Section 70-24-441

Citation: Section 70-24-441
Parent Document: Westview v. Lockhart & Greener MT v. Cunningham, 2023 MT 201 (2023)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2023-10-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9436506/westview-v-lockhart-greener-mt-... ↗

Full Text

1,872 chars

4
  Despite asserting the “lack of ambiguity in the Act forecloses consideration of [the legislative]
history[,]” the Dissent asserts the legislative history demonstrates the legislature intended to take
away protections the Montana Legislature explicitly provided to tenants who owned their mobile
home and rented lot space. Dissent, ¶ 29 n.1. Such an assertion is not plausible upon listening to
the actual hearing. The entire presentation by Representative McNutt was focused on how no
substantive changes were being made to the law as it existed. Doing away with a unique tenant
protection applicable to a unique class of tenants—mobile home owners who rent lot space—
which the Legislature repeatedly recognized as important over the preceding decade-plus is a
pretty substantive change. As previously noted, after adopting a grounds for termination statute
unique to mobile home owners who rented lots, the Legislature made clear for years prior to the
passage of the MRMHLRA that no-cause evictions of such mobile home owners were banned by
explicitly noting the no-cause termination provision of the Landlord and Tenant Act did not apply
to a tenant who rents space for a mobile home in a mobile home park but does not rent the mobile
home, the provision banning no-cause evictions was still in place when Representative McNutt
testified the bill was not making any substantive changes to the law regarding mobile home owner
landlord-tenant relations, and was only deleted from the Landlord and Tenant Act upon the passage
of the MRMHLRA because all provisions regarding tenant-owned mobile homes were deleted
from the Landlord and Tenant Act once the MRMHLRA passed. In light of this, we reject the
Dissent’s claim the legislative history “demonstrates the opposite legislative intent” (meaning the
Legislature specifically meant to do away with that protection).

Other Sections in This Document (499)

Full Text