Vindication! Thanks to T2-MHARR-MHProNews-MHLivingNews Attorneys for DOE and Manufactured Housing Institute Announce Litigation Pause of Pending Costly DOE Manufactured Home Energy Rule-FEA
“For these reasons, the Parties respectfully request that this Court stay litigation for 60 days, until April 22, 2025, and grant the requested extension of time for the remaining briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment.” So states the joint motion of attorneys for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and CHRIS WRIGHT, Secretary, in his official capacity and attorneys for the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and the Texas Manufactured Housing Association (TMHA). The motion is brief and speaks for itself, but the added analysis and commentary is perhaps as or more important than the ‘news’ of this joint motion. As millions should know, T2 is shorthand for Trump 2.0. FEA is short for facts-evidence-analysis.
CHRIS WRIGHT, Secretary of the )
United States Department of Energy in )
his official capacity only, )
)
Defendants. )
)
JOINT MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiffs, the Manufactured Housing Institute and the Texas Manufactured Housing Association, and Defendants, the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) and Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy, by and through their undersigned counsel (collectively, the “Parties”) respectfully submit this joint motion to stay litigation for 60 days, until April 22, 2025, and to extend the summary judgment briefing deadlines by 60 days. In support of this motion, the Parties state the following:
In this civil action, Plaintiffs challenge DOE’s final rule setting energy conservation standards for manufactured housing, see 87 Fed. Reg. 32,728 (the “Final Rule”).
The Final Rule provides a tiered set of standards, under which the stringency of the requirements for each of the two tiers depends on the number of sections of the manufactured home. See id. at 32,730. The Final Rule originally mandated compliance with its standards for both tiers by May 31, 2023. See id. at 32,728.
The Final Rule did not include testing, compliance, and enforcement procedures. See id. at 32,757. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant action challenging the Final Rule and simultaneously filed a motion to stay the May 31, 2023 compliance deadline, based in part on the fact that DOE had not yet adopted enforcement procedures. See No. 5.
On March 24, 2023, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) to delay the compliance date until after DOE published its final enforcement procedures. See 88 Fed. Reg. 17,745 (the “Delay NOPR”). DOE acknowledged that delaying the compliance date was “necessary” to “provide clarity to manufacturers and consumers regarding DOE’s means of enforcing the standards and how DOE will evaluate compliance.” at 17,746. On May 30, 2023, DOE finalized this rule, delaying the compliance date, for Tier 1 homes, until sixty days after issuance of enforcement procedures, and, for Tier 2 homes, until July 1, 2025. See 88 Fed. Reg. 34,411 (“Delay Rule”).
On December 26, 2023, DOE published a NOPR setting out enforcement procedures for the Final Rule’s energy standards. See 88 Fed. Reg. 88,844. As of the date of this filing, DOE has not yet published a final enforcement rule.
The Final Rule’s current July 1, 2025 compliance deadline for Tier 2 homes is now 130 days away.
Consistent with DOE’s prior recognition that enforcement procedures should be promulgated before the Final Rule’s compliance date, DOE intends to initiate rulemaking to propose a further delay to the Final Rule’s compliance date for Tier 2 homes.
To facilitate this rulemaking, the Parties jointly request a stay of this litigation and an extension of the current summary judgment briefing deadlines by 60 days.
Plaintiffs join this request—and agree not to file a renewed motion to stay agency action at this time—based on DOE’s stated intention to enter rulemaking to delay the Final Rule’s compliance date.
However, if DOE does not publish a NOPR or otherwise initiate rulemaking to delay the Final Rule’s compliance date within 60 days, Plaintiffs reserve the right to renew their motion to stay agency action, see No. 5, on an expedited basis, given that only 70 days would remain before the current July 1, 2025 compliance date.
Following the 60-day stay of litigation, if DOE has not published a NOPR or otherwise initiated rulemaking to delay the Final Rule’s compliance date, Defendants will not oppose expedited treatment of Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to stay agency action. In particular, Defendants will agree to an expedited briefing schedule that provides Defendants with fourteen days to respond to Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to stay.
If DOE does publish a NOPR to delay the Final Rule’s compliance date before the end of the requested 60-day stay, the Parties will file a joint status report proposing next steps, including whether to further extend the stay, within seven days of such publication.
Under the current summary judgment briefing schedule, Defendants’ combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is due February 21, 2025; Plaintiffs’ combined reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is due March 14, 2025; and Defendants’ reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment is due March 28, 2025.
The Parties request to extend (1) Defendants’ deadline to file their combined crossmotion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment until April 22, 2025; (2) Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their combined reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment until May 13, 2025; and (3) Defendants’ deadline to file their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment until May 27, 2025.
For these reasons, the Parties respectfully request that this Court stay litigation for 60 days, until April 22, 2025, and grant the requested extension of time for the remaining briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted, this 21st day of February, 2025.
/s/ Carlos R. Soltero
Carlos R. Soltero
State Bar of Texas No. 00791702 csoltero@maynardnexsen.com
Gregory P. Sapire
State Bar of Texas No. 00791601 gsapire@maynardnexsen.com
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
500 Bee Cave Road, Bldg 1, Suite 150
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 422-1559 – Telephone
(512) 359-7996 – Facsimile
Thomas W. Thagard (pro hac vice) State Bar of Texas No. 24134186 tthagard@maynardnexsen.com James C. Lester (pro hac vice) jlester@maynardnexsen.com
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 254-1000 – Telephone
Scott Simpson (pro hac vice) wsimpson@smgblawyers.com Daniel S. Weber (pro hac vice)
dsweber@smgblawyers.com
SIMPSON, MCMAHAN, GLICK & BURFORD, PLLC
100 Concourse Parkway
Suite 310 West Tower
Hoover, AL 35244
(205) 876-1600 – Telephone
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
JOSEPH E. BORSON
Assistant Director
Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Cassandra M. Snyder
Cassandra M. Snyder (D.C. Bar #1671667)
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
1100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 451-7729
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: Cassandra.M.Synder@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on February 21, 2025.
/s/ James C. Lester
James C. Lester
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
1) In no particular order of importance are the following observations, facts, and expert editorial insights
2) Let’s first note that MHARR and LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC (parent company to MHProNews and MHLivingNews) have specific professional service relationships, but they are each an independent operation. MHProNews and MHLivingNews is under no obligation to hold the same views as MHARR, nor does MHARR have any obligation to hold the views or praise the news. We periodically remind readers of that, but it really isn’t necessary since MHARR banner ads are on almost every page of the MHProNews site. It is just as important to note that MHI used to advertise with MHProNews, that MHI traffic has – per the known data as confirmed by left-leaning Bing’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Copilot – dropped sharply since that professional relationship between MHI and MHProNews ended. MHProNews demonstrably embraced the same editorial stance regarding key positions held by MHARR years before MHARR became a professional services client. Furthermore, the critiques of MHI began while MHI and several key MHI members were still sponsors of our site. Put simply, we have been a reliable and independent source for information, as both MHI leaders and MHARR leaders have each repeatedly said.
Put differently, MHARR arguably made a smart move while MHI arguably made a series of moral, legal, tactical, and strategic blunders which goes beyond what is outlined above and linked below. The examples below reflect that before and since the professional services arrangement with MHARR that MHProNews was critiquing MHI’s performance based on evidence. That said, it arguably cost our firm money to critique MHI and its insiders. But we reported and commented on what the evidence and MHI’s behavior apparently demanded for objective media reporting.
Uploaded on: February 6, 2019. Uploaded on February 26, 2017. “At the recent San Antonio MHI meeting, Dick Jennison and Lesli Gooch repeatedly made thinly veiled statements, aimed at MHProNews. But when these signs were first introduced, top MHI staff claimed it was aimed at ‘outside’ media, not ‘industry media.’ What caused this change toward a then dues paying association member (i.e.: MHProNews)? What message does it send to others in the association? What message does it send to the industry at large? Was MHI trying to create a de facto industry trade media monopoly? Uploaded on: February 6, 2019. The problems identified in 2019 and before have arguably only been clarified in the years since. Other than MHProNews and MHLivingNews try to find such direct requests for response addressed to MHI corporate, board, and association leaders for a transparent response to reasonable questions and requests for information. Good luck with that, because there is an evidence-based case to be made that MHI has largely more-or-less enjoyed benefits from the bulk of the non-MHProNews-MHLivingNews trade media, and MHI in turn have apparently benefited those allied bloggers and trade media. MHI has demonstrably produced incorrect, paltering, misleading, posturing messaging, videos, talks, and web content that hides the apparent pivot in the post-Berkshire Hathaway era (starting circa 2002-2003) of the industry at MHI that seems to tacitly if not directly favor industry consolidation. There is apparently simply too much evidence from publicly traded companies and others that are MHI members to deny the obvious that despite some lingo to the contrary, MHI’s authentic if not always stated agenda is industry consolidation. That alone consistently explains why MHI does what it has done since 2002-2003.
3) Note that in the early critiques the focus was on MHI’s ‘top staff.’ Meaning, then MHI President and CEO Richard “Dick” Jennison and then EVP Lesli Gooch. But not only did MHI corporate and board leaders ‘double down’ on Gooch and Jennison following concerning revelations that they had sent out messages to members and the industry that were factually incomplete and thus misleading, it became more apparent that Gooch and Jennison were doing what they were being told to do by MHI board and corporate leaders. As the IRS Form 990 filings by MHI apparently reflects, which has to be reviewed by key members of the MHI board before it is filed, Jennison, Gooch, then general counsel Rick Robinson and others reportedly received “bonuses” despite the fact that manufactured home industry production was under 100,000 units for the majority of the last 20 years, including several of the years during the Jennison-Gooch era.
This may be one of the most important documents to federal investigators or others who are probing manufactured housing’s historic underperformance in the 21st century. For context and details see: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/over-1-million-manufactured-housing-institute-doc-drop-top-mhi-staff-pay-revealed-additionally-unpacking-evidence-of-perjury-fraud-other-possible-federal-crimes-plus-mhville-stocks-update/ Note too that should this be determined to be part of collusion or conspiracy, per federal law, the statutes of limitations do not begin to run until the final act is performed. There is apparent evidence from publicly traded firms that are often members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) that a conspiracy to consolidate the manufactured housing industry is hiding in plain sight. The kind of monopolization method could be described as oligopoly. Because it is an ongoing conspiracy, the statute of limitations has not yet begun to run.
4) Left-leaning Bing’s AI powered Copilot confirmed several times that MHI is apparently failing at doing ‘the basics’ or common-sense steps needed to advance the broader manufactured housing industry’s interests. Given that MHI has for years and repeatedly claimed (apparently, falsely so) that they represent “all segments” of the industry, which means those firms that are notconsolidation focused.
MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report can be clicked to expand. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection, you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
5) With that backdrop (1-4), it should be noted that MHI failed to launch this litigation until MONTHS of public pressure from MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews and other related media efforts by that trio. As MHProNews and MHARR have revealed through exclusive evidence, articles, and interviews, MHI worked for some time to foster the DOE manufactured housing energy rule under the Obama-Biden (D) term for some time. MHI did so in conjunction with what MHARR sometimes calls “energy interests.” MHARR’s senior advisor Danny Ghorbani blew the whistle on the history of the DOE Energy Rule and MHI’s role in it during an in-depth report in a Q&A linked here on the MHARR website and which is the subject of the deeper dive linked below on the MHProNews Masthead.
6) It was largely MHARR, some allies they tapped into and/or organized, plus MHProNews and MHLivingNews that prior to the latest iteration of the DOE manufactured housing energy rule that put the pressure on that helped result in MHI being forced to pivot from working with Obama-Biden (D) era DOE to pushing back against it after being repeatedly exposed by the MHARR-MHProNews-MHLivingNews trio. More on that in the article linked below.
7) By contrast, left-leaning Warren Buffett funded nonprofits funneled money to the left-leaning Sierra Club which in turn sued the Trump 1.0 era Department of Energy (DOE) to get the DOE manufactured housing energy rule process advancing once again.
8) From time to time, MHProNews contacts MHI leaders, MHI linked attorneys, and/or MHI’s media relations professional with an offer like this. That was part of an email on the date shown below.
4) As usual, if anyone involved with MHI has feedback that they’d like to share on any report published on MHProNews, MHLivingNews, or in our new series on the Patch, feel free to send us those remarks in a separate message. We have and will continue to have an open door policy for on the record feedback from MHI.
from:
L. A. Tony Kovach for MHProNews/MHLivingNews
to:
Molly Boyle @fpmgi.com [apparently contracted media relations person, per MHI’s website]
date:
Dec 18, 2024, 2:06 PM
subject:
Molly, media outreach
There was no reply by anyone on behalf of MHI.
A more recent message to MHI chairman Bill Boor was sent on Thu, Jan 23, 9:18 AM ET.
from:
L. A. Tony Kovach for MHProNews/MHLivingNews
to:
William “Bill” Boor @cavco.com
cc:
Tim Williams @21stmortgage.com Lesli Gooch @mfghome.org David Goch @wc-b.com [an MHI outside attorney]
date:
Jan 23, 2025, 9:18 AM
subject:
Bill, Tim, Lesli, and David, media outreach on NerdWallet issue
That is despite the fact that during the early and mid-points of the Dick Jennison era at MHI, all MHI leaders, staff and corporate, would respond in a timely manner to MHProNews inquiries.
9) After months of pressure by MHARR, MHProNews/MHLivingNews, MHI in conjunction with the Texas Manufactured Housing Association (TMHA) finally launched litigation.
10) But during the time that the litigation was NOT yet filed and after it was filed, the potential threat of that litigation may have been a factor fostering more industry consolidation. Some examples are shown.
11) Flagship is led in part by Nathan Smith, another former MHI chairman. If there is any doubt, and there should not be, from what is meant in their investor relations (IR) pitch screen capture above, the flashback to the following interview by MHProNews of then MHI leader Smith should bring it into even greater focus.
11) MHI has arguably been pushed into litigation. MHI have arguably been pushed by the presence of Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR at an MHI linked litigation hearing. Backhanded evidence of MHI’s foot-dragging is in evidence from the related reports linked below.
12) In addition to those insights, MHARR has made post-election outreaches to Trump Administration officials. If MHI did something similar, there is no evidence of that from their website, despite the fact that MHI claims to reflect this, per the MHI News landing page.
The latest news to give you a full perspective on the manufactured housing industry. From manufacturers to land-lease communities, retail to financial services, and suppliers to installers, we help you keep abreast of what’s happening in every aspect of the industry.
Routinely, MHI seems to react to posts and inquiries by MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews, and seems to follow our news items, and/or the news items posted by MHARR – the later of which makes no similar claim as MHI’s boast above of keeping readers: “abreast of what’s happening in every aspect of the industry.”
13) To be clear, MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews could just as easily do interviews with MHI and/or MHI linked leaders, as we previously did numerous times for several years. Those past interviews have become historic evidence of the evolution of this platform’s understanding of what MHI was doing and why. At first, for some time, this platform accepted MHI’s claims at face value and did for years. But as it became increasingly apparent that MHI was leaving out key facts in messaging to their own members that changed the meaning of what they were claiming, it became too problematic to ignore MHI’s behavior. Copilot and humans have noted similarly, including people that were in the MHI orbit and/or an MHI linked state association.
14) There have been, from time to time, remarks made by some in the MHI-aligned blogging/publishing orbit that might be seen as critical of that organization. But a key tell that ought to be considered is this. Were they shown the door from membership – or threatened with litigation, as MHProNews was for a time – for their apparent criticism of “the Institute?” Meaning, was it accurate but posturing?
Goch is a paid mouthpiece for MHI. This pull quote from a letter from Goch is fascinating. On the one hand, Goch says that MHI is working for the interests of all and they want all points of view. But then, Goch threatens in writing a then MHI member who dared question the association. They cannot have it both ways. Part of the irony is that in hindsight, as the evidence mounts, it becomes obvious that MHI has postured efforts for some 20+ years, since the start of the Berkshire era of manufactured housing began. Coincidence? Or just part of a broader plan that has benefited a few at great cost and harm to the many? ICYMI, or need a reminder, this message quoted above was to another SECO linked figure, Spencer Roane. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-outside-attorney-david-gochs-statement-to-angry-threatening-member-speaks-volumes-plus-sunday-weekly-mhville-headlines-in-review/
15) MHI is arguably in some ways a scam. MHProNews and MHARR have essentially documented those concerns on several occasions. MHI has not challenged those concerns publicly. While “silence betokens consent” is not the U.S. standard, there are certainly those who could assert that the evidence advanced by third-parties and sources like MHARR and MHProNews creates a prima facie case against MHI that they have declined defending against.
16) Outside antitrust and consumer rights advocate legal researcher Samuel “Sam” Strommen cited the above as part of his case against Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion (SKY), Cavco Industries (CVCO) and what he called “the REITs.”
17) There are numerous antitrust cases brought against firms often members of MHI and/or linked to MHI connected state associations. It is getting harder and harder to ignore the evidence, no matter how much MHI wants to look the other way or distract others from by their ongoing meetings, photo ops, and showboat style posturing that routinely ends in no meaningful progress by MHI on the issues that they claim to be interested in solving so that the industry can grow, like “enhanced preemption” or the “Duty to Serve” manufactured housing mandated by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Time and again, MHI fails to do what common sense and the example of other trade groups and nonprofits reveal should be the prudent course of action, if MHI was serious instead of posturing.
18) Over a decade of evidence reflects that consolidation has been steady in MHVille while MHI has failed to do what MHI, and/or MHI leaders, themselves said should be their logical course of action. The litigation of the DOE energy rule should have been followed (or led) by litigation by MHI of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Law, 2000 Reform Act) given the obvious failure of HUD to enforce the “enhanced preemption” provision of that law. Other nonprofits have litigated on behalf of tiny houses, which have no similar protection or regulation under federal law as does HUD Code manufactured homes. Given that MHI-linked individuals themselves have said that they follow MHProNews and monitor what we publish, there is no way that they can claim ignorance. Besides, it is their job to know in as much as they claim to be working for all segments of the industry.
Copilot Fact Checks of Manufactured Housing Institute and MHI linked concerns about antitrust violations downplayed or ignored. MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report can be clicked to expand. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection, you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
Copilot Fact Check/Scan of Article on MHProNews about Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) Remarks on Trump Nominee Eric Scott Turner for HUD Secretary and to Russel Vought for OMB. MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report can be clicked to expand. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection, you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
19) MHI’s apparent failures are arguably closely linked to the behaviors of their dominating members. Manufactured housing has suffered in the 21st century, instead of thrived. Why, given that billionaires like Warren Buffett and the now late Sam Zell entered the business at various points in time and could have used their media and financial resources to boost and thus organically grow the industry? The answer to that concern is perhaps answered by longtime Buffett ally, William “Bill” Gates III.
20) It remains to be seen what the final disposition of the DOE manufactured housing energy rule case. But the early signs from T2 and prior Trump 1.0 term steps suggest that it would not be surprising if the DOE energy rule for manufactured housing will at some point die. On paper, MHI’s attorneys argued that there would be “irreparable harm” if the DOE rule went into effect. That said, that means that MHI’s delays in filing their case were arguably part of that “irreparable harm.”
21) During an affordable housing crisis manufactured housing is underperforming by several metrics. Develpment of new communities have crashed in the 21st century and are apparently exceeded by closures since 2000. Despite the evidence that developing is good business, per an MHI member, MHI’s interest seems to be limited to selling more tickets to events where they can ‘teach’ people how to develop and navigate zoning boards instead of suing to get zoning boards to honor the 2000 Reform Law’s enhanced preemption. If not for MHARR, there is a reasonable question to be pondered if there would be fewer, if any, independent manufactured home producers left.
22) MHARR has been criticized by MHI member George Allen on several occasions, but routinely in a curiously fallacious ‘straw man’ argument manner. MHARR is an independent producer’s trade group and says as much. It is MHI that says that they represent “all segments” of the industry, while apparently focusing instead mostly on larger members and consolidation, per the years of evidence shown and linked herein.
23) It should be apparent that MHI and their dominating members have the financial resources to sue on an array of topics, not just the DOE energy rule, if litigation were deemed desirable. But as longtime MHI member and attorney Marty Lavin noted, MHI routinely acts only in ways that benefit their insiders. That is why the press by MHProNews, MHLivingNews, and MHARR of MHI into suing on the DOE issue is “vindicated” by the recent events. While MHI spent the Biden-Harris (D) years cozying up to Democratic policies that arguably benefit site builders more than they do manufactured housing. Meaning, there is an arguably duplicitous pattern followed by MHI. They do what they are publicly pushed into doing (e.g.: the DOE suit), but have paid lip service to other issues.
24) As an MHI insider told MHProNews, since former MHI President and CEO Chris Stinebert left, the organization has ’empowered f-cking greedy leaders of companies that made MHI a tool for themselves.’
25) Chris Stinebert reportedly overall worked well, certainly better, with MHARR since the Jennison-Gooch era. Oddly, Marty Lavin, J.D., and the presidents and several vice presidents (VPs), before Jennison and Gooch (like Stinebert, Thayer Long, or Gail Cardwell).
26) The job of media is supposed to include holding the powerful to account and to shine a light on subjects that would otherwise remain dark or obscured. But by and large, MHI’s “amen corner” ignores the bad news, ignores the evidence of potential or actual wrongdoing, ignores conflicts of interests, failures in fiduciary duties, and apparent corruption.
There is always more to know. See the linked and related reports to learn more. That said, that’s sufficient to make the headline point that the pushback and attention brought to these issues related to MHI and the DOE energy rule arguably made the difference. It now remains to be seen if MHI will do what’s right in wrapping up this DOE case and if they will launch, or limit, manufactured housing by allowing the current bottlenecks to fester. Stay tuned for what’s next.
Our son has grown quite a bit since this 12.2019 photo. All on Capitol Hill were welcoming and interested in our manufactured housing industry related concerns. But Congressman Al Green’s office was tremendous in their hospitality. Our son’s hand is on a package that included the Constitution of the United States, bottled water, and other goodies.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
