Park identity and property interests
Start by reconciling the operating park, the parcels and interests being offered, and the dated site roster. Keep site occupancy, home ownership and income categories separate. Use the first review to identify contradictory records and missing documents, then assign the next requests before treating the file as ready for underwriting.
Private asset-page draft with a document-request prototype. Meadowlark is a published workflow example, not a market sample or a result produced by this planner. No territory research, property list or completed MHP valuation pack is included.
Define the asset before the model
Fannie Mae’s MHC program describes community sites, shared amenities and infrastructure, while separately addressing park-owned homes. Use that distinction when organizing site rent and home-related income. Its program requirements are not universal acquisition rules.
Source 1In the proposed review file, keep the recorded owner, operating entity and potential contact in separate fields. Attach the document and date that support each relationship. Leave competing identities unresolved until the appropriate evidence is available.
The planner asks whether you have the evidence. An available file becomes a review task; a missing file becomes a request; an unknown becomes a confirmation task. None of those answers verifies the underlying park or economics.
A practical file structure
| Working record | What to capture | Question to leave open |
|---|---|---|
| Offered footprint | Operating boundary, parcel schedule and interests included in the proposed sale. | Do the offered interests cover the same footprint described in the operating documents? |
| Site and home roster | A dated site identifier, occupancy field and separate home-ownership field. | Which homes, if any, are included with the real estate, and which records support that distinction?Source 1 |
| Operating and ownership records | Issuing authority, entity identifiers, document date and the relationship each record supports. | What still requires clarification by the authority or title/legal reviewer? |
| Income and responsibilities | Rent-roll categories, operating statements and utility or infrastructure obligations. | Which income and expense assumptions can be tied back to the actual documents? |
Use the request planner
This is a newly authored task method. It adapts the evidence distinctions to a short working tool; it does not reproduce a client file or promise a completed research product.
Ask for the operating boundary and current parcel schedule. Record any missing parcel or interest for the title/survey reviewer rather than merging records on a similar name.
Request the dated roster and rent roll. Keep sites, occupancy and home ownership in separate columns, then list unmatched or conflicting entries.
Ask which current licenses, permits or other authority records apply locally. Record the issuing authority and date, and refer unresolved permission questions for review.
Follow the recorded ownership reference and relevant entity filings. Preserve uncertain links. A named entity or contact is not an instruction to contact anyone.
Collect operating statements, current rent roll and utility responsibility documents. Tie the intended model inputs to those records and keep unsupported assumptions visible.
Relevant published experience
Published reference · NextAutomation
The published Meadowlark story connects park discovery, research prioritization and ownership evidence to a broker-reviewed valuation workflow. It provides a concrete example of connected research and review, not a finding about a park entered into this planner.
Upper Midwest; state footprint described in linked system study. Asset context: manufactured housing, mobile home parks.
Before you use the tool
Keep those questions separate. A site schedule and a home-ownership schedule serve different purposes. Fannie Mae’s MHC materials also distinguish community sites from park-owned homes; obtain the actual transaction documents before resolving the interest being acquired.
Source 1Use Unknown when availability has not been established and Missing when the file is absent. The planner turns those choices into confirmation or request tasks and names the relevant provider or reviewer.
No. This version organizes your next evidence requests. It retrieves no records and verifies no ownership, site count, operating permission, income or value. It does not send messages or requests.
No additional report is required for this edition. The published Meadowlark case provides a bounded example of connected sourcing and human review. The current identity planner is an authored workflow prototype; it does not supply a researched park inventory or independently verified property matches.
Source 1From the page to your next task
Separate missing documents from documents awaiting review, then leave with a focused request brief and a responsible reviewer for each task.
Scope: A five-question working prototype for organizing park, site, operating, ownership and economics evidence. No territory dataset or real park analysis is included.
Edition 2026-09-29.1
Evidence and scope
NextAutomation · Checked 2026-09-29
Upper Midwest; state footprint described in linked system study. Asset context: manufactured housing, mobile home parks.
Fannie Mae · Checked 2026-09-29
Program description distinguishes community sites, shared infrastructure and park-owned homes. Used only for that operating-unit distinction.
