Coalition For New HUD Code Manufactured Homeowners

PO Box 57974 t Modesto, California 95357-9714 t USA
Phone 209-571-0425 t Fax 603-925-5920

November 9, 2000

William C. Apgar
Assistant Secretary for Housing
Federal Housing Commissioner
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20410-8000

Mr. Secretary,

Thank you for your letter regarding the "Running Gear" issue. Your insight and intelligence on the issue is refreshing.

You have correctly discerned the difference between "Retention and Removal" and the rights of the "First Purchaser" not for resale to receive the totally integrated structure, which includes the "RG" as defined in the Standards.

Your second paragraph aptly describes in a "Nut- Shell" the "National Theft" by the "Retention" of the "RG" by manufacturers and or dealers. "Retention", exclusion or failure to include a "Requirement of Design or design Requirement" constitutes an "Alteration" by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's agent, the dealer, retailer, or distributor. This means that the home is non-complaint with the standards and cannot be sold, offered for sale, leased or offered for lease until the alteration is corrected and the home is compliant with the standards.

You have correctly identified that a manufactured home is transportable for its intended life, and that only the first purchaser can remove the running gear or authorize the running gear to be removed for aesthetic and/or practical considerations such as financing, etc.

In paragraph 5, you have clearly demonstrated the deeper understanding of the Fraud, Misrepresentation, Deceit and Conversion being perpetrated upon the first purchasers of New HUD Code manufactured homes by manufacturers and or dealers. Your lucid and pinpoint accuracy regarding, "...removal does not violate (after the completion of the sale) Federal standards", is a revelation to say the least but "Retention" is inappropriate and is in violation of the FHMCSS, S & R's. And further, State law for theft would govern those dealers and/or manufacturers taking possession by conversion of the "Personal" property of the first purchaser.

Your last paragraph was uplifting and insightful and getting close to "Full disclosure" for the protection of the purchasers of New HUD Code manufactured homes.

By encouraging manufacturers and dealers to disclose that the charge associated with the "RG" is a composite or total cost of construction will ensure, insure and assure that the purchaser is receiving a totally integrated structure as guaranteed by the FMHCSS. And that if a manufacturer and or dealer attempts to buy back the "RG" or retain, prior to a completed sale, in a contract or other agreement then enforcement of FMHCSS would be appropriate as well as additional Standards and Regulations governing the construction of a New HUD Code manufactured home.

The unlawful "Retention" of the "RG" by the manufacturers and or dealers across the Nation amounts to several "Billions" of dollars owed to the first purchasers of New HUD Code manufactured homes. Now that HUD has clarified and given definition to the difference between "Retention and Removal" of the "RG" by manufacturers an or dealers what is HUD going to do to assist in the recovery of the value associated with the "Retention" of the "RG? And what time frame for recovery may we expect from HUD in this endeavor?

Mr. Secretary, may we consider your letter a "Position Letter" or a "Letter of Interpretation"?

Sincerely Yours,

Joe Underwood
Consumer Recovery Agency &
National Complaint Information Center

John Taylor
The American Internet Society of
Manufactured Homeowners

Deborah Chapman
National Foundation of
Manufactured Homeowners