Mobile home park in California charging extra fees for television service
<p>I live in a mobile home park in California. Recently, the park announced that our TV service will be provided by the park and instead of paying the TV provider, we will be paying the park directly.</p>
<p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&amp;sectionNum=798.25" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CA Civ Code S. 798.25(e)</a> says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any amendment to the park’s rules and regulations that creates a new fee payable by the homeowner and that has not been expressly agreed upon by the homeowner and management in the written rental agreement or lease, shall be void and unenforceable.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&amp;sectionNum=798.32" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CA Civ Code S. 798.32</a> says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) A homeowner shall not be charged a fee for services actually rendered which are not listed in the rental agreement unless he or she has been given written notice thereof by the management, at least 60 days before imposition of the charge.</p>
<p>(b) Those fees and charges specified in subdivision (a) shall be separately stated on any monthly or other periodic billing to the homeowner. If the fee or charge has a limited duration or is amortized for a specified period, the expiration date shall be stated on the initial notice and each subsequent billing to the homeowner while the fee or charge is billed to the homeowner.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These 2 sections seem to contradict each other. Is this a violation of the first section? Or is this in compliance with the second section? Or something else completely?</p>

<p><em>On the proviso that it constitutes a new fee</em>, tjis clearly violates the first quoted section of law, and is therefore not valid, regardless of how well it satisfies the second section.</p>

<p>Generally an action must satisfy all applicable laws unless each individual law grants specific exception to itself or one of the laws grants general exception to all others.</p>

<p><em>However</em>, it is not clear that changing <strong>the payee</strong> of the fee makes this a new fee, rather than merely a transfer of one which already exists. The former case would result in the above outcome of unenforceability, while the latter would mean no changes whatsoever in terms of the agreement.</p>

<p>You probably need to refer to case law, such as may exist, that applies in such circumstances.</p>

california civil-law