(A) Every manufactured home, as defined in division (C)(4) of section 3781.06 of the Revised Code, shall be constructed in accordance with the federal construction and safety standards established by the secretary of housing and urban development pursuant to the "Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974," 88 Stat. 700, 42 U.S.C.A. 5401, 5403. The federal standards shall be the exclusive construction and safety standards in this state and neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state may establish any other standard governing the construction of manufactured homes.
(B) Every manufactured home constructed in accordance with the federal standards specified in division (A) of this section, shall have a permanent label or tag affixed to it, as specified in 42 U.S.C.A. 5415, certifying compliance with the federal construction and safety standards.
(C)(1) Every manufactured home that is constructed in accordance with the federal standards specified in division (A) of this section and is a permanently sited manufactured home as defined in division (C)(6) of section 3781.06 of the Revised Code shall be a permitted use in any district or zone in which a political subdivision permits single-family homes, and no political subdivision may prohibit or restrict the location of a permanently sited manufactured home in any zone or district in which a single-family home is permitted.
(2) This division does not limit the authority of a political subdivision to do either of the following:
(a) Require that a permanently sited manufactured home comply with all zoning requirements that are uniformly imposed on all single-family residences within the district or zone in which the permanently sited manufactured home is or is to be located, except requirements that specify a minimum roof pitch and requirements that do not comply with the standards established pursuant to the "Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974," 88 Stat. 700, 42 U.S.C.A. 5401;
(b) Prohibit from any residential district or zone, travel trailers, park trailers, and mobile homes, as these terms are defined in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code, and manufactured homes that do not qualify as permanently sited manufactured homes.
(D) This section does not prohibit a private landowner from incorporating a restrictive covenant in a deed, prohibiting the inclusion on the conveyed land of manufactured homes, as defined in division (C)(4) or (6) of section 3781.06 of the Revised Code, or of travel trailers, park trailers, and mobile homes, as defined in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code. This division does not create a new cause of action or substantive legal right for a private landowner to incorporate such a restrictive covenant in a deed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149 (2002).
City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149 (2002). · cites it 47ד{¶ 2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Canton v. State, 2002-Ohio-2005, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149. · cites it 48ד{¶2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-6909. · cites it 7ד184(C) provided that political subdivisions must allow manufactured homes to be placed in areas where single-family residences were permitted. R.C. 3781.184(D) created an exception to division (C) that allowed private property owners to prohibit manufactured homes on their land…”
City of Lima v. State, 896 N.E.2d 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2007). · cites it 5ד” Rather, the court in Canton merely concluded that “R.C. 3781.184(C), on its face, appears to serve an overriding state interest in providing more affordable housing options across the state.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021-Ohio-61, 166 N.E.3d 632. · cites it 6דThe lead opinion reviewed previous cases where the Supreme Court had analyzed the third prong of the Canton test: In Canton, the court considered whether R.C. 3781.184, which related to the zoning of property for manufactured homes, violated the Home Rule Amendment.”
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. · cites it 7ד184(D) created an exception to division (C) that allowed private-property owners to prohibit manufactured homes on their land by way of restrictive covenants in deeds.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016-Ohio-4906. · cites it 5ד{¶ 33} In Canton, in examining the exception that allowed private landowners to incorporate restrictive covenants to avoid the requirements of R.C. 3781.184, the court predicted that “enterprising developers” in suburban portions of the state with newer housing developments…”
Marich v. Bob Bennett Constr. Co., 116 Ohio St. 3d 553 (2008). · cites it 2דStatewide and comprehensive legislative enactment {¶ 17} The first element requires us to determine whether the statute at issue is part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment.”
City of Lima v. State, 2009-Ohio-2597, 909 N.E.2d 616. · cites it 2ד184 were not “general laws” and therefore violated the Home Rule Amendment when they prevented political subdivisions from prohibiting or restricting the location of manufactured homes in any zone or district in which a single-family home is permitted, but permitted private…”
City of Toledo v. Beatty, 863 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2006). · cites it 5ד, cities where residential areas no longer have effective deed restrictions or no longer have active homeowner associations. Because we find that R.”
Cleveland v. State, 2012-Ohio-3572. · cites it 5דSubsections (A) and (B) addressed construction and safety standards, Subsection (C) of the statute prohibited political subdivisions from barring or restricting manufactured homes in single-family zones, Subsection (D) set forth an exception to subsection ( C) and permitted…”
City of Cleveland v. State, 923 N.E.2d 183 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2009). “2d 963 , in which the Ohio Supreme Court struck down R.C. 3781.184, a *66 statute barring local governments from prohibiting the location of certain manufactured homes in areas zoned for single-family homes.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3781.184(A): 3 cases
City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149 (2002). “{¶ 2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Canton v. State, 2002-Ohio-2005, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149. “{¶2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Cleveland v. State, 2012-Ohio-3572. “Subsections (A) and (B) addressed construction and safety standards, Subsection (C) of the statute prohibited political subdivisions from barring or restricting manufactured homes in single-family zones, Subsection (D) set forth an exception to subsection ( C) and permitted…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3781.184(C): 9 cases
Canton v. State, 2002-Ohio-2005, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149. “{¶2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149 (2002). “{¶ 2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-6909. “184(C) provided that political subdivisions must allow manufactured homes to be placed in areas where single-family residences were permitted. R.C. 3781.184(D) created an exception to division (C) that allowed private property owners to prohibit manufactured homes on their land…”
City of Lima v. State, 896 N.E.2d 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2007). “” Rather, the court in Canton merely concluded that “R.C. 3781.184(C), on its face, appears to serve an overriding state interest in providing more affordable housing options across the state.”
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. “184(D) created an exception to division (C) that allowed private-property owners to prohibit manufactured homes on their land by way of restrictive covenants in deeds.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3781.184(D): 7 cases
City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149 (2002). “{¶ 2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Canton v. State, 2002-Ohio-2005, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149. “{¶2} In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 3781.184, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. No.”
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-6909. “184(C) provided that political subdivisions must allow manufactured homes to be placed in areas where single-family residences were permitted. R.C. 3781.184(D) created an exception to division (C) that allowed private property owners to prohibit manufactured homes on their land…”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021-Ohio-61, 166 N.E.3d 632. “The lead opinion reviewed previous cases where the Supreme Court had analyzed the third prong of the Canton test: In Canton, the court considered whether R.C. 3781.184, which related to the zoning of property for manufactured homes, violated the Home Rule Amendment.”
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. “184(D) created an exception to division (C) that allowed private-property owners to prohibit manufactured homes on their land by way of restrictive covenants in deeds.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.