State v. Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ex rel. M. JANE BRADY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) ) Respondent/Counterclaim ) Plaintiff Below, Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) MANUFACTURED HOME ) COMMUNITIES, INC., MHC ) FINANCING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ) TWO, and MHC OPERATING LIMITED ) PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Petitioners/Counterclaim ) Defendants Below, Appellees. ) No. 537, 2003 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 02C-08-029 Submitted: March 16, 2004 Decided: March 29, 2004 Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 29th day of March, 2004, it appears to the Court as follows: 1. On March 16, 2004, we held oral argument on appeal of the Superior Court s Final Order of October 3, 2003. 2. Upon joint Motion of the parties, this Court had approved an Order to expedite scheduling and designate the issues presented which limited the appeal filed by the State to the rent cap issue and limited the cross-appeal filed by MHC to the right of entry provision. 3. On March 17, 2004, a three judge panel of this Court entered an Order unanimously affirming the decision of the Superior Court on the rent cap issue on the basis of the opinion of the trial judge. 4. While the March 17, 2004 Order affirmed the holding that the proposed new form of rental agreement considered by the trial judge violated 25 Del. C. §7001 et. seq., we noted that a further explanation of our ruling on this issue would be issued in due course. This constitutes the further explanation of the Court. 5. The trial judge found the proposed new form of rental agreement want for vagueness, and that, as a result, that form of agreement did not meet the requirements of 25 Del. C. § 7001 et. seq.1 6. We conclude that the proposed new form of rental agreement violates 25 Del. C. § 7001 et. seq., because it fails either to track or accurately paraphrase the language of that statute. As the trial judge noted in his Opinion of August 29, 2003, [T]he Act now defines with specificity the entry restrictions placed upon a landlord. Emergency circumstances are exempted as are situations where a danger is posed to either people or property. 2 We conclude that the Disputed Rental Agreement (as it is referenced by the trial judge) is not vague, but rather, is an attempt to expand the landlord s right of entry beyond that granted by the General 1 2 MHC Financing v. Brady, et al., 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 309 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2003). Id. at *19. 2 Assembly in 25 Del. C. § 7001 et. seq. On that basis, we affirm the trial judge s conclusion that the Disputed Rental Agreement violates the Act and the Consent Decree of April 30, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. /s/ Myron T. Steele Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
