New Mexico Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal in Mobile Home Park Case, Rules Absence of Required ADR Clause in Rental Agreement Not ‘De Minimis’

AlamogordoTownNews.org has run a series of articles on mobile home owners rights versus park operators and the laws regarding protections of those mobile home owners over the past year.  Related to that topic the New Mexico appeals court recently ruled on a case in favor of mobile home owners rights. 

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has reversed a 2023 Otero County District Court decision that dismissed a lawsuit filed by a mobile home park resident against the park’s owner and management. The appellate ruling, filed March 17, 2026 (No. A-1-CA-41931), strongly rebukes the lower court’s finding that the missing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provision in the park’s rental agreement was insignificant (“de minimis”).

The resident filed the pro se (self-represented) lawsuit in 2023, alleging multiple claims. One central count asserted that the 2015 rental agreement failed to comply with the New Mexico Mobile Home Park Act (MHPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 47-10-1 to -23 (as amended through 2007). Specifically, the agreement omitted a required statement informing residents of their right to request ADR/mediation for disputes with park management or owners.

Under the MHPA (Section 47-10-14), written rental agreements must include disclosures such as:

• The term of tenancy and rent details

• All charges other than rent

• A clear statement explaining the resident’s right to request alternative dispute resolution for most disputes (except nonpayment of rent/utility charges or imminent public safety emergencies)

The MHPA further provides in Section 47-10-17 that either party may request ADR/mediation — conducted by a mutually approved certified mediator — before filing court action in qualifying civil disputes arising under the Act.

The resident alleged that the absence of this mandatory ADR disclosure deprived him of his statutory right to pursue mediation for ongoing disputes with the park owner and management. He claimed that, had the clause been included, he would have requested ADR to resolve issues without litigation.

In dismissing the MHPA claim, Otero County District Judge Daniel A. Bryant ruled the omission was de minimis — too trivial to support relief. The court also dismissed a related fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation claim as time-barred and declined to admit twenty-five exhibits the resident offered during a hearing on the park’s motion to dismiss.

The resident appealed pro se. In a unanimous opinion by Judge Houghton, the Court of Appeals reversed on the first two issues:

• The misrepresentation claim was not time-barred; the district court misapplied the statute of limitations.

• The MHPA claim could not be dismissed as de minimis. The court emphasized that a provision explicitly required by state law cannot be deemed insignificant. The omission potentially violated statutory protections designed to give residents accessible, non-judicial options for resolving conflicts.

Because reversal occurred on these grounds, the appellate court did not address the excluded exhibits.

The case now returns to Otero County District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

This ruling reinforces the MHPA’s role in protecting mobile home residents — often vulnerable due to limited housing alternatives — by mandating clear written agreements and access to mediation. The decision underscores that compliance with the Act’s disclosure requirements is not optional, and violations can support viable claims even when initially dismissed at trial.

The full opinion is available through the New Mexico Court of Appeals website or the New Mexico Compilation Commission.

This story is provided as a public service by 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News & KALH Radio. For more on mobile home resident rights, review the full New Mexico Mobile Home Park Act (NMSA Chapter 47, Article 10) or contact local legal aid resources.

More News from Alamogordo

• Conviction Vacated, but Path Back to Office Remains Uncertain for Couy Griffin Couy Griffin Win in Court
• Election Day June 2 – Become a Poll Worker to Support Voters and Protect Our Elections Volunteer become a poll worker…