Defendants were not authorized to decide on their own that this section did not apply to mobile home parks, and thus were not free to ignore the statutory mandate. Rather they were entitled to have a court determine which of the two statutes controlled the eviction issue without having their attempt to comply with both construed as consumer fraud. The award of summary judgment will not be disturbed. The Legislature struck this language prior to enactment. Thus, contrary to the trial court's interpretation of the Mobile Home Park Act, plaintiff's claim was actionable.
Legislative intent is the polestar in interpreting the meaning of a statute.
We will not presume that legislative silence bars an otherwise actionable claim. This is an improper basis for granting summary judgment. Rather, summary judgment is appropriate only where, giving the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences, there are no genuine ssues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Baldwin v. Upper Valley Serv. If the facts supporting plaintiff's claim are contested, evidently genuine issues of material fact remain.