1. A. The owner of a mobile home park or the agent of such owner shall neither pay to nor receive from an owner or a seller of a mobile home an entry fee of any type as a condition of tenancy in a mobile home park.

2. B. As used in this section, "entry fee" means any fee paid to or received by an owner of a mobile home park or his agent, except for:

   1. (1) rent;
   2. (2) a security deposit against actual damages to the premises or to secure rental payments, which deposit shall not be greater than the amount allowed under Section 9 [8] [47-10-8 NMSA 1978] of the Mobile Home Park Act. Security deposits shall remain the property of the tenant, and they shall be deposited into a separate trust account by the landlord to be administered by the landlord as a private trustee. For the purpose of preserving the corpus, the landlord shall not commingle the trust funds with other money, but he is permitted to keep the interest and profits thereon as his compensation for administering the trust;
   3. (3) a fee charged by any state, municipal or county governmental agency;
   4. (4) utilities; or
   5. (5) incidental charges for services actually performed by the mobile home park owner or his agent or agreed to in writing by the tenant.
3. C. The trial judge may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees in any court action brought pursuant to the Mobile Home Park Act to the prevailing party upon a finding that the prevailing party undertook the court action and legal representation for a legally sufficient reason and not for a dilatory or unfounded cause.
4. D. The management or the resident may bring a civil action for violation of the rental agreement or any violation of the Mobile Home Park Act in the appropriate court of the county in which the mobile home park is located. Either party may recover actual damages, or, the court may in its discretion award such equitable relief as it deems necessary, including the enjoining of either party from further violations.

History: Laws 1983, ch. 122, § 10.

ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law. The reference to § 9 of the Mobile Home Park Act in the first sentence of Subsection B(2) seems incorrect, as that section, compiled as 47-10-9 NMSA 1978, deals with remedies. Section 8 of the act, compiled as 47-10-8 NMSA 1978, deals with security deposits.

Metropolitan court injunctive power. — Metropolitan court has jurisdiction to issue injunction to enjoin a party to a mobile lot rental agreement from violating the rental agreement or the Mobile Home Park Act. Martinez v. Sedillo, 2005-NMCA-029, 137 N.M. 103, 107 P.3d 543.

Jurisdiction. — The "the appropriate court" in Subsection D of this section includes the magistrate court, metropolitan court and district court within the jurisdictional monetary limitations of the courts. Martinez v. Sedillo, 2005-NMCA-029, 137 N.M. 103, 107 P.3d 543.

Notice of non-compliance. — Where landlord filed notice of non-compliance with rental agreement, this filing provided notice that the landlord contended that the tenant violated the rental agreement. Martinez v. Sedillo, 2005-NMCA-029, 137 N.M. 103, 107 P.3d 543.

The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. — Where plaintiff, a resident of a mobile home park owned and operated by defendant, filed suit alleging eight causes of action, which were merged by the district court into a single cause of action of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming that the lease which plaintiff signed in 2015 did not comply with the Mobile Home Park Act, 45-10-1 NMSA 1978 through 45-10-23 NMSA 1978, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as being time-barred, because a rational jury could have found that plaintiff did not have facts sufficient to trigger constructive notice of his cause of action until he received defendant's letter on April 9, 2019, which demanded plaintiff remove items in his yard in spite of a prior agreement allowing defendant to keep antiques in his yard. Defendant's complaint, filed on March 30, 2023, was within the four-year statute of limitations. White v. Amber Skies Cmty., LLC, 2026-NMCA-055.