‘Demand Cease Unlawful Govt Conduct’ ‘Obstruction Through Non-Response-Constructive Denial’ ‘Fever Dream.’ Inspector John Impellizzeri-Warren MI. MMHA Case No. 25- 004477-CZ. FEA

“Mandamus is an old common law remedy that allows a court to order government officials to perform their public duties,” per StateCourtReport.org › our-work › analysis-opinion. “A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties” according to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII). From the pleadings provided in Part I: “In 1961, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld a writ of mandamus requiring the City of Warren to issue permits allowing mobile home and trailer parks to receive water, sewer, and electrical services. See Knibbe v Warren, 363 Mich 283 (1961). As the Court wrote then, it was “apparent that the defendant city desires to and has made every effort at dissuading or flatly prohibiting mobile home courts or trailer parks” through “arbitrary and capricious” action and an unreasonable “exercise of the police power” that was “not predicated upon a substantial tendency to promote the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the people.” Nearly 65 years later, what’s old is new again.” Also from the pleadings in case Case No. 25- 004477-CZ is the following from the letter by John D. Lindley, President & CEO Michigan Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA) to the City of Warren’s attorney: “I am writing regarding several member communities’ efforts to install new homes in the City of Warren, efforts that unquestionably aid in addressing the housing supply and affordability crises shared nearly universally throughout Michigan. Specifically, although the Mobile Home Commission Act provides that the City may impose only the standards in place at the time a manufactured housing community was developed, the City is blocking communities from installing new homes unless they comply with new standards—in conflict with the Act.” “Members of the City’s zoning inspection staff appear to simply disagree with state law and have continued to deny residents the opportunity for new, safe, affordable housing options by applying an invalid ordinance in conflict with Michigan statute,” per Lindley’s letter on behalf of the MMHA. The text of that letter is found in #1 in the preface that follows.

MHProNews notes that beyond a writ of mandamus, the MMHA is asking for: “Declaratory relief is also needed to clarify which standards apply to the Association’s members going forward.” “Declaratory relief is also needed to clarify which standards apply to the Association’s members going forward,” according to the pleadings. Other relief being sought is found in the pleadings provided in Part I.

From the MMHA letter to the City of Warren’s Jeffrey M. Schroder.

1)

April 23, 2025

Mr. Jeffrey M. Schroder
Plunkett Cooney
38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, Ml 48304

City of Warren Zoning Inspector Blocking Improvements to Housing Opportunities

Dear Mr. Schroder:

I am the President and CEO of the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA), and I am writing to you in your capacity as legal counsel for the Warren City Council. The Association’s members include manufacturers, community owners, retailers, installers, service providers, and many others servicing the manufactured housing industry. I am writing regarding several member communities’ efforts to install new homes in the City of Warren, efforts that unquestionably aid in addressing the housing supply and affordability crises shared nearly universally throughout Michigan. Specifically, although the Mobile Home Commission Act provides that the City may impose only the standards in place at the time a manufactured housing community was developed, the City is blocking communities from installing new homes unless they comply with new standards—in conflict with the Act.

The City’s ordinance establishing new setback requirement for manufactured homes is unlawful and unenforceable as applied to any manufactured housing communities constructed prior to the City enacting that ordinance. In further review of this matter, because the City’s setback ordinance established a higher standard than provided under state regulations and the Michigan Mobile Home Commission did not approve that ordinance, the City’s recent setback ordinance is invalid pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, MCL 125.2307.

Although the state’s current regulations require a 20-foot setback (Administrative Code 125.1941(1)(a)), that regulation does not apply to any manufactured housing community that was constructed where previous regulations were in place:

A community constructed according to the standards in previous acts, rules, or local ordinances shall be maintained or altered in a manner consistent with the standards in effect at the time of original construction, including but not limited to spacing of homes, road widths and sizing and design of community infrastructure… Administrative Code 125.1947a(3).

Simply, a manufactured housing community is required to comply with the spacing requirements as provided by the state and local rules that existed when it was first built; however, the City of Warren continues to deny permitting for home installations unless communities use the City’s new requirements.

This matter has been discussed multiple times with several City Attorneys and Deputy City Attorneys, who have consistently expressed agreement and understanding of the applicable state statute and directed zoning officials to follow state law by applying the spacing requirements in place at the time the communities were developed. Members of the City’s zoning inspection staff appear to simply disagree with state law and have continued to deny residents the opportunity for new, safe, affordable housing options by applying an invalid ordinance in conflict with Michigan statute. The issue has unfortunately reached a level of consistency among multiple of our member communities within the City that the Association will soon be faced with an obligation to consider all pathways to resolution, including potential legal action.

My hope is that by calling this to your attention, perhaps members of City Council would be open to education on the impact this matter is having on housing providers and, therefore, Warren residents. I will follow-up with you directly for further communication. In the meantime, if I can provide further information or answer any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 517.449.0487 or jlindley@mmhrvca.org.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best Regards,

John D. Lindley, IOM President & CEO

Michigan Manufactured Housing Association [MMHA]

 

2) MHProNews reached out to Lindley for comment and updates. MHProNews also reached out to Manufactured Housing Institute leadership regarding this case. MHProNews further reached out to the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) for comment, but they were unavailable for a formal response at that time. MHProNews also reached out to Mary Michaels in the city attorney’s office for Warren, MI.

3) MHProNews notes that the PDF of the suit obtained from the court had numerous ‘artifacts’ and glitches that MHProNews made a reasonable attempt to correct and clean up where possible (see Part I). The full PDF of the litigation is found further below and should be referred to when a higher level of precision may be needed. Part I contains the bulk of the body of the MMHA pleadings in Case No. 25- 004477-CZ minus appendices.

The appendices contain eye opening insights.

4) This MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) is underway.

Part I. From the case pleadings.

FILED by Macomb County Circuit Court                                                          2025-004477-cz

       10/23 2025               MICHIGAN MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION VS. WARREN

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB

MICHIGAN MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 25- 004477-CZ

Hon. Richard L. Caretti

 

CITY OF WARREN, KIRK REHN, in his official capacity as Director of Building and safety Engineering,
and JOHN IMPELLIZZERI, in his official capacity as Building Inspector,

Defendants.

 

Jason T. Hanselman (P61813)

Kyle M. Asher (P80359)

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

201 Townsend St., Suite 900 Lansing, Mi 48933 | 517-374-9151

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising from the transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint in this Court or any other Court of the United States.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

Plaintiff Michigan Manufactured Housing Association (the “Association”), through its counsel Dykema Gossett PLLC, files this Complaint against Defendants City of Warren (the

“City”), Kirk Rehn, in his official capacity as City of Warren Director of Building and Safety

Engineering, and John Impellizzeri, in his official capacity as City of Warren Building Inspector, and, in support, states as follows

NATURE OF ACTION

1. In 1961, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld a writ of mandamus requiring the City of Warren to issue permits allowing mobile home and trailer parks to receive water, sewer, and electrical services. See Knibbe v Warren, 363 Mich 283 (1961). As the Court wrote then, it was “apparent that the defendant city desires to and has made every effort at dissuading or flatly prohibiting mobile home courts or trailer parks” through “arbitrary and capricious” action and an unreasonable “exercise of the police power” that was “not predicated upon a substantial tendency to promote the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the people.” Id. at 285.
2. Nearly 65 years later, what’s old is new again. Despite extreme shortages of affordable housing, the City of Warren is once more “dissuading or flatly prohibiting” manufactured housing developments through a series of targeted efforts that run contrary to Michigan law and the City’s authority.
3. Among other examples, the City is denying (or constructively denying by failing to rule on) permit applications for the construction of new manufactured houses that meet all applicable requirements. It is placing arbitrary and unlawful requirements on the construction of new manufactured houses or improvements to existing manufactured houses, effectively barring new constructions or renovations. It is unlawfully “red tagging” resident-owned-and-occupied structures, which has resulted in the displacement and/or homelessness of residents. It is failing to follow procedural requisites when red tagging unoccupied or community-owned manufactured houses. It is conducting constant, unlawful inspections within manufactured housing communities. And it is routinely misinterpreting or misapplying Michigan law and the City’s own ordinances when doing so.
4. The City’s actions have already forced at least one manufactured housing development in the City out of business. If allowed to continue, others will soon follow.
5. This conduct affects not only the owners of manufactured housing communities, but it ultimately disproportionately harms low-income residents who rely on manufactured housing as their only path to homeownership. In Landmark Estates, for example, a single mother of three, came home to find her home condemned by the City without any notice, and as a result was displaced and homeless with her children for months. Residents have repeatedly expressed that their greatest fear is losing their homes—not because they are unsafe, but because of the City’s unlawful practices that are designed to drive them out.
6. These actions are not isolated mistakes. Rather, they reflect a pattern and practice of hostility toward manufactured housing communities and their residents. And the result is a de facto policy of exclusion: by denying permits, imposing unlawful setback requirements and redtagging occupied homes without due process, the City has made it nearly impossible for manufactured housing communities to continue operating. This has stripped community owners of lawful property rights, exacerbated an already dire housing shortage, and displaced vulnerable residents — all in violation of state law, the City’s own ordinances, and constitutional protections.

PARTIES JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiff Michigan Manufactured Housing Association (“MMHA” or the

“Association”) is a Michigan nonprofit trade association representing the mobile and modular home industries with its principal place of business in Okemos, Michigan.

8. The Association has a membership of approximately 700 home retailers, suppliers, community owners, installers, service companies, financial institutions, and builders/manufacturers. These members include numerous manufactured housing communities located in the City of Warren, including Landmark Estates, Twin Pines, and Motor City Mobile Home Park. In addition to these still-operating communities, the Association’s members previously included Continental Mobile Village Mobile Home Park and Woodview Mobile Village Mobile Home Park, who were forced to shut down due to the City’s actions.
9. As set forth below, the Association’s members are directly and adversely affected by the City’s unlawful actions and would have standing as individual plaintiffs, meaning the Association itself has organizational standing. See Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle Waters N American Inc, 479 Mich 280, 296; 737 NW2d 447 (2007), overruled on other grounds by Lansing Sch Ed Ass ‘n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349; 792 NW2d 686 (2010).
10. Defendant City of Warren (the “City”) is a Michigan municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, located in Macomb County, Michigan.
11. Defendant John Impellizzeri is the City Inspector, responsible for conducting inspections at the Association’s communities.
12. Defendant Kirk Rehn is the City’s Director of Building and Safety Engineering, responsible for reviewing and issuing permits.
13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Const 1963, art 6, SS 13 and MCL 600.605, which vests the circuit court with original jurisdiction in all civil matters not otherwise excepted.
14. Venue is proper in this Court under MCL 600.1615.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

15. Manufactured housing is one of the last remaining sources of unsubsidized affordable housing in Michigan. Communities in Warren such as Landmark Estates, Twin Pines, and Motor City provide safe, attainable housing for hundreds of residents, including veterans, retirees, single parents, and families on fixed incomes.
16. The Association represents community owners across the state, including members who operate manufactured housing communities in Warren. These members are directly and adversely affected by the City’s unlawful conduct described herein.
17. As set forth below, in recent years, the City of Warren has undertaken a systemic course of action designed to obstruct the operation, rehabilitation, and improvement of manufactured housing communities within its borders.

Landmark Estates and Twin Pines

18. Landmark Estates and Twin Pines are owned and operated by Warren MH Holdings LLC (“Warren MH”). Landmark is located at 21908 Dequindre Road, and Twin Pines is located at 6815 E. 11 Mile Road.
19. Since acquiring these communities in 2024, Warren MH has invested over $500,000 in structural and cosmetic improvements, including utility infrastructure improvements, asphalt and concrete repairs and replacements, demolitions of homes that are no longer suitable, tree trimmings and removals, repairs, and general property clean up. See Affidavit of Brenton Chandler (“Chandler Aff.”), 3, Ex. A.
20. In addition, Warren MH has plans to make $675,000 in additional investments, including approximately $300,000 that it has earmarked in escrow to bring in 15 additional mobile homes and expand the supply of affordable housing in the City. Id 4.
21. There is significant demand for housing in Warren MH’s communities. As of August 2025, there was a waitlist of 50 people seeking housing in Warren MH’s communities.
22. The City’s actions have made that impossible. Due to the City’s arbitrary, unlawful, and discriminatory actions described below, Warren MH has been unable to move a single new tenant into its communities over the past year; it has been unable to add new housing to its communities; and it has been unable to renovate and improve the existing housing in its communities. Id. 6.

Unlawful and Harassing Inspections

23. The Mobile Home Commission Act (“MHCA” or “Act”) allows local

governments to enact ordinances “to inspect mobile homes for safety” within a mobile home park if the mobile home being inspected is being rented to a tenant by the owner of the  mobile home . . . A local government may inspect mobile homes rented to tenants by the owner for safety if the safety inspection ordinance applies to all other rental housing within the local “government unit.” MCL 125.2307(7).

24. The Act further provides that “[i]f a local government inspects mobile homes rented to tenants by the owner for safety, the period between inspections shall not be less than 3 years unless the local government is responding to a complaint from a tenant.” Id.
25. Local governments cannot “propose a standard related to mobile home parks …

or related to mobile homes located within a mobile home park, that is higher than the standard provided in [the MHCA] or the code” unless they “file the proposed standard with the commission” and obtain approval of that standard. MCL 125.2307(1).

1 An “inspection for safety” is defined as “an inspection of a rental mobile home that is limited to ensuring the proper functioning, or protection, of the following: (a) Furnace. (b) Water heater. (c) Electrical wiring. (d) Proper sanitation and plumbing. (e) Ventilation. (f) Heating equipment. (g) Structural integrity. (h) Smoke alarms.” MCL 125.2307(7).

26. In violation of MCL 125.2307(7), the City, through its Building Inspector John Impellizzeri, has repeatedly inspected homes that are owned by the occupants, and that are not “being rented to a tenant by the owner of the mobile home.” Chandler Aff. 8.
27. Also in violation of MCL 125.2307(7), the City, through Mr. Impellizzeri, is engaged in a practice of continuous monitoring and inspections of rented mobile homes.
28. Rather than inspecting homes “for safety” with “not less than 3 years’ between inspections, City inspectors drive through the Warren MH communities on a weekly (and, al times, twice-daily) basis to monitor and inspect homes. Id. Il 9.
29. These repeated inspections are not related to any public health, safety, or welfare purpose, and are not conducted in response to tenant complaints. Id.
30. Instead, they are designed to harass Warren MH and its residents, and to identify any reason to issue “red tags” (described below) and force residents out of their homes.
31. In addition, the City of Warren’s Code of Ordinances (the “City Code”) provide that “[a]n authorized city official shall not enter a dwelling without permission of the owner or occupant, unless a warrant has been obtained, or there is imminent danger to life, or otherwise permitted by law,” City Code 20-16
32. City inspectors have entered unoccupied homes within the Warren MH Communities without seeking any approval to do so, and without contacting Warren MH before doing so. Chandler Aff. 10.
33. Warren MH has repeatedly made the City aware of these violations, yet the City continues to patrol and inspect the properties without any basis in law allowing it do so.

Unlawful Redtagging

34. Under the City Code, the City may designate a building as “manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is used.” City Code, 9-165(6). But when doing so, the City must follow the procedures set forth in the City Code.
35. First, the City must “issue a written notice of dangerous building, structure, or premise to the owner, occupant, or other party in interest,” and this notice must “include the date of inspection, the name of the inspection, the name of the inspector, the condition of the building, structure or premises, the repairs necessary to abate the nuisance and the time within which the nuisance shall be abated.” Id. 9-168(a).
36. This notice “shall specify the time and place of hearing to determine whether the building, structure or premise is dangerous within the definition of section 9-165 or section 9166” and the “person to whom notice is directed shall have the opportunity to show cause at the hearing why the hearing officer should not order the building or structure demolished, made safe or the premise properly maintained.” Id. 9-168(c). “The notice shall be served at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing specified in the notice.” Id. And the “hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor . . A present employee of the city shall not be appointed as hearing ” Id. 9-169. A detailed hearing and appeal process is set forth in the City Code. Id. 9170 to 9-175.
37. The City has repeatedly violated these Code provisions. Residents have reported that Mr. Impellizzeri has walked the premises and automatically tagged homes that he thinks are unoccupied without following any inspection process whatsoever. Chandler Aff. 12.
38. In violation of the City Code, these red tags fail to specify the “condition of the building” that presents a nuisance and the “repairs necessary to abate the nuisance and the time within which the nuisance shall be abated.” Id.; see also Red Tags, Ex. 2 to Chandler Aff.
39. The red tags also fail to include a hearing date or provide any process to dispute the Unsafe Structure determination. _ld.
40. Essentially, the City is condemning properties without explaining why, or providing the property owners with any opportunity to cure the unidentified issues or contest the City’s unexplained findings as the City Code requires. Id.
41. Moreover, in violation of Michigan law, the City has improperly issued red tags on owner-occupied homes. Chander Aff. 13.
42. Under Landmark Estates’ prior ownership, a resident who had spent a month in the hospital returned to their home and found that the City had tagged his home as an unsafe structure that requires demolition. That resident was forced to vacate their home without being afforded any due process. See Letter from Michelle Oppelt to Senator Stephanie Chang, Ex. B.
43. In a separate instance, a single mother of three children came home to find that her home was also red tagged. This resulted in the mother and her children also having to vacate the home. This family was then left homeless for a period of months. Id.
44. Today, fear remains within the Warren MH communities that residents will be forced to vacate their homes as a result of the City’s unlawful red tags. Chandler Aff. 13.
45. Although the City Attorney’s office has acknowledged that the practice of tagging owner-occupied homes is improper, Mr. Impellizzeri has verbally stated, “I don’t care.” Id
46. Indeed, after Warren MH was advised by the City Attorney’s office to remove the tags on owner-occupied homes, Mr. Impellizzeri reapplied the tags within days, and proceeded to tag additional homes as “unsafe structures” that “may be ordered demolished.”

Improper Stop Work Orders, Unlawful Permit Denials, and Lack of Legal Clarity

47. In addition to the unlawful inspections and red tags, the City has also prevented Warren MH from renovating or obtaining permit approvals for existing homes.
48. Although the City has agreed that permits are not needed to make cosmetic repairs on existing homes, on August l, 2025, Warren MH was making purely cosmetic repairs to an existing mobile home, when the City, through Mr. Impellizzeri, red-tagged that home and prevented further repairs. The City did so without entering the unit or conducting an interior Rather, Mr. Impellizzeri issued the red tag based solely on a visual observation from the street, and did not provide any notice or opportunity for a hearing to contest the red tag.
49. After Warren MH sent a cease and desist letter for the City to stop its unlawful actions, the City retaliated by, on August 28, 2025, ordering all crews at Warren MH to cease the purely cosmetic renovations of existing homes.
50. In instances where the City maintains permit approval is needed to engage in renovations, the City has continued to move the goalposts, and has refused to issue permits unless and until non-existent requirements are met. As examples:
    1. The City has insisted that Warren MH provide a full engineered site plan before any new homes can be placed on existing lots. Chandler Aff. 16(a). There is no such requirement in the City Code or under state law.
    2. The City has demanded manufacturer certifications and foundation specifications for existing homes from the 1980s and 1990s before allowing renovations to move forward. Id. 16(b). Again, there is no such requirement under the City

Code or state law. Rather, these requirements apply only to new installations.

1. In a separate instance, a permit was granted in 2023 for the placement of a new home on Lot 55B in Landmark Estates. When the same application was resubmitted in 2025 under identical conditions, the City refused to issue a decision, despite multiple follow-up requests. The City has never issued a denial, but has instead left the application in limbo. As of today, five follow-up requests have been sent, but no written response or permit decision has been provided. Id.

16(c)•, see also Chandler Emails, Ex. C.

1. And in still other instances, the City has imposed requirements that do not appear in state, federal, or local law that applies to manufactured housing communities, including, among other things: requiring new concrete piers for older homes; requiring permits for cosmetic work such as painting, drywalling, and skirting (even though the Code does not require permits for such activities); and requiring a 3 x 3 foot landing at the top of exterior stairs. Id. 16(d).

51. In addition, the City is attempting to hold Warren MH to present-day setback and construction standards, even though Michigan law provides that “[a] community constructed according to the standards in previous acts, rules, or local ordinances shall be maintained or altered in a manner consistent with the standards in effect al the time of original construction, including but not limited to spacing of homes, road widths and sizing and design of community infrastructure.” Mich Admin Code R 125.1947a(3). See Chandler Aff. 17.
52. Because a 10 foot setback requirement existed at the time the Landmark community was constructed, that setback requirement remains in effect at that community today.
53. While Warren MH disputes that the City’s above demands are lawful, in many instances, it has attempted to comply with these requirements in a showing of good faith.
54. For example, Warren MH Communities paid nearly $10,000 to complete a full engineered site plan at the City’s urging. But when it submitted this site plan to the City, the City failed to respond for two months. And to this day, the City has yet to act on or approve permits
55. The City’s above demands appear to be based on a combination of the City’s misunderstanding of applicable law and its animus toward manufactured housing communities.
56. As to the City’s misunderstanding of applicable law, in several instances, in an attempt to comply with the City’s shifting requirements, Warren MH has requested clarification as to which standards apply, but in response, it has received different answers from different Chandler Aff. 20.
57. For example, City Director of Building and Safety Engineering Kirk Rehn has repeatedly pointed to construction requirements in the Michigan Residential Code, even though that Code applies only to a manufactured home used as a single dwelling unit installed on privately owned (non-rental) lots. Id. 21; Chandler Emails, Ex. C
58. In contrast, City Inspector Mr. Impellizzeri has admitted there are no explicit requirements relating to several issues he has identified in red tags (such as pier depth, sheathing materials, or site plans). He has stated that manufactured housing communities are allowed to select the Code they are operating under, pointing to the Michigan Building Code, the Michigan Rehab Code, HUD requirements, or ANSI requirements. Chandler Aff. 22.
59. Thus, while Warren MH maintains it has complied with all applicable laws, and that the City has no basis for imposing the above requirements, the confusion within the City as to which requirements actually apply has made it impossible for Warren MH to move forward even if it wishes to comply with the City’s shifting standards. Id. 23.
60. Each time Warren MH seeks to comply with these moving targets (such as the site plan requirement), the City imposes a new requirement that does not appear anywhere under applicable law. Warren MH has thus been unable to move in additional homes or obtain approval to renovate existing homes despite its numerous attempts to do so. And given the City’s differing interpretations of the law, it is impossible to meet the City’s ever-changing standards. Id.
61. As to the City’s animus, the City’s Inspector has made remarks to residents that he intends to have the park shut down; he has stated to other housing community operators “You really won’t want me over there crawling through your entire park and flagging every single thing — I’ll do it. and has told residents they should “live somewhere better.” Id. 1[24.

The Cumulative Effects and the City’s Retaliation

62. Warren MH has repeatedly tried to resolve these issues with the City, but these efforts have only led to further retaliation, including actions that threaten the viability of the communities and the housing of hundreds of residents.
63. For example, during the summer of 2025, Warren MH attended a Zoom conference with counsel for the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association, Mr. Impellizzeri, and others in an attempt to resolve these issues. Chandler Aff. 26.
64. Following that conference, however, blight officers have begun appearing at Landmark Estates and Twin Pines nearly every day (even though in the prior twelve months of ownership, no blight officers appeared at the communities. On October 2, 2025 alone, the City’s blight officers issued 14 tickets. There has been a noticeable uptick in the City’s patrolling and monitoring of the communities since that meeting.

 

65. Due to the City’s actions, Warren MH faces significant and irreparable harm.
66. Because Warren MH is unable to move in residents off its waiting list; to construct new homes; or to renovate existing homes, the occupancy in its communities is declining. This is directly impacting Warren MH’s ability to obtain loan refinancing and, therefore, directly impacting Warren MH’s ability to continue operating. Chandler Aff. 27.
67. If the City is not forced to immediately comply with applicable law and issue permits; cease its unlawful inspections; cease its unlawful redtagging of owner-occupied homes; cease its unlawful redtagging of other homes in the Warren MH without following mandated procedures; and cease its practice of imposing requirements on the Warren MH Communities that do not exist under state, federal, or local law before the Warren MH Communities can renovate existing homes or construct new homes, then the Warren MH Communities face the imminent threat of going out of business. Ids 28.
68. The Warren MH Communities are already facing reputational harm as a result of the City’s improper remarks to residents, and the City’s actions which have prevented Warren IVIH from making improvements to the Communities. If left unremedied, Warren MH will also face significant financial harm, as it will be unable to recoup the investments it has already made to better the Warren MH Communities. Id. Il 29.
69. The existing residents of Warren MH will also face significant harm, as they will be displaced from their homes. And the more than 50 individuals who are seeking to move into the Warren MH Communities will also be left without the opportunity to obtain quality affordable housing. Id.
70. Ultimately, not only will Warren MH suffer significant monetary loss, but hundreds of residents may be left without viable housing options due to the City’s actions. Id

14

Motor Citv

71. These problems are not unique to Warren MH.
72. Motor City Mobile Home Park is located at 23765 Lawrence Avenue in the City of Warren. That community has experienced similar issues.
73. Prior to 2022, Motor City had a productive working relationship with the City. It had made significant investments within its community, including electrical work, water and plumbing improvements, drainage work, common area improvements, cosmetic improvements such as painting, and a backflow preventer. Affidavit of Jason Janda, 5, Ex. D.
74. In 2022, however, City Inspector John Impellizzeri became involved and the ability to continue operating and improving Motor City became significantly more difficult. Since that time, the City has prevented new or existing residents from occupying existing homes within the Community, and unlawfully ordered Motor City to reduce the number of available homes within the Community. Id. 6.
75. At the outset, in October 2022, Mr. Impellizzeri indicated that virtually every vacant home in Motor City must be torn down, despite not entering or inspecting the homes to assess their condition. Some of these homes were owner-occupied, leading those residents to fear that they would lose their homes. Mr. Impellizzeri did not conduct any formal inspection or follow any required procedures when doing so. Instead, he simply wrote down a list of numerous homes as “vacant, dilapidated, & unsafe trailers infested & unsecured.” Id. 7; see also Ex. I to Janda Aff.
76. In an effort to cooperate, Motor City agreed to demolish seven of the homes, and Mr. Impellizzeri stated he would mark Motor City as being in compliance with the City’s requirements. Janda Aff. 1[ 8.
77. Within two years of that, however, Mr. Impellizzeri stated that an additional nine homes must be demolished. He issued red tags on those homes, again without entering the homes to inspect them or conducting any structural testing, even though the homes are legally compliant. In one instance, Mr. Impellizzeri issued a red tag on an owner-occupied home, causing the resident to have concerns that their home would be demolished. Id. 9.
78. When issuing these red tags, Mr. Impellizzeri failed to comply with the City’s ordinances, which require the City to identify the issue rendering the structure unsafe, provide for the ability to cure the asserted issue, and provide for a hearing to contest the asserted issue. Effectively, Motor City has been left without any ability to challenge the City’s unsafe structure or demolition notices. Id. I l .
79. In April 2025, other inspectors from the City walked by homes that Mr. Impellizzeri had red tagged and they did not understand why the red tags had issued. Id

80. In addition, Mr. Impellizzeri has informed staff at Motor City that as soon as a home becomes vacant, it is removed from the available housing stock within Motor City; that homes must be built and renovated in accordance with the Michigan Residential Code; and he has labeled the homes at Motor City “campers” that cannot be renovated even though the title to the homes correctly recognizes them as manufactured houses. Id. 12.
81. The City’s action have prevented Motor City from constructing new homes, renovating existing homes, and from moving new residents into Motor City, despite a demand from the City’s residents to move into the community. Id. 13.
82. Even when Motor City has attempted to comply with the City’s shifting (and improper) requirements, no progress has been made.
83. For example, Motor City obtained a professional zoning conformance report in September 2022, which found that the “existing use” of the community was “in conformance.’ Zoning Report, Ex. 3 to Janda Aff. This report explained that, while some aspects of the property (such as setbacks) were not compliant with the current zoning standards, “the subject property was constructed in 1950, which predates the current Zoning regulations, adopted June 9, 1987” and would be considered “pre-existing legal nonconforming.” Id. 15; see also Mich Admin Code, R 125.1950(l)(c) (“A community licensed under the construction standards of previous acts and rules for which a license was legally issued and valid at the time of these rules, or any subsequent amendment of these rules, is not required to fulfill the current requirements for community construction in these rules hereto for any alteration projects. “).
84. The Zoning Report also includes a letter from the City’s prior Zoning Inspector, Deborah Wenson, which states that a “site plan was never required for this property” and that

‘[t]here are certain areas of pre-emption on the part of the State of Michigan concerning the construction and operation of mobile home parks. One of the areas of pre-emption is the requirement of site plan approval by the local government. ” Id.

85. Wenson’s Letter further notes that the “property has been in existence prior to the enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance” and that “[a]ny mobile home that has a permit and received final inspection approval is legal non-conforming.” Id
86. Yet today, the City is still refusing to allow renovation of existing homes within the community. Motor City has more than 15 homes that it is seeking to renovate, but the City has issued red tags on 10 of these homes without following the required procedures. Motor City is hesitant to continue investing and completing work to improve the non-red tagged homes because, based on past experience, it is likely that the City will immediately red tag those homes, as well. Janda Aff. 19.
87. The City’s actions of ordering homes to be demolished, and red tagging the remaining homes, has created significant financial loss to Motor City. The inability to construct new homes or move residents into existing homes has directly impacted occupancy levels. And the decrease in occupancy levels has directly impacted Motor City’s ability to obtain loan financing, which will allow for further improvements to the community. Id.
88. This not only impacts Motor City, but it has also reduced the availability of affordable housing for residents of the City of Warren who wish to move into Motor City.

Woodview

89. Similarly, Woodview Mobile Village Mobile Home Park was located at 7062 Ready Avenue, Warren MI.

90. Woodview was licensed for 91 lots.
91. The City prevented new or existing residents from occupying existing homes within Woodview, and unlawfully ordered Woodview to reduce the number of available homes.
92. In 2022, Mr. Impellizzeri directed Woodview to re-map the community and, without any basis in law, indicated that the total number of sites should be reduced by one quarter.
93. In a good faith attempt to cooperate, Woodview retained a professional engineering firm to re-map the entire community with only 73 sites.
94. After spending time and money to develop and submit the re-mapped plan, however, Woodview did not receive any further communication from Mr. Impellizzeri regarding the matter, nor did it receive any approvals from the City.
95. Instead, Mr. Impellizzeri ordered the Community to demolish 23 homes.

The City also issued “red tags” (notices of unsafe structure) on numerous homes within the Community. As with the Warren MH and Motor City properties, Mr. Impellizzeri did not follow the required procedures for red tagging homes, and did not provide the required notice and opportunity for a hearing to contest the demolition order.

97. This prevented Woodview from moving new or existing residents into these homes, and left Woodview without any ability to challenge the City’s finding of an unsafe structure.
98. The City’s actions, which led to a decrease in occupancy, directly impacted Woodview’s ability to obtain loan refinancing, which depends on certain occupancy levels within its community.
99. Not only that, but upon information and belief, when Woodview sought to refinance the properties, Mr. Impellizzeri took it on himself to inform the lender that the property was a “landfill” and advised the lender not to finance the property.
100. Ultimately, these actions significantly constrained Woodview’s ability to successfully operate.

Continental

101. As one last example, Continental Mobile Village Mobile Home Park was located at 20785 Schultes Avenue, Warren, Michigan, and experienced similar issues.
102. There, the City attempted to impose a 20-foot setback requirement, and blocked the infill of over 20 lots.
103. Under the Michigan Administrative Code, “[a] community constructed according to the standards in previous acts, rules, or local ordinances shall be maintained or altered in a manner consistent with the standards in effect at the time of original construction, including but not limited to spacing of homes, road widths and sizing and design of community infrastructure.” Mich Admin Code R 125.1947a(3).

104. Continental was originally constructed before a 20 foot setback requirement existed, and the setback requirement in place at the time of original construction should have continued to apply at the Community.
105. Due to the City’s improper insistence on enforcing a greater setback requirement,

Continental was blocked from infilling over 20 lots, preventing the addition of new homes and

106. The City also issued “red tags” (notices of unsafe structure) on many homes within Continental. When doing so, the City failed to comply with its ordinances, which require the City to identify the issue rendering the structure unsafe, provide for the ability to cure the asserted issue, and provide for a hearing to contest the asserted issue. Id. 8.
107. As a result, Continental was precluded from moving new or existing residents into these homes, and it was left without any ability to challenge the City’s finding of an unsafe structure. Id. 9.
108. These actions created significant operational and financial challenges and ultimately forced Continental into receivership. This community has since ceased operating,
109. In the aggregate, these practices mirror those struck down in Knibbe, where the Michigan Supreme Court held that Warren’s refusal to permit mobile home parks was arbitrary, capricious, and not a valid exercise of police power. As in Knibbe, the City’s current practices

20

reflect a deliberate policy to exclude manufactured housing communities, regardless of the consequences for residents and the broader public.

COUNT 1

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

110. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
111. “To obtain a writ of mandamus the plaintiff must show that: (l) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the performance of the duty sought to be compelled, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial in nature, and (4) the plaintiff has no other adequate legal or equitable remedy.” White-Bey v. Dep ‘l. of Corrections, 239 Mich App 221 223-24 (1999).
112. Plaintiff has a clear legal right under the Act and the City Code to (l) obtain permits for the replacement of existing manufactured homes with new manufactured homes when the permit applications comply with applicable law and requirements; (2) to renovate existing homes in accordance with applicable law; (3) for the City to otherwise follow applicable law during the permitting process (including by not requiring permits for cosmetic work or other non-structural improvements); (4) to be free from unlawful, arbitrary, and repeated inspections and monitoring; and (5) for the City to follow applicable law and provide proper procedural protections before and after homes are red tagged. See Adams v Parole Board, 340 Mich App 251, 263; 985 NW2d 881 (2022) (granting mandamus when “plaintiff requested that defendant comply with the applicable statute in undertaking its decision” as to whether or not to grant parole).
113. Defendant has a corresponding clear legal duty to comply with the above requirements. See id. (finding a clear legal duty for an agency to “comply with its statutory requirements and guidelines in exercising its discretion and issuing its parole decision” and “to obey the Michigan and US Constitutions”).
114. Specifically, Mr. Impellizzeri, in his capacity as Building Inspector, has a clear legal duty to follow applicable law as it relates to the manner and frequency of inspections, and as it relates to the manner and procedures followed when issuing red tags.
115. Likewise, Mr. Rehn, in his capacity as Director of Building and Safety Engineering, has a clear legal duty to follow applicable law as it relates to the consideration and issuance of permits.
116. These duties are ministerial: the City is required to process applications and issue permits where the applicant satisfies the governing standards, and it has no discretion to impose requirements inconsistent with state law.
117. The City is also constrained by Michigan law in the manner and frequency of inspections it may conduct. See MCL 125.2307(7); Mich Admin Code R 125.1190(1) (defining inspection” to include “drive-throughs, walk-throughs, compliance inspections, or any other means from which visual or oral information would be obtained pertaining to the management or operation, or both, or any other aspect” of the community).
118. And it must follow the specific requirements set forth in the City Code when red tagging homes. Adams, 340 Mich App at 264 (the issue of “whether defendant complied with its statutory obligations” is ministerial, and “[w]hen agencies of government fail to perform duties imposed by the Legislature or the constitution, the courts will not hesitate to order performance”).
119. Despite these duties, the City, through Mr. Rehn, has refused or failed to act upon permit applications submitted by Plaintiff’s members, including applications that were identical

22

to previously approved applications. In other instances, the City has improperly denied permits based on setback requirements preempted by the Act, MCL 125.2307. And in other instances, it is improperly requiring permits to complete purely cosmetic repairs.

120. The City, through Mr. Rehn, has further obstructed permit issuance by imposing unlawful, extra statutory requirements such as engineered site plans, new foundation piers, and unattainable manufacturer “roadworthiness” letters for older homes—that have no basis in Michigan law or the City’s Code.
121. In addition, the City, through Mr. Impellizzeri, has continued to conduct unlawful inspections. Contrary to Michigan law, Mr. Impellizzeri has repeatedly inspected homes that are owned by the occupants.
122. Also contrary to Michigan law, Mr. Impellizzeri, is engaged in a practice of continuous monitoring and inspections of rented mobile homes. Rather than inspecting homes “for safety” with “not less than 3 years” between inspections, Mr. Impellizzeri has driven through the Association’s communities on a weekly (and, al limes, twice-daily) basis to monitor and inspect homes. These inspections are not conducted for “safety reasons,” but are instead a pretext searching for a reason to issue red tags or otherwise shutdown the Association’s communities.
123. Finally, the City, through Mr. Impellizzeri, has continued to issue red tags without following the proper procedures. Mr. Impellizzeri has issued red tags on owner-occupied homes despite the City Attorney’s office’s recognition that doing so is improper. And, given Mr. Impellizzeri’s statement that he does “not care” about this, there is no indication he will cease doing so in the future.
124. Moreover, the many red tags issued by Mr. Impellizzeri fail to specify the “condition of the building” that presents a nuisance and the “repairs necessary to abate the nuisance and the time within which the nuisance shall be abated.” The red tags also fail to include a hearing date and process to dispute the Unsafe Structure determination.
125. The Association and its members have no adequate remedy at law. The Association and its members have repeatedly requested that the City cease its improper actions to no avail. See Cease and Desist Letters, Ex. F. The City is not providing for the required hearings when issuing red tags, so the Association’s members cannot contest the City’s findings through administrative proceedings. And the City is regularly refusing to rule on permit applications, again preventing the Association’s members from challenging those (constructive, but not actual) denials of permit applications through other avenues.
126. The City is continually moving the goalposts, and preventing the Association’s members from constructing new homes, renovating existing homes, and taking other actions needed to continue operating.

COUNT 11 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

127. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
128. Pursuant to MCR 2.605(A)(l), “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, a Michigan court of record may declare the rights and other legal relations of an interested party seeking a declaratory judgment, whether or not other relief is or could be sought or granted.”
129. “An actual controversy exists when a declaratory judgment is needed to guide a party’s future conduct in order to preserve that party’s legal rights.” League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Secretary of State, 506 Mich 561, 586 (2020).

130. Among other things, the Association’s members are aggrieved by the City of Warren’s pattern and practice of refusing to issue permits for the construction of new homes or the replacement and renovation of existing homes; imposing unlawful requirements before permits will issue; red-tagging homes without following required procedures; and conducting unlawful inspections.
131. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the scope of the City’s legal authority. Plaintiff and its members have repeatedly raised these issues to the City, and the City has refused to change its conduct. Specifically, there is a dispute as to:
     • Whether the City may impose permitting requirements not authorized by the Act or the City’s Code of Ordinances;
     • Whether the City may delay or fail to act upon permit applications, thereby effectively denying them without rendering a decision;
     • Whether the City may enforce current setback requirements against manufactured housing communities even though those requirements exceed the requirements in place at the time communities were constructed and were not approved by the Mobile Home Commission as required by MCL 125.2307;

• Whether the City may red-tag occupied or resident-owned homes without notice, inspection, or due process, contrary to the City’s Code and the Act;
• Whether the City may red-tag rented homes without notice, inspection, or due process, contrary to the City’s Code and the Act;
• Whether the City may inspect owner-occupied homes despite the Act reserving such authority to the State of Michigan; and

 

• Whether the City may conduct weekly or daily inspections on rented homes in the absence of a complaint from the tenant.

132. Declaratory relief is also needed to clarify which standards apply to the Association’s members going forward. Different individuals within the City have sought to impose different (and ever-changing) requirements when the Association’s members have attempted to construct new homes or renovate existing homes.
133. This has resulted in significant confusion and rendered it impossible to meet these unknown standards. Clarity is needed so that the Association’s members can seek to comply with applicable law, and so that the City can enforce the correct law in a uniform manner, rather than enforcing a patchwork of laws that different employees apply in different manners.
134. Plaintiff and its members require a declaration of rights to guide their future conduct and preserve their ability to replace homes, operate communities, and house residents without unlawful obstruction by the City.
135. Absent declaratory relief, Plaintiff will continue to face arbitrary enforcement, permit denials, and unlawful red-tagging, resulting in displacement of residents and loss of affordable housing units.

COUNT 111 VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

136. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
137. Article l, 17 of the Michigan Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. “
138. Residents of manufactured housing communities in Warren, including the Association’s members, possess constitutionally protected property interests in their homes and in the continued use and occupancy of those homes.
139. The Association’s member communities likewise possess constitutionally protected property interests in the lawful use of their communities, including the right to replace and rehabilitate homes consistent with state law.
140. The City, acting through its officials, has repeatedly deprived residents and Association members of those property interests without due process of law. Specifically, the

City has:

1. Red-tagged homes without conducting inspections, issuing written notice, or providing an opportunity to cure or contest the alleged violations, in direct contravention of the City’s Code and state law, preventing the use or occupancy of these homes;
2. Constructively denied permit applications by failing to render any decision, thereby depriving community owners of the lawful use of their property without explanation or process; and
3. Enforced arbitrary and extra-statutory requirements for permitting, creating shifting standards that applicants cannot meaningfully challenge or appeal.

141. These actions have caused residents to be displaced from their homes — in some cases rendered residents homeless — and have deprived Plaintiffs members of the economic use of their communities.
142. The City’s conduct constitutes arbitrary and capricious government action not reasonably related to public health or safety, and therefore violates the Due Process Clause of the

Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art l, 17.

COUNT IV

PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 144. To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show: (l) irreparable harm will occur without the injunction; (2) the harm to the plaintiff absent the injunction outweighs the harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted; (3) the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits; and

(4) the public interest will be served by the injunction. Detroit Fire Fighters Ass ‘n IAFF Local 344 v Detroit, 482 Mich 18, 34 (2008).

145. Plaintiff and its members will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Without judicial intervention, the City will continue to obstruct the permitting and rehabilitation of manufactured homes, unlawfully red-tag occupied homes, and enforce preempted setback requirements, thereby displacing residents, reducing the supply of affordable housing, and depriving Association members of the lawful use of their property.
146. The City’s actions have already led to the closure of manufactured housing communities. And, if not immediately corrected, it will lead to the imminent closure of other communities, such as Landmark Estates or Twin Pines.
147. Moreover, the City’s due process violations are presumptively irreparable. E.g., Obama for America v Husted, 697 F3d 423, 436 (CA 6, 2012). And, as set forth above, the City and its Inspector’s actions are causing reputational harm.
148. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any harm to the City. Enjoining the City from enforcing unlawful ordinances and practices imposes no legally cognizable burden on the City, but it will protect residents from displacement and preserve affordable housing. Indeed, as set forth in the affidavit of Brenton Chandler and its supporting documents, the residents of these communities are concerned with the City’s actions.
149. Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims. The City’s conduct violates the Act, exceeds the authority of the City’s Code of Ordinances, and has already been condemned by the Michigan Supreme Court in Knibbe, which held that Warren’s obstruction of mobile home permitting was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
150. Granting injunctive relief serves the public interest. Manufactured housing provides critical affordable housing opportunities for Warren residents. Preventing the City from unlawfully red-tagging homes and obstructing permits will advance the public welfare, protect residents from homelessness, and ensure compliance with Michigan law.

REOUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michigan Manufactured Housing Association respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the City of Warren to (l) issue permits for the replacement of existing manufactured homes with new manufactured homes that comply with applicable law; (2) refrain from imposing unlawful and extrastatutory requirements on Plaintiffs members who seek to renovate existing homes and construct new homes in accordance with applicable law; (3) otherwise follow applicable law during the permitting process, including by not requiring permits for cosmetic work; (4) abstain from unlawful, arbitrary, and constant inspections; and (5) follow applicable law and proper procedural requirements before and after homes are red tagged.
2. Enter a Judgment:
   1. Declaring that the City must issue permits allowing for the construction of new homes and renovation of existing homes when the permit applications comply with applicable law and requirements.
   2. Declaring that the City may not impose unlawful and extrastatutory permitting requirements that do not appear in state or local law, including that the City may not enforce its setback ordinance against manufactured housing communities when the ordinance is preempted by MCL 125.2307. iii) Declaring that the City may not delay or fail to act upon permit applications, thereby effectively denying them without rendering a decision; iv) Declaring that the City may not red-tag occupied or resident-owned homes without notice, inspection, or due process, contrary to the City’s Code and the Act.

Declaring that the City must comply with the City Code and applicable law when red tagging homes.

1. Declaring that the City may not conduct inspections on owner-occupied homes.

• Declaring that the City may not conduct weekly or daily inspections on rented homes in the absence of a complaint from the tenant.
• Declaring that the City must comply with applicable state and local law when inspecting manufactured housing communities.

1. Clarifying the applicable law that applies to the construction of new homes, renovation of existing homes, redtagging of homes, and inspection of homes, given the City’s conflicting interpretations.
2. Declaring that the City of Warren’s conduct violates the Due Process

Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art I 17;

1. Enter Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions enjoining the City of Warren from:
2. Refusing to issue permits, or failing to rule on permit applications, that would allow for the construction of new homes and renovation of existing homes when the permit applications comply with applicable law and requirements.
3. Imposing unlawful and extrastatutory permitting requirements that do not appear in state or local law, including the City’s attempts to enforce its setback ordinance against manufactured housing communities when the ordinance is preempted by MCL 125.2307, when ruling on permit applications or issuing stop work orders iii) Applying inconsistent and unclear requirements in response to applications or requests to construct new homes or renovate existing homes, and issuing stop work orders as a result of this inconsistent application.
4. Redtagging owner-occupied homes in violation of state law.
5. Redtagging homes without following the required procedures under the City Code and applicable law, and without providing for notice or any opportunity to contest the red tag.
6. Inspecting owner-occupied homes.

• Conducting weekly or daily inspections on rented homes in the absence of a complaint from the tenant.
• Failing to comply with applicable law relating to permitting applications, inspections, and red tagging.
  1. Award Plaintiff its costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by law; and
• Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

 

Dated: October 23, 2025

025171.000044 4921-5281-4170.12

[s/ Jason T. Hanselman

Jason T. Hanselman (P61813)

Kyle M. Asher (P80359)

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

201 Townsend St., Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 | 517-374-9151

Attorneys for Plaintiff

—

Part II. Additional Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) from sources as shown including more MHProNews expert commentary.

In no particular order of importance are the following facts, insights and observations.

1) MHProNews notes that the PDF of the case file obtained from the court for the above controversy is linked here.

2) From the Q&A with MHProNews and Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini regarding this case.

 

In alignment with the Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) method, the following report unpacks the ongoing litigation between the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA) and the City of Warren (Case No. 2025-004477-CZ), exploring its potential as a catalyst for broader federal enforcement of industry protections.

1. The Facts: Case Overview and Allegations

Filed on October 23, 2025, in Macomb County Circuit Court, the MMHA lawsuit targets the City of Warren, Building Director Kirk Rehn, and Building Inspector John Impellizzeri.

• The Allegations: The complaint alleges a “pattern of hostility” characterized by the arbitrary “red-tagging” (condemnation) of homes without due process, the imposition of “extra-statutory” requirements that exceed state and federal law, and the deliberate blocking of permits to replace aging units with new HUD Code homes.

• The Relief Sought: MMHA has sought a writ of mandamus to compel the city to follow established law, along with declaratory and injunctive relief to halt what they describe as unlawful inspections and harassment of community residents and staff.

• Status: As of early 2026, the City of Warren has retained outside counsel and held several closed-door sessions to discuss the litigation strategy.

2. Evidence: The “Missing” Legal Arguments

The user correctly identifies a curious omission in the reported pleadings: the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000 and its Enhanced Preemption provision.

• Enhanced Preemption: Under 42 U.S.C. § 5403(d), federal standards for manufactured housing are meant to be “broadly and liberally construed” to preempt local requirements that interfere with federal superintendence.

• The Fair Housing Act (FHA) Pivot: While MMHA has reportedly threatened HUD action under the FHA—arguing that Warren’s actions disproportionately harm protected classes—they have not yet leaned on the MHIA’s mandate that HUD must preempt local zoning that discriminates against federally-compliant homes.

• Source: Paletz Law: Warren Blind to Advantages | MHARR: Why Enhanced Preemption Matters

3. Analysis: Strategic Insights and the “MHI Silences”

The case raises a fundamental question: If a state association (MMHA) is willing to take this “extraordinary step,” why hasn’t the national Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) followed suit on a federal level?

• MHI’s Passive Stance: Despite having billion-dollar member firms, MHI has historically avoided suing HUD or local governments to enforce the 2000 Reform Law. Critics, including MHARR, suggest this may be due to a “conflict of interest” where large consolidated firms benefit from the high “moat” created by regulatory barriers—barriers that keep smaller, independent competitors out of the market.

• The Writ of Mandamus Opportunity: A national-level writ of mandamus against HUD to compel the enforcement of Enhanced Preemption and Duty to Serve (DTS) is exactly what MHARR has called for. The Warren case proves that local hostility is a “man-made” bottleneck that could be broken if federal law were actually enforced.

• Potential for the MHIA of 2000: If the MMHA were to amend its pleadings to include the MHIA of 2000, it would shift the case from a local dispute over “inspector overreach” to a landmark federal preemption battle. This would force the court to acknowledge that John Impellizzeri and the City of Warren lack the authority to set standards for HUD Code homes that are already federally certified.

4. Conclusion: The “Man-Made” Crisis in Court

The Warren case is a localized “fever dream” of the broader national crisis. It highlights the absurdity of an inspector unilaterally “condemning” federally-regulated housing while the city blocks the very units that could replace them.

The Implications:

1. A Blueprint for Other States: If MMHA wins, it provides a roadmap for other state associations to bypass MHI’s national inertia.

2. The HUD Pressure Cooker: By invoking the FHA and potential HUD action, the suit puts pressure on the federal government to stop “looking the other way” while localities ignore federal law.

3. Validation of MHProNews/MHARR Warnings: This litigation confirms the long-standing FEA analysis that regulatory capture and lack of enforcement are the primary reasons the industry is underperforming.

Does this unpack the case and its potential federal “fix” as you intended, or should we look further into the specifics of the Fair Housing Act threats mentioned in the pleadings?

Sources:

• City of Warren – Council Agenda Dec 2025

• Patch: AI Fact-Check on MHI and Accountability

• GAO Report on HUD Implementation of 2000 Act

— MHProNews notes that the full Q&A with Gemini, which included additional sources and the input-inquiry that yielded that response is transparently linked here and was confirmed as accurate by Gemini at this link here. —

 

 

3) MHProNews notes that it first raised the notion of invoking a writ of mandamus to get the 2000 Reform Law and “enhanced preemption” enforced approaching 8 years ago. MHI can’t claim ignorance of this because their own former attorney, Rick Robinson, J.D., wrote a book about that legal process.  Robinson is one of the former MHI senior staff team members that have apparently been culled from their own website.

 

4) From the Q&A with AI powered Copilot.

…I can provide a thorough summary and analysis here based on the information gathered:

The Michigan Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA) v. City of Warren case (2025-004477-CZ) alleges that the City of Warren and its officials, including Building Inspector John Impellizzeri, have unlawfully obstructed manufactured housing communities by imposing new, invalid standards and conducting improper inspections and permit denials. The MMHA seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus to compel compliance with state law, particularly the Mobile Home Commission Act, which limits local governments to enforcing standards in place when the communities were originally developed.

The case raises troubling allegations of regulatory overreach and hostility toward manufactured housing, which is a critical source of affordable housing. The MMHA’s pleadings appear well-founded on legal precedent, including a 1961 Michigan Supreme Court case that similarly condemned the City’s arbitrary actions. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing challenges of zoning and regulatory barriers that suppress manufactured housing growth.

Notably, the case does not prominently invoke the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000) or its enhanced preemption provisions, which could provide federal authority to override local zoning barriers. This omission is curious given the MMHA’s claims of violations of state and federal housing laws. It also raises questions about why the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), of which MMHA is a member, has not taken direct legal action or pushed for enforcement of MHIA 2000’s preemption authority.

Overall, the MMHA’s legal action is a significant step to protect manufactured housing communities in Michigan, but it also underscores the broader industry struggle to enforce existing laws that could unlock affordable housing supply. The quality of the pleadings suggests a strong factual and legal basis, but the ultimate test will be the court’s rulings and any subsequent enforcement. …

— The MHProNews Q&A screen capture confirming the accuracy of the above is linked here. The full Q&A is linked here. —

 

5) At about 10 AM ET on 3.4.2026, those contacted for comment (see preface) had not yet responded to MHProNews. Should one or more respond post-publication, this article or a new one could be updated with that information. That noted, it is not uncommon for there to be ‘no comment’ about pending litigation. MHProNews’ prior report on this topic is linked below.

 

6) It is simply a truism that:

There is always more to know.

As MHVille enters more deeply into the struggles on Capitol Hill stay tuned to the industry’s documented runaway #1 source for more “News through the lens of factory-built homes and manufactured housing” © and “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use”© where “We Provide, You Decide.”© This is the place for “Intelligence for your MHLife.” © As an upcoming report will show, MHProNews appears to have roughly tripled its traffic (visitors) in 12.2025 than in 12.2024. MHProNews has averaged over a million visits for this specialized media site in January and over each of the last 5 months. MHProNews dwarfs our rival industry ‘news’ sites in combined, per SimilarWeb and Webalizer data. Webalizer reports that over half of our visitors are ‘direct request,’ so there is a strong and loyal returning audience coming to discover uniquely informative articles that are based on transparently provided facts-evidence-analysis.

Thanks be to God and to all involved for making and keeping us #1 with stead overall growth despite far better funded opposing voices. Transparently provided Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) matters. ##

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of William C. “Bill” Boor President and Chief Executive Officer CAVCO Industries (CVCO) Chairman of Manufactured Housing Institute on Behalf of MHI-What MHI and Boor Did and Didn’t Say