Not if the owner gave up that right in a written agreement with the residents. The Appeals Court held that the owners of a manufactured housing community in Marshfield gave up the right to close it in a 1988 settlement that required them to keep the park open as long as they owned it, though the owners may still argue in the Housing Court that the settlement is unenforceable. The court affirmed the ruling against the residents on retaliation but vacated the ruling on their unfair practices claim. This is a published decision of the Appeals Court and is binding statewide.
What happened
The park sits on more than twelve acres of oceanfront land in the Brant Rock section of Marshfield and is open to residents from May through September. In 1987 the residents’ association and several residents sued the owners’ family over an earlier attempt to close the park. The 1988 settlement gave the association a right of first refusal if the park was sold. It also required the owners to reopen the park each year unless they told the association by April 1 about a bona fide offer they intended to accept. In June 2018 a stipulated judgment in a rent dispute confirmed that the settlement was still in force. Within weeks, the owners sent letters saying they would discontinue the park in two years. The owners acknowledged they wanted to close the park first because they believed the land was worth more without it. The Housing Court ruled for the owners on every claim.
What the court decided
In Blackman’s Point Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Call, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 711 (2024), the court reversed in part.
The settlement barred closing the park. The Manufactured Housing Act sets out procedures an owner must follow to discontinue a community, including at least two years’ written notice and payment of relocation costs or the home’s appraised value. G.L. c. 140, § 32L. Without the settlement, the owners could have closed the park by following those procedures. The Housing Court read those procedures into the settlement and ruled the owners could close the park if they followed them. The Appeals Court disagreed. The settlement was unambiguous: the owners agreed to keep reopening and operating the park, and it mentioned ending the tenancies only after a sale. That meant the owners contracted away the right to discontinue the park. A court cannot read statutory discontinuance procedures into an agreement that rules out discontinuance.
The court also rejected the idea that § 32L gives owners a “right” to close a park. The statute limits discontinuances; it does not create a right to them. The law’s goal is to avoid discontinuances of these communities. Greenfield Country Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Deep, 423 Mass. 81 (1996).
The owners had also argued that the settlement’s restrictions are unenforceable for other reasons. The Housing Court never ruled on those arguments, so the Appeals Court vacated the summary judgment and sent them back.
The retaliation claim failed. Under G.L. c. 186, § 18, a substantial change in the terms of a tenancy within six months after a tenant brings or wins a court case is presumed to be a reprisal. The owner can overcome that presumption only with clear and convincing evidence of an independent reason. The discontinuance letters came within six months of the 2018 judgment. But the trial judge believed testimony that the family had discussed the park’s future well before 2018 and that no one in the family wanted to run it. The Appeals Court treated that credited testimony as enough to overcome the presumption, so it affirmed judgment for the owners on this claim.
The unfair practices claim gets a new look. The residents argued the discontinuance letters confused them about whether they had to leave and whether the association could use its right of first refusal. The trial judge’s ruling on that claim rested on the reading of the settlement the Appeals Court rejected. So the court vacated the judgment under G.L. c. 93A and sent the claim back. It noted testimony that some residents moved out and that the association lost members, which bears on injury.
What this means for you
If you own a home in a manufactured housing community, the statute is not your only protection. An old settlement, judgment, or agreement with the park owner can give you more, including a promise to keep the park open.
The retaliation result is a caution. Timing creates a presumption, but an owner who convinces the judge it had independent reasons can still win.
Finally, a notice that leads residents to leave when they did not have to can support an unfair practices claim, especially when departures weaken an association’s ability to buy the park.
What to do now
- Find and keep every past settlement, judgment, and written agreement between residents and the park owner.
- Do not move out or sell your home just because you received a discontinuance notice. Get advice first.
- Keep your residents’ association active and its membership records current.
- Write down the dates of any lawsuit or complaint and of any notice that follows it.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
