Representative Pata Home introduced House Bill 418 as a package of updates to the Mobile Home Park Act intended to strengthen protections for homeowners who own their manufactured home but rent the lot where it sits.

The bill would require written lease or rental agreements to commence tenancy in a mobile home park and set a minimum 24‑month initial rental agreement (with an option to convert to month‑to‑month after that initial term). It would extend cure periods for many violations, increasing some notice windows from seven days to 30 days to reflect the unique cost and difficulty of moving a manufactured home. The draft also revises termination procedures to require materiality for lease breaches, and raises the civil remedy for violations so tenants may recover double the monthly rent in some private‑remedy cases rather than a statutory maximum of $500.

Housing advocates and multiple residents described the consequences of abrupt notices or hostile park owners. Maria Grego of the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty said manufactured homes are a vital share of New Mexico’s affordable housing stock—15% of statewide housing—and said moving a manufactured home can cost $5,000–$10,000. Felice Rael, a trial lawyer and homeowner, and several residents offered anecdotal testimony about sudden sales of park land or abrupt eviction notices.

The New Mexico Association of Realtors, represented by Brent Moore, said in opposition the bill’s mandatory 24‑month initial term and a 12‑month notice before changing the use of a park are “unnecessarily restrictive,” and raised concerns about raising remedies and adding uncertain standards such as “materiality.” Park residents, AARP and housing advocates said the changes are necessary to protect seniors and low‑income homeowners from losing their homes or life savings.

Committee members extensively questioned the sponsor and experts about balance between tenant protections and landlord rights, the definition of a “material” violation, the scope of emergency removals for violent conduct, and the practical effects on small park owners. Representative Block and others said they were concerned about the extended timelines, the increase in private remedies, and possible unintended effects for small owners.

The committee first considered a motion to table the bill that failed, and then recorded a due‑pass recommendation; the committee vote on the due‑pass was 4 in favor and 2 opposed. Members signaled continuing work on technical language and urged the sponsor to refine definitions before floor action.