, and to a large degree they lose their mobility except, unless, and until the wheels are restored, disruption of electrical, water and sewer connections is had and a certain amount of dismantling and crating is had, all at a substantial expense of the owner of the mobile home who had bought such home with the expectation of being able to remain in the park for a not unreasonable time so long as he abides by all the reasonable regulations established by the park owner. The removal from one park to another becomes more than a mere hitching to a truck or tractor and pulling it away. To a large degree, mobile homes are occupied by people in the lower income brackets who cannot spend several hundred dollars at the mere whim of a lessor park.

The classification of mobile home park owners as distinguished from other landlords is reasonable and practical. Palm Beach Mobile Homes v. Strong, 300 So.2d 881, 886 (Fla.1974). Being mindful of these concerns, we return to the provisions at issue in the case sub judice. ³⁹³ Unraveling the Ravel Under the clear language of the statute, as a month-to-month tenant Marmion was entitled to demand a one-year lease at any time, as long as he remained a “qualified resident” of the park. The Code defines a “qualified resident” as one who (i) Has made rental payments on the due date or within any grace period commonly permitted in the park during the preceding year; (ii) Within the preceding 6-month period has not committed a repeated violation of any rule or provision of the rental agreement and, at the time the term expires, no substantial violation exists; and (iii) Owns a mobile home that qualifies for resale and passes an annual inspection according to the standards of the park. § 8A-202(c)(l).

Parkway at no time indicated that Marmion was not a “qualified resident” under the Code, 3 nor can it do so at this juncture. 4 Section 8A-202(c)(4) specifically provides that a ³⁹⁴ park owner who refuses to renew a resident's rental agreement on the grounds that he is not a “qualified resident” must give the resident “a written statement of the specific reason for nonrenewal of the rental agreement” within 5 days. It is not clear from the record, however, whether Marmion asserted his rights under § 8A-202(c)(2) and demanded a one-year lease. Marmion obviously asserted his right to continue on the premises under some sort of lease; his counsel at trial stated: There is [nothing] that would establish that Mr. Marmion is not entitled to a year-round lease. Summary judgment may be granted only if there is no dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

See Md.Rule 2-501(a); see also Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists, 268 Md. 32, 40 , 300 A.2d 367 (1973); Century I Joint Venture v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 63 Md.App. 545, 552 , 493 A.2d 370 , cert. denied, 304 Md. 297 , 498 A.2d 1183 (1985). If Marmion was a qualified tenant who asserted his rights to a one-year lease, Parkway could not terminate Marmion’s