Opinion ID: 2595517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: applicability of the mhpra

Text: ¶ 10 The first issue we must resolve is whether the trial court correctly concluded that the MHPRA is inapplicable in the instant case. The MHPRA, by its plain language, declares that [a] mobile home park or its agents may not terminate a lease or rental agreement upon any ground other than as specified in this chapter. Utah Code Ann. § 57-16-4(1) (Supp.1999). Thus, the MHPRA governs acts by a mobile home park owner to terminate a lease within a mobile home park. We therefore must determine whether Coleman terminate[d] a lease or rental agreement. ¶ 11 We begin by briefly examining the two most common types of tenancy that can be created with a residential lease agreement: periodic tenancy and term-of-years tenancy. [2] See 4 Thompson on Real Property § 39.02(c), at 492 (David A. Thomas ed., 1994). Two important differences exist between these two forms of tenancy: the duration of the tenancy and the manner in which the tenancy is terminated. See id. at 491-92. ¶ 12 A term-of-years tenancy lasts for the term specified in the lease agreement. See Restatement (Second) of Property § 1.4 cmt. d (1977). At the expiration of the specified term, the tenancy automatically terminates. See id. cmt. e. No notice by either party is needed to terminate the tenancy unless the lease agreement provides otherwise. See id.; 2 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property § 16.03[7][a] (1994). ¶ 13 A periodic tenancy, in contrast, involves a continuous succession of periods  one-month periods in the case of a month-to-month lease  and lasts for an indefinite time. See Restatement (Second) of Property, supra ¶ 12, § 1.5 cmt. c. Periodic tenancy does not terminate and renew itself at the beginning of each period; rather, each new period is simply an extension of the original period. See id.; 2 Powell on Real Property, supra ¶ 12, § 16.04[1]. Moreover, periodic tenancies never expire automatically because they are continuous by definition. 4 Thompson on Real Property, supra ¶ 11, § 39.06(b)(1), at 526. A periodic tenancy may be terminated only when one party gives proper notice to terminate it. See Restatement (Second) of Property, supra ¶ 12, § 1.5 cmt. f. ¶ 14 The foregoing discussion exposes the fundamental flaw in the trial court's reasoning. The court reasoned that the month-to-month lease naturally expired at the end of each month, taking Coleman's action outside the scope of the MHPRA, which deals with terminating a lease. This is not the case. A month-to-month lease, or any other periodic tenancy, does not simply expire, as the court concluded. As discussed above, it must be terminated, and it is the act of giving notice that triggers the termination of the lease. [3] ¶ 15 The lease agreement and notices concede this point. The lease agreement states that the Thomases' rental shall continue [u]ntil tenant shall terminate by giving owner 15 days notice prior to the end of rental period, or owner shall terminate by giving tenant 15 days notice prior to end of rental period. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the notice to Michael Thomas stated: This agreement can be terminated by the renter giving a 30 day notice to the owner. The agreement also can terminate by the owner giving the tenant a 30 day notice. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the notice to Harry Thomas was labeled termination of lease or rental agreement. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 16 Thus, when Coleman gave the notices to the Thomases, he was indeed taking action to terminate a lease or rental agreement. His actions therefore invoke the application of the MHPRA.