HJC seeks to be a resource to communities and housing practitioners across the country. We issue reports and provide resources to community-based organizations, social service providers, and government entities to explore issues, develop strategies, and take action to create and preserve affordable place for people to call home. We attempt to make our research and resources available as widely as possible. Contact us if you would like to explore any of these issues further.

Manufactured Home Parks

MHP Resource Library

Please note: All of our data is compiled from 3rd party sources. HJC does not guarantee the accuracy of this information.

Protocol for Determining Demographic Info for MHPs

A significant challenge for advocates is the lack of available demographic information about who lives in manufactured home communities. This data can be a critical tool because through data it is possible to challenge the inaccurate preconceived notions about manufactured home communities that are shared by both policy makers and members of the general public. The directions above, along with this template, will allow you get an idea about the demographics of those living in manufactured home parks in your state.

Manufactured Home Communities Park Licensing Requirements and Information Tools (2006)

The ability to use tools such as database and mapping technology is dependent, in large part, on access to reliable data. One method of obtaining data on manufactured home communities (MHC) is through state licensing requirements. This is a brief introduction to how licensing schemes affect the ability of advocates to utilize database and mapping tools.

List of Manufactured Home Parks in Minnesota 2007

This data was compiled from the lists of parks licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health and various county health departments.

Power Point Presentation on Manufactured Home Parks

This presentation was compiled by HJC to help educate community members and affordable housing advocated on manufactured home communities specifically in Minnesota. 

Data & Reports

Is Manufactured Housing a Good Alternative for Low-Income Families? Evidence from the American Housing Survey 2004

A study by HUD that contradicts several preconceived notions regarding manufactured housing. This paper employs the American Housing Survey (AHS) between 1993 and 2001 to compare owned manufactured housing to rental housing and traditional owned housing as a tenure alternative for low-income households.

Why Advocates Need to Rethink Manufactured Housing

Richard Genz lays out a clear agenda to “reinvent manufactured homes.” His article also outlines the multiple challenges: a hodgepodge of federal, state, and local laws and regulations; financing issues; negative stereotypes; and minimal consumer protection.

Manufactured Housing Community Tenants: Shifting the Balance of Power

Owners of manufactured (or ‘mobile’) homes face unique problems as consumers when they rent a lot in a community for manufactured homes. This report by the AARP Public Policy Institute presents a model statute that addresses these problems.

Housing Facts & Findings

This issue of Housing Facts & Findings focuses on Manufactured Housing and features articles by I’M HOME Director Dave Buchholz, I’M HOME partner Paul Bradley from the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, and I’M HOME grantee Skipper StipeMaas from the Georgia Community Loan Fund.

HUD User – Manufactured Housing Publications

HUD USER is HUD’s Policy Development and Research information service. The site lists all of HUD’s manufactured housing-related publications which address technical, regulatory, financial, and other practical aspects of working with manufactured housing.

Useful Websites

All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC)

Founded in 1980, APAC is a statewide association of manufactured home park residents that works to improve the quality of park neighborhoods through a philosophy of helping people help themselves.  The work of APAC helps maintain manufactured mobile home communities as a viable low-income housing option.  

I’M HOME — Innovations in Manufactured Homes

The mission of Innovations in Manufactured Homes (I’M HOME) is to ensure that families who choose to purchase manufactured homes reap comparable benefits from the homeownership experience as do buyers of site-built homes 

Northcountry Cooperative Development Fund (NCDF)

NCDF is a cooperatively owned and operated financial intermediary which acts as a catalyst for the development and growth of cooperatives in Minnesota, including the conversion of existing manufactured home communities to cooperatives.

Fair Housing Resources
Preservation Resources

Preservation Resources

Minnesota Housing

The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has assisted more than 400,000 households by providing funding for a variety of housing needs. They help build and fix up affordable apartments, single family homes, shelters, and transitional and supportive housing, and work cooperatively with others to revitalize older neighborhoods and communities, build new housing around the state for a growing work force, and preserve the stock of federally-assisted rental housing.

Visit Minnesota Housing

Minnesota Housing Partnership

MHP’s mission is to advance the preservation and creation of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income people as a means of strengthening communities and families throughout Minnesota.

Visit MHP

National Housing Law Project

The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) is a national housing law and advocacy center. The goal of NHLP is to advance housing justice for the poor by increasing and preserving the supply of decent affordable housing, by improving existing housing conditions, including physical conditions and management practices, by expanding and enforcing low-income tenants’ and homeowners’ rights, and by increasing opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities. NHLP works to achieve that goal by providing legal assistance, advocacy advice and housing expertise to legal services and other attorneys, low-income housing advocacy groups, and others who serve the poor.

Visit NHLP

National Housing Trust

The National Housing Trust (NHT) is a national nonprofit engaged in housing preservation through real estate development, lending, and public policy initiatives. NHT works to create and preserve existing affordable housing by advocating for federal or state housing resources, lending through the NHT Community Development Fund, and developing and preserving housing through the National Housing Trust/Enterprise Preservation Corporation.

Visit NHT

Federally Subsidized Housing

Federally Subsidized Housing

The portion of the nation’s affordable housing supply that tends to serve the lowest income households is rental housing subsidized by the federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and to a lesser extent, the Rural Development Division (RD) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Within HUD, the major programs are Public Housing, Multifamily Subsidized Housing, Project-Based Section 8, and the Section 8 voucher program. Within, RD the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program is the major resource available in rural areas for low income households. In recent years, Congress established the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC) as the major new affordable housing production program. A substantial portion of the projects and units within these programs are at risk of loss from the affordable housing supply, either because the units may be lost or, more commonly, the private owners of these units seek to convert their buildings to market rate rents. From its inception, HJC has specialized in developing legal and advocacy strategies, working in conjunction with residents and community organizations, to retain these badly needed resources within the affordable housing programs.


Reports, Litigation and Resources

Rental and Homeownership Resources in the Twin Cities

Rental Housing In The Twin Cities


Looking for affordable housing in the Twin Cities Metro Area? Please check-out HousingLink’s Website – a valuable resource for affordable rental housing information. Please note, HousingLink is not able to assist with individual housing situations. Visit HousingLink


Tenants may speak with a tenant advocate who will provide free advice regarding Minnesota landlord/tenant law. The advocate will provide practical advice on the law and offer options for resolving the problem. The HOME Line Tenant Hotline is free and available to all tenants, regardless of income. Dial (612) 728-5767 in the Metro or (866) 866-3546 for Greater Minnesota. Visit HOME Line

United Way’s 2-1-1 HelpLine

Don’t know who to call? Call UnitedWay’s HelpLine. It’s free, confidential and available 24/7. Trained information specialists and volunteers can connect you to over 40,000 community resources including: Childcare, Counseling, Food, Health, Housing, Legal help, Mental health, Transportation, Youth services, and Senior services. Information about United Way’s 2-1-1 Information and Referral Service and a link to the Twin Cities Beehive. From 8:30 am – 5:00 pm, United Way 2-1-1 may also have staff available to speak Hmong, Russian, Somali, and Spanish. Dial 2-1-1 or 651-291-0211 or visit the United Way 2-1-1 website. United Way’s 2-1-1 HelpLine

Emergency Shelter and Services in Metro Area

There are emergency services you can get during tough times. Services include emergency shelter if your safety or the safety of your children are in danger or you are homeless. You can also get emergency help for things that your income doesn�t cover such as food, clothes, household and personal items. Or you may need help to pay for your rent or utility bills. During these tough times, there are many organizations in the Twin Cities that offer these emergency services. Emergency Shelter and Services In Metro Area


Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity

Mission: To eliminate poverty housing from the Twin Cities area and to make decent, affordable shelter for all people a matter of conscience. Visit TC Habitat for Humanity

Central Corridor Affordable Housing Partnership

Central Corridor Affordable Housing Partnership

In 2014, the Central Corridor light rail line running between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul will open, bringing big change to Twin Cities commuters, to development along University Avenue, and to the St. Paul neighborhoods adjoining the line. The competition to live on or near the line is expected to be intense, as interest in living in compact, walkable, transit-oriented urban areas has rapidly multiplied. If development is left to market forces, however, the same lower income households most dependent upon transit are likely be to be left out. The Central Corridor Affordable Housing Partnership (CCAHP) consisted of a group of community organizations, individuals, and other stakeholders who meet on a regular basis in order to identify strategies to promote affordable housing along Central Corridor. 


Before The Train: The Central Corridor Rental Housing Inventory Report

Summary of Recommendations

To view the CCAHP Recommendations, click here.

Meeting notes

Resource Library

City of Saint Paul Documents

Other Documents related to Central Corridor

Hiawatha LRT Corridor

Gentrification Studies – National Scope

Other TOD Efforts Around the Country

Foreclosure Relief Project

Foreclosure Relief Project

From 2007 through 2012, HJC was home to the Foreclosure Relief Law Project, assembling a team of experienced and skilled legal professionals to develop and implement a multifaceted legal response to the current foreclosure epidemic.  Gaining nationwide recognition, FRLP’s cutting-edge work identified and developed viable legal and advocacy strategies which could avert foreclosures and keep homeowners in their homes, and which could help to stabilize neighborhoods by reducing the blighting effects of widespread foreclosures.

Gustafson v. Smith Resource Library

Equity Stripping Case Study in Minnesota

This equity stripping case was tried in Minnesota resulting in a favorable outcome for the homeowner.  Below you will find a narrative of Gustafson v. Smith, and pleadings. For a more detailed summation of this case you can read the article Advocates Secure Victory for Minnesota Homeowner in Equity Stripping Case.”

Ms.Gustafson filed a Complaint against Defendants, the foreclosure consultants, the foreclosure purchasers, and the bank, alleging violations of Minnesota’s anti-equity stripping laws.

Statutory Violations

On April 28, 2009 Ms.Gustafson filed a Notice of Motion, and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against the foreclosure purchasers. The Memorandum in support of Plaintiff’s motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant’s, requests that her motion regarding various statutory violations be granted. Defendant’s then filed their own Summary Judgment Motion against Plaintiff for Breach of Contract.

Plaintiff responded with a Reply Memorandum to Defendant�s Opposition.  Resulting in the Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant’s for various statutory violations, and denying Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court found the Defendant’s violated Minnesota Statute 325N and voided the Foreclosure Reconveyance Contract.  

Voidance of the Security Interest  

On November 11, 2009 Ms.Gustafson filed a Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment requesting that the court void the security interest between the bank and the equity strippers related to the foreclosure purchaser’s home. The foreclosure purchaser’s argued the statute did not void mortgages and the bank argued that the Plaintiff ratified the contract, and asked for a constructive lien on the property.

Ms.Gustafson filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment arguing the Foreclosure Reconveyance transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant is void. Therefore, the bank’s alleged Mortgage is void and improperly registered.

The court then Ordered that the Plaintiff’s Motion of Summary Judgments is granted and Anoka County may take whatever steps necessary to void and discharge the mortgage currently recorded against the property.


At the end of trial Ms.Gustafson moved for a directed verdict based upon the legal theory that if a party has an adequate remedy at law that party is barred from seeking a remedy in equity. Since the bank still had a valid note (although the mortgage had been voided), it could recover from the investors, signors on the note. Counsel for the bank stated that since the investors could file for bankruptcy on the now-unsecured note, it was not an adequate remedy.

The court ultimately ruled in favor for Ms.Gustafson, (Final Order) holding that there was an adequate remedy at law. (I.e. the note), and the bank must use that remedy to collect its debt. The bank therefore was barred from seeking a remedy in equity. The court was unequivocal in its ruling: Ms.Gustafson owned the property free and clear of a mortgage and if the bank wanted to collect on its debt, it must collect from the investors.

Ms. Gustafson also noted several other threshold defenses, which were never addressed since the trial was decided on her motion for a directed verdict. As described fully in the Plaintiffs Motion In Limine, those defenses were: (1) a party cannot invoke equity merely because it had made a bad bargain, Cady v. Bush, 283 Minn. 105 (1969); (2) a party who seeks equity must come to court with clean hands, Hamilton v. Wood, 55 Minn. 482, 57 N.W. 208 (1893; and (3) an action for unjust enrichment does not hold if the defendants fail to provide any evidence of fraudulent or illegal acts by the plaintiff, Custom Design Studio v. Chloe Inc., 584 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998); Schumacher v. Schumacher, 627 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 1981); Service Master of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 544 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Minn. 1996).

Gewecke Resource Library

On September 15, 2010 the Geweckes filed a Second Amended Complaint against the Defendants, US Bank, CitiGroup Mortgage, & Countrywide Home Loans which allege a failure to abide by Minnesota’s Foreclosure by Advertisement laws, breach of contract, slander of title, a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and a violation of the Minnesota Mortgage Servicing Statute.

The Geweckes’ main legal theory is that an assignment of mortgage from the originating lender (“A”) to a loan trust (“D”) is insufficient to comply with Minnesota’s Foreclosure by Advertisement laws because it fails to evidence all the actual assignments to the intervening parties, the trust aggregator, and the trust depositor (“C”). Since Minnesota’s Foreclosure by Advertisement law requires that the Defendants record all assignments, i.e. A – B – C – D before foreclosing, they have not yet complied with Minnesota law, and they cannot foreclose. Furthermore, the assignment of mortgage that was recorded (the “A – D Assignment”) is therefore false. 

Motion to Dismiss

Instead of filing an Answer to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, on November 4, 2010, the Defendants filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. The Memorandum argues that the Plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted, because Jackson v. Mortgage Electric Registration Systems, Incholds that only actual assignments must be recorded and equitable assignments do not. 

In response, on November 23, 2010, Plaintiffs’ filed a Memorandum in Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, which highlights the claims that can grant relief and points to the flaws in the Defendants’ argument as it relates to Jackson. Namely, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not address equitable assignments; it claims that actual assignments were not recorded.

Defendants responded with a Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss.  Their Reply still asserted that the Geweckes claims fail because they do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law with Jackson as a basis. In order to resolve this dispute, U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo Brisbois heard oral arguments on March 16, 2011. 

In his June 6, 2011 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Brisbois denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, holding that the Plaintiffs have properly presented facts to support their contention that the A – D assignment violates Minnesota law. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs’ facts and legal question are not the same as the Jacksonholding, and as such, Jackson does not dispose of the Plaintiffs’ claims.  

Motion to Amend into Class Action

On January 12, 2011 the Geweckes filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend the Complaint requesting that the court allow the Plaintiffs to broaden the scope of the pending lawsuit as to some of the claims by adding class allegations to include all those similarly situation who have been damaged by Defendants’ fraudulent assignments and invalid foreclosure related fees. In addition to seeking declaratory relief on behalf of the class declaring “A to D” assignments invalid and legally insufficient, and breach of contract on a class basis, the Plaintiff move to amend their Second Amended Complaint to raise an additional violation of law, namely, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). 

The Defendants, in response, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, which make allegations that the Geweckes claims are futile and should not be amended. The Defendant, again, tries to show that “A – D assignments” are valid under Minnesota law. 

In the Magistrate Judge’s Order, he denied the Plaintiffs’ request to amend into a class, but allowed the Plaintiffs’ RICO claims to move forward. 

HAMP Resource Library

On July 28, 2009, two Minnesota homeowners sued the government alleging that the administration of the federal foreclosure prevention and loan modification program violated their procedural due process rights.  Specifically, the Home Affordable Modification Program did not require the government to provide written notice of the specific reasons for a denial and notice of a right to appeal, a uniform procedure for appealing an adverse decision, and a method to undo a foreclosure that was done in violation of program guidelines or otherwise unlawful.

HAMP is part of a $50 to $75 billion government effort to prevent foreclosures.  In administering this large government program, HAMP needs transparency and accountability.  The lawsuit was a class action on behalf of all Minnesota homeowners who are eligible for HAMP and have similarly been denied due process.  It is modeled after a series of successful lawsuits in the early 1980s, in which farmers obtained a moratorium until the government promulgated adequate rules and regulations related to its farm foreclosure prevention program.

On November 9, 2009, Judge Ann D. Montgomery refused to enjoin foreclosures in Minnesota and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners.  The lawsuit alleged that the government’s loan modification program violated procedural due process, failing to require mortgage loan servicers to provide a meaningful notice and an opportunity to correct errors when homeowners were denied access to the government program.

When the lawsuit was originally filed on July 28, 2009 there were little, if any, procedural protections for homeowners.  A month after filing the lawsuit, the Treasury Department issued a guideline requiring denial data to be collected by servicers.  On October 8, 2009, the Treasury Department required servicers to provide a written notice of denial to a homeowner within ten days.  Then, on November 3, 2009, the Treasury Department required that servicers stop foreclosure when a homeowner challenges the denial and also required specific denial information to be provided to homeowners, including some of the data used to determine whether a modification was sustainable and in the best interest of the government, borrower, and lender.

“Significant progress was made, but problems remain,” Mark Ireland, attorney for the plaintiffs, said.  “Nothing is helping the thousands of people who slipped through the cracks. Homeowners are still not told the value of their house that servicers are using when deciding whether to modify a loan.  The specific formula the government and servicers are using to make the determination remains a secret, and much of the appeal process remains unclear, at best.”

Documents Related To The Lawsuit 

General Accountability Office Report, Treasury Actions Needed to Make the Home Affordable Modification Program More Transparent and Accountable (July 2009)

HAMP Supplemental Directive 09-01 (April 6, 2009)

Senator Dodd Letter to Treasury Secretary Expressing Concerns About the Administration of HAMP

General Resource Library

Foreclosure Relief Law Project Litigation

Hawthorne Area Community Council v. CitiMortgage – Complaint:  This Complaint explores the legal theories of Negligent Lending and Public Nuisance.

Hilleshiem v. Source Lending Corporation and BankUnited (Anti-Predatory Lending Lawsuit) – Complaint:  Complaint addresses various violations of Minnesota’s Anit-Predatory Lending Laws.

Hilleshiem v. Source Lending Corporation et al – Order granting award to Plaintiff:  Order finding that the broker violated various provisions of Minnesota’s Anti-Predatory Lending Laws.

Knox v. Homestead Mortgage Corp et al – Complaint:  Complaint outlines the lender’s violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“finance charge” disclosure violation), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and Minnesota’s Servicing Statute.

Other Information Related to FRLP Activities
FRLP comment related to Proposed new Local Rule 4001-1 and Form 4001-1 in United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota

Academic Studies and Presentations Related to the Foreclosure Crisis
Mortgage Securitization Flow Chart
Analysis of Detailed Sheriff’s Sale Data  Report from FRLP, March 2008.
North Minneapolis Mortgage Originations and Foreclosure Study  Report from FRLP, October 2008.
Analysis of North Minneapolis Study Report from FRLP, October 2008.
Ireland, Mark Richard. Bending Toward Justice: An Empirical Study of Foreclosures in One Neighborhood Three Years after Impact and a Proposed Framework for a Better Community  October 2009