Once a lender repossesses your manufactured home and sells it, the special eviction protections for manufactured home owners no longer cover you, so the new owner may recover the home without a statutory cause. But the Appeals Court also held that the owner still faced liability for a moratorium-era letter pressing the occupants to leave and for suing for lot fees a court had already ruled were not owed. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
Update (October 2026): In a later, separate eviction case between the same park owner and occupants, the Appeals Court upheld a finding that the owner created a tenancy at will by accepting the occupants’ monthly payments after the repossession without reserving its rights, and it affirmed dismissal of the owner’s eviction for nonpayment. Hayastan Industries, Inc. v. Guz, No. 24-P-1446 (Mass. App. Ct. October 7, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision).
What happened
The occupants owned a manufactured home in a park until their lender repossessed it in February 2020 after a loan default. The lender sold the home to the park’s corporate owner in March 2020. Nine days after buying it, the owner served a thirty-day notice to quit without cause, intending to repair and sell the home. In April 2020, during the COVID-19 eviction moratorium, the owner sent a letter urging the occupants to find another place to live and saying it did not want the sheriff to come with movers. Its later eviction complaint also demanded lot fees that the Housing Court had already ruled were not owed. The Housing Court ruled for the occupants on possession and on several counterclaims.
What the court decided
The Appeals Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and sent the case back in Hayastan Industries, Inc. v. Guz, No. 23-P-1149 (Mass. App. Ct. January 16, 2025) (Rule 23.0 decision).
Possession. G.L. c. 140, § 32J, lets a park end a tenancy only for listed reasons, such as nonpayment of rent or a substantial rule violation. The court explained that this statute protects manufactured home owners, and people holding under them, from being evicted from the lot. It does not protect occupants from the home itself. After repossession and sale, the occupants no longer owned the home and did not hold under the new owner. So § 32J did not apply, and the owner was entitled to possession. The Chapter 93A award built on § 32J fell with it.
The moratorium letter. The 2020 moratorium law, St. 2020, c. 65, barred landlords from sending notices requesting or demanding that a residential tenant vacate for a non-essential eviction. The owner argued the occupants were only tenants at sufferance. The court treated that argument as waived, and noted that a tenant at sufferance is still a tenant of a sort. Brown v. Guerrier, 390 Mass. 631 (1983). Because the letter did not say the sheriff would come only after the moratorium ended, the judge could find it implicitly asked them to leave during it. That violation stood.
But the letter did not violate the quiet enjoyment statute, G.L. c. 186, § 14. That statute targets serious interference that impairs the character and value of the premises. Doe v. New Bedford Hous. Auth., 417 Mass. 273 (1994). This letter did neither. The court also vacated the Chapter 93A award for the letter and sent it back to decide whether the letter caused an actual loss, economic or not, which Chapter 93A requires. Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, 445 Mass. 790 (2006).
The lot fees. Chapter 93A bars unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce. G.L. c. 93A, § 2(a). Whether a landlord acts in a business context depends on the facts, including whether its motive is business or personal. Billings v. Wilson, 397 Mass. 614 (1986). A corporate park owner that bought the home to fix and resell it was acting for business reasons. Demanding fees a court had already invalidated was unfair, and later dropping the demand did not erase the violation. The judge found the demand caused the occupant emotional harm, and the owner showed no error in that finding. The damages were sent back for recalculation.
What this means for you
If you live in a manufactured home community, your strongest eviction protections come from owning your home. If a lender repossesses and sells it, you may lose the cause requirement in § 32J. That makes a default on your home loan a serious threat to your housing, not just your credit.
Even so, you still have rights. A landlord acting in a business context, like this corporate park owner, who demands money a court already said you do not owe can face Chapter 93A liability, even if it later amends the complaint. And a landlord who breaks an eviction law may owe you damages if you can show the violation caused you a real loss.
What to do now
- If you are behind on your home loan, get help before repossession. Your status as owner affects your protections.
- Keep every letter and notice from the park or new owner, with the date you received it.
- Compare any amount demanded against past court orders. Point out fees a court already rejected.
- Write down how a landlord’s conduct affected you, and when. Chapter 93A recovery requires proof of a loss.
- Raise every defense and counterclaim in your answer, in writing.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
