Facing eviction on WFN

[Bpeep]

They are also pretty hooped if they can't afford to legally defend their position. The first one to run out of money usually loses.

[Farmmaa]

I'm trying to figure how in fact they don't own the garage, yet it's been included in the chattels of the two previous sales.
Something doesn't make sense.

They do 'own it', but it doesn't matter....if the land owner wants any or all of that lot for use other than residential, they can simply take it back.

[justchequing]

Its like being held hostage when renting on such lands. IMO...

[Bpeep]

The lot, yes. But the building is a chattel on that lot.

[Bsuds]

Most Banks will not mortgage a house on Native land for this reason.

That should be a big red flag for those considering this type of purchase and give second thought to it.

While I do feel sorry for them I wouldn't have made this purchase in the first place!

[Bpeep]

I don't know enough about the laws governing this to engage in any intelligent conversation about it.
As much as I feel for them, I don't have a clue why someone would buy a house on rented land.
Buildings depreciate and wear over time, so even if you live out the length of a 99 year lease, you're still left with zero.

[Farmmaa]

The lot, yes. But the building is a chattel on that lot.

From the picture, it appears that the garage is a permanent structure....and thus, part of the land now.

[Farmmaa]

But they are not willing to do it!!!! And WFN is not willing to force them into it.

They have no choice...it is the LAW...but they don't have to do it until the tenants have vacated and all moving costs have been submitted.

They do not, however, have to reimburse for the loss of the value of that home no longer being lakefront, which is what it seems the tenants are demanding...not moving costs, but to be paid for the value they put into their home

[MAPearce]

From the picture, it appears that the garage is a permanent structure....and thus, part of the land now.

Yeah ... and looks like a good maintenance building... for FREE..

[Farmmaa]

Yeah ... and looks like a good maintenance building... for FREE..

Note to tenants....do not build a permanent structure on rented land

[Farmmaa]

Don't get me wrong here, I think what is being doe to these people is disgusting and immoral - but, it is legal.
It amazes me how many people on WFN don't even know about the existence of the Tenancy Laws, let alone know what they say.
Way too many of the owners or lease holders are screwing tenants right, left and center and getting away with it because people don't know the laws or their rights.

[Donald G]

The arrangement sounds similar to the lakeshore lots, many with cabins on them, that are to be found on a number of lakes south of Lake Country.

Although the cabins are bought and sold every one of them are located on lease lots owned by the Provincial Government and leased on a year to year basis. Most are so old that they could never be moved.

As was identified when the Mayor of Lake Country "et al" tried to force the people off of their leases the Judge (an original hearing and an appeal) determined that only the Provincial Government could cancel Provincial Government leases.

I'm not sure about renting on Reserve Land but the arrangement sounds a bit similar. The people had to have known that when they bought the mobile on leased Reserve Land. The situation with the garage sounds a bit unclear.

[LANDM]

I know nothing about this other than what I read, but a couple of things jump out as glaring inconsistencies.
They said they have a mortgage......this would have been a chattel mortgage or line of credit type of loan. Definitely not a standard mortgage. Did this not raise any concerns?
When they purchased, did they use any professionals to deal with any aspects of the purchase? If so, then lawyers/realtors/notaries would have supplied various documents relating to what they were buying. Did they receive any comment on these documents?
If they used none of the above and totally represented themselves in all aspects, did they not secure and read the appropriate documents?
They would have had to sign a lease. Did they read what they signed?
There would have been park bylaws. Did they read them?

It is obvious that, in a "normal" world, this would be treatment that would be outside the bounds of acceptability, likely both legally and morally. However, if you choose to lease on First Nations land, there are enough clear instances that are out there, many merely anecdotal, that should have raised huge red flags in the risk/reward thought process, that should have made them run for the hills. If it is a matter of them being evicted within the rules of the lease and whatever other WFN laws that would apply, then all of the crowd funding in the world won't help. They *bleep* off the wrong people, and those people don't have to answer to anyone.
I have empathy with them, in that they are being treated differently from their neighbours. However, I have little empathy for anyone that "buys" on First Nations land. They know they are getting a reduction in price over non-FN land! but the balancing factor is operating within their rules! which can be both personal and unexplainable.

[vinnied]

When will people learn? This happens time and time again. If they bought 8 Years ago, that would have been shortly after the fiasco down Westside road where the cabin owners were evicted off the native land. What a mess that was. Or the one in Sannich Mapearce gave.
Guess some people just have to learn the hard way.

[Farmmaa]

It's got little to do with buying on WFN land...look what happened to the residents of Hiawatha in the Mission.
Unless you buy a mobile home AND the land it's on....you have no legal rights to that piece of ground and can be evicted at any time for a variety of reasons.
This falls under the same principle that ousted the folks in the Mission...although it was just one lot and not the entire park - this time. That is...the owner of that land can take it back at any time if it is intended to be used for another purpose other than a rented residential lot.

To answer your other questions - some financial institutions do mortgage mobile homes.
None of this would be included in any individual park's rules and regulations...those deal only with that particular park's rules and not with WFN laws. ( pets, landscaping, noise, etc )
I have yet to see one single real estate agent advise buyers of the WFN bylaws or provide copies to them - in fact, most agents are about as blind to the laws as their clients.