Facing eviction on WFN

[maryjane48]

well the one i walked on every day didnt have moorage for boats

[westbankkid]

You can't have something semi-private. It's either private or it's not.

What's next, being semi-pregnant?

That's where you are wrong. Go to KGH. Semi private is 2 beds and private is 1 bed...

[Farmmaa]

I'm not sure what you guys are smoking...but there is absolutely no private dock attached to this lot.
The lot clearly ends were the beach begins....it does not include the beach, lake or dock.

The beach...the entire beach, belongs to the WFN as part of the land agreement. It is for the use of the tenants of the park...as is the dock.

These tenants would have to be extremely arrogant to assume that this dock was put there only for their private use....and I can guarantee they didn't build it themselves.
it just happens to be in front of their lot.

Anyone can clearly see as well that the garage is NOT on the lot. Just compare the property line with the neighboring trailers...a straight line along the road which is far from where the garage sits.

[wanderingman]

Farmma my bad and I stand corrected Looking at the \deceptive Castanet pictures and then yours gives a clear line of whats where

[Farmmaa]

Farmmaa?? I'm not sure what you guys are smoking...but ?

totally wrong picture and also if u look at this picture the real long dock on the right is way way longer than in the correct setting one has\ also this dock in your picture has a cover canopy so that,s kind of what I call private

The wrong picture ? You can't see clear property lines unless it is presented in a certain setting or perspective for you ?

The dock on the right with the covered canopy is not part of the mobile home park...it is in fact, a private residence.

The long dock in front of the tenant's unit clearly has multiple areas for at least five or six boats to be moored.
Does it look like their private dock to you ?

To make it easier for you to understand...here are several difference views and perspectives...with property lines drawn according to the layout of the neighboring lots.

Beach...not part of their lot.
Dock...not part of their lot.
Garage...not part of their lot

[omisimaw]

WM you just like to stir the pot! IF there were special privileges included with the rental of the pad they would be spelled out in the rental agreement. Obviously this would include things such as the addition of a garage, dock and private beach!that are not available for any other spot, pad, piece of the park (call it what you want).

Just because these two have written it in ads to attract, suck-in, prospective buyers does not make it theirs.

Just because they "think" it is does not make it so and just because they were not personally "informed" does not make it theirs either. They two have voices and if they wanted to know the right thing to do was to ask, not assume! Especially if it was totally absent from the only binding legal rental agreement they entered into with the landlord.

So WM if you want to defend your "opinion" then by all means post a link to the agreement or post a quote from the agreement that states they had private, or semi-private attachments to this pad. At best the had "communal use" as do all other tenants of the park.

[wanderingman]

The botton line here is the ILO screwed these two people big time and the arbitrator is 100% wrong
To even begin to think anyone could disassemble this house as would be required to move it
and reassemble on another pad that would be large enough to accomidate it is as we simple folk say
has rocks in their heads(arbitrator).These guys by loosing the lakefront lease and trying to move this monster will loose
at least 100++++K if not more in monitary value and moving costs

[Bsuds]

the arbitrator is 100% wrong

Then I guess you should get a job as an Arbitrator as you are so much smarter! Amazing how someone can come to that conclusion without knowing all the facts.
The Arbitrator may not have personally agreed with it but legally had to come to that conclusion.

ps: it's "lose" not "loose"

[omisimaw]

The botton line here is the ILO screwed these two people big time

I dare say you mean the land owner and are not starting your racist under tones again!

and the arbitrator is 100% wrong

Brilliant deduction when you have none of the facts and obviously have not read the arbitrators findings. Once you do read the results you will see that it is the tenant that could not support their claims and the landlord has followed all the rules that are in place and which the tenants should have been aware of. If they were under some preconceived idea that they were somehow above the rules all tenants abide by then that is their ignorance, and they were 100% wrong.

To even begin to think anyone could disassemble this house as would be required to move it
and reassemble on another pad that would be large enough to accomidate it is as we simple folk say
has rocks in their heads(arbitrator).

These structures are created to be moved, but then again you think it is a modular home not a manufactured home, but either way both are created to be moved. Does it cost and is there structural damage to be expected when moved. Absolutely, but the tenants were the ones that bought a building/trailer without land sitting on pad in a mobile home park on a month to month rental basis so they are the ones that walked into it from the start.

These guys by loosing the lakefront lease and trying to move this monster will loose
at least 100++++K if not more in monitary value and moving costs

They are losing that amount anyway, but once it is stripped down to the actual structure it will not be as big and they may be able to recoup their decks and reconstruct at a cost of course but it can be done.
Yes they are loosing a place in a park that has a communal lake front but they are not the kings of the park and they have had over a year to resolve this *bleep* match.
Always, when push comes to shove the person that owns the land wins. I bet this whole thing started before these guys left on their holiday, but that is not so important as it would have been for them to return home and deal with this major now life changing event.

[wanderingman]

omisimaw

opinions opinions opinions alas we all have them. you have yours and I have mine

I think Iam right and you think your right and that's fine but don't go off yapping your 100% correct and all others whom disagree or have a different theory are wrong
The one thing here is there is no doubt that the ILO knew he or she could steal that garage and get away with it no doubt in any persons mind.
also Ray Charles could tell this structure as it sits is a hell of a lot more than a simple mobile home

[Farmmaa]

omisimaw

opinions opinions opinions alas we all have them. you have yours and I have mine

I think Iam right and you think your right and that's fine but don't go off yapping your 100% correct and all others whom disagree or have a different theory are wrong
The one thing here is there is no doubt that the ILO knew he or she could steal that garage and get away with it no doubt in any persons mind.
also Ray Charles could tell this structure as it sits is a hell of a lot more than a simple mobile home

A land owner who takes possession of a permanent structure built on THEIR land is not stealing anything.

Look at the photos for crying out loud...that garage was built outside of the boundaries of that lot. The tenants were lucky that they got to use it for free for 8 years....unless you have proof that they were paying extra each month on their pad rental agreement for it ?

The structure is nothing but a double wide mobile home...period. That's all it is, that's all it's worth.
Anyone who chooses to add 'extras' on to their mobile home on a rented lot should be aware beforehand that everything added must be torn down or removed when and if that mobile home has to be moved. Additions, decks, carports, hot tubs and gazebos...all nice to have...but they don't add value to your place if you don't own the land they are built on.

[LANDM]

The botton line here is the ILO screwed these two people big time and the arbitrator is 100% wrong
To even begin to think anyone could disassemble this house as would be required to move it
and reassemble on another pad that would be large enough to accomidate it is as we simple folk say
has rocks in their heads(arbitrator).These guys by loosing the lakefront lease and trying to move this monster will loose
at least 100++++K if not more in monitary value and moving costs

*Any* mobile with an addition of any sort is a PITA to move and will not be cheap. Just because they are called mobile homes, doesn't mean that they are truly mobile!
They didn't "loose a lakefront lease".......they were evicted on a month to month rental tenancy. Their month to month rental agreement that they entered into in 2007 would have spelled out the terms and conditions of such tenancy.
The arbitrator is not there to comment on whether this is easy or difficult for the evicted tenants to accomplish, or whether this is good or bad for them, or whether this is morally fair and decent.
He is there to ensure the rules were adhered to in a rental dispute. To say he was "100% wrong" is..........100% wrong. There is no doubt it is a lousy situation but that is why I would never enter into a month to month tenancy with a valuable asset that would be expensive to move. That the gentlemen in question chose to do that at the peak of the market, claiming that this puts their retirement in a perilous situation, is bizarre and unexplainable.
They could have purchased a newer condo somewhere in the area with proper and "safe" title for the same money and continued to spend great summers here and winters down south. Instead, they focused on reward, while ignoring risk.

Essentially, all they bought was a "guarantee" that they could be there for a month plus eviction notice time. Bad move. Sucks to be them. However, they had 7 or 8 years there so it wasn't a worst case scenario.

[omisimaw]

Ah yes the arbitrator and what he had to work with.
Well for starters the rental agreement and whether you have an "opinion" or not WM it is obvious that the garage structure, the dock, the beach and who knows what else they were claiming as theirs was simply not spoken to in that agreement as a side to the actual purchase of the mobile home.
Now the purchase of the home, well first off it also would be presented at an arbitration, especially when you are claiming financial loss and that set of papers would most definitely set out what was being purchased. As a matter of fact in this situation one would assume it would contain some "form" of a survey certificate as well. Again, it is obvious that what they claim to have bought and own and what they actually legally own are different.
Now lets look at the purchase from an unknown 3rd party back 7 or 8 years ago. If they had no right to sell something then these owners could go back after them. Especially if that garage had survived through more sales.
The whole issue with the garage is who built it. This is not rocket science and required building permits and maybe even a development permit but for sure there is a paper trail back to the original owner. From there it would be easy to trace any "sales" or change in ownership up to present day.
At the arbitration the gentlemen in question could not provide proof that they owned the structure.
As it was not built during their tenancy and without proof of ownership they have no grounds to take the position that it is theirs.
As Farmmaa has said, look at the pictures. And then realize you are the only one who thinks they are 100% correct even though you can not seem to grasp simple legalities of property purchase and transfer, rental agreements, arbitration rulings and even want to argue your point with a poster (LV) who has openly stated they lived in the park.
It is going to be an extremely hard sell at $70000 or even close to it. Add on moving cost and the repairs to the unit when moved and what you end up with is an aged manufactured home. Far better to buy a brand new unit, wait until this one is gone and then move a new unit onto this nicely placed pad!
Someone stated earlier that these fellows are making themselves out to be something they are not.. think they said something about good citizens or neighbours... but in any event with what has been posted in the media for sure they make some pretty dumb decisions on major issues.
What they are losing now compared to what a return ticket to Phoenix would have cost them a year ago is how it all began. They were willing to give up the garage but wanted the owner to wait till their vacation was over.
Owner said no, they want it done before these guys were set to return from their vacation.
Then the fellows start fighting over compensation for something they knew, or could have easily found out, they did not own and therefore were not entitled to compensation.
One can only presume that the mud was flying fast and furious by this point and it only got worse to the point where the landowner said enough is enough, here is your notice, goodbye.

[wanderingman]

somehow I think things were not quit as U imagine them to be but I must forget about it and move on
the message sent here and most agree.DO NOT buy a structure on a leased land unless its a federal
60 or 99 year type lease. Even then watch how much you invest

[chapjuan]

not sure how you all have come to the conclusion that the garage is not on their lot.............the whole thing is fenced in!!!!! The dock was part of their purchase agreement, therefore they own it but did not know until they went through their purchase agreement. the whole thing is ludicrous!!!!!! But..............on a positive not we will be having a garage sale with all proceeds to them, if you would like to donate to the cause, PM me. Thanks :)