Florida Mobile Home Park Lot Rent Increase Calculator

How this calculator works

Florida mobile-home parks operate under their own statutory regime — Chapter 723 of the Florida Statutes (the "Florida Mobile Home Act") — not under Part II of Chapter 83, which governs ordinary apartment and single-family rentals. The distinction matters more than most park residents realize. In a 55+ park or family mobile-home park, the resident typically owns the mobile home (title and registration sit with the resident, the home is personal property under F.S. § 320) and rents only the underlying lot from the park owner. The notice, eviction, and rent-increase rules in Chapter 723 are different from § 83 in almost every meaningful respect — and a resident who tries to apply the § 83 framework to a § 723 lot tenancy routinely loses the case on procedure.

This calculator measures a proposed lot-rent increase against the two procedural protections that matter most: the 90-day written-notice requirement under F.S. § 723.037 and the case-law-driven "reasonable increase" standard articulated in HBCP v. Palm Beach Park (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). It surfaces a reasonableness verdict on a tiered scale (clearly reasonable at 3% or under, typically reasonable through 10%, borderline through 25%, likely challengeable above that), a notice-compliance verdict, the dollar value of any service decrease bundled into the same notice, and an effective total annual housing cost that bakes in opportunity cost on the home's equity so you can compare the post-increase rent apples-to-apples against a single-family-home or condo carrying cost.

The Chapter 723 framework, in plain English

The 90-day notice rule — F.S. § 723.037. The park owner must give 90 calendar days of forward-looking written notice before any rent increase, change in park rules, or decrease in services can take effect. The notice must be in writing (the statute does not authorize email, text, or oral notice), must state the proposed change and its effective date, and must disclose the basis for the change. A notice that is short of 90 days, that was delivered in a non-statutory manner, or that omits the basis disclosure is procedurally defective. The existing rent continues until a clean 90-day notice runs. This is the single most-litigated provision in Chapter 723 and the most-missed procedural detail by park owners; documenting a defect in writing to the park is the strongest single procedural defense available to a park resident.

The reasonable-increase standard — HBCP v. Palm Beach Park. F.S. § 723.037 does not cap rent increases by percentage. The statutory ceiling is procedural (the 90-day notice plus the basis-of-increase disclosure under the prospectus framework in F.S. § 723.011); the substantive ceiling is the case-law-driven "reasonable" standard articulated in HBCP v. Palm Beach Park (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) and the broader case law on § 723.037. Courts look at three factors: market comparables (what other comparable Florida parks are charging), the park's documented operating-cost increases (insurance premium hikes, property tax reassessment, utility cost growth, labor), and the prospectus disclosure (whether the basis stated in the notice matches what the prospectus told the resident at move-in about how rent could be raised). The reasonableness analysis is fact-intensive and decided in mediation or trial, not by a formula. The tiers in this calculator are calibrated to what current case law and market practice treat as defensible.

The homeowner-committee right — F.S. § 723.075. Chapter 723 grants residents the statutory right to organize a homeowner committee or homeowners' association to negotiate with the park owner. The park owner is required by statute to recognize a properly formed committee. The committee has standing to demand the basis-of-increase documentation under the prospectus framework, to pursue mediation under § 723.037(5) through the Florida Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, and to bring a class-action under § 723.037 if mediation fails. A reasonableness challenge brought by an organized committee is structurally far stronger than an individual resident's objection — both as a matter of statutory standing and as a matter of practical bargaining power.

The eviction grounds — F.S. § 723.061. Chapter 723 lists the exclusive grounds for eviction from a mobile-home park lot tenancy: (1) non-payment of lot rent with a 5-day written notice to pay or vacate; (2) conviction of a violation of any federal or state law or local ordinance deemed detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of other residents; (3) violation of a park rule, rental-agreement provision, or Chapter 723 with a 7-day notice to cure (or, for repeated or egregious violations, termination without cure); and (4) change in the use of the land comprising the park, with a minimum 6-month written notice to all affected residents under § 723.061(1)(d). An inability to pay a recently-increased lot rent is not itself a separate ground for eviction — the eviction proceeds under (1) for non-payment, and the resident may raise the reasonableness defense to the underlying increase.

The prospectus — F.S. § 723.011. Every Florida mobile-home park with 26 or more lots must deliver a prospectus to every new tenant before the tenant signs the rental agreement. The prospectus discloses all park rules, all fees and services included in lot rent, the procedure for amending rules, a copy of the rental agreement, a copy of Chapter 723 itself, and the basis on which the park owner is permitted to increase lot rent. The prospectus is binding on the park: a rent increase grossly out of line with the basis disclosed in the prospectus is challengeable on the prospectus alone, separate from the HBCP reasonableness analysis. If you did not receive a prospectus at move-in, that itself is a procedural defect.

Worked example: a 14% increase in a Pasco 55+ park

The Florida-typical case. The park has roughly 200 homes. The resident pays 700 dollars per month in lot rent under a 2024 rental agreement on an 80,000-dollar mobile home. The park serves a written notice on January 1 of a 100-dollar-per-month increase effective April 1 — 90 days out.

• Monthly increase: 800 minus 700 equals 100 dollars per month.
• Annual increase: 100 times 12 equals 1,200 dollars per year.
• Percent increase: 100 divided by 700 equals roughly 14.3 percent.
• Reasonableness tier: borderline. The 14.3 percent figure is outside the typical CPI / cost-of-living band (3 percent) and outside the typical year-over-year market movement band (10 percent), but below the "likely challengeable" threshold (25 percent). Florida courts look hard at the park's stated basis for an increase in this range — the prospectus disclosure under F.S. § 723.011, the market-comp evidence, and the park-cost evidence. This is the tier where a § 723.075 homeowner committee has a real negotiating posture.
• Notice compliance: compliant. The 90-day written notice satisfies F.S. § 723.037's procedural floor. The merits dispute (reasonableness of the increase) is now on its own track.
• Total effective annual housing cost: with default utilities of 2,400 dollars, default maintenance of 1,200 dollars, and an opportunity-cost line on the 80,000-dollar home equity at 5 percent (4,000 dollars per year), the post-increase total effective housing cost is roughly 17,200 dollars per year. Compare to a typical Florida single-family-home rental in the same area at 1,800 dollars per month (21,600 dollars per year) — the mobile-home-in-park arrangement still wins by roughly 4,400 dollars per year despite the increase, but the margin has compressed enough that the borderline tier now matters strategically.

The negotiating posture. With no § 723.075 homeowner committee currently in place, the resident's leverage is limited to individual objection. The strongest single procedural step the residents of a 200-home park can take at this tier is to form a § 723.075 homeowner committee, request the park's basis-of-increase documentation under the prospectus framework, and convene a vote on whether to pursue mediation under § 723.037(5). Collective negotiation is dramatically more effective than individual resident pushback at this tier; the statute is structured to reward collective action.

The decreasing-services parallel

F.S. § 723.037 treats a service decrease exactly like a rent increase for procedural purposes: 90 days of written notice, basis-of-decrease disclosure, AND a rent reduction commensurate with the dollar value of the lost services. A park that closes the clubhouse, eliminates trash service, scales back maintenance, or otherwise reduces services must reduce rent by an amount reflecting the lost value — not optionally, but as a matter of statute. A service decrease without a matching rent reduction is independently challengeable on the merits; an undocumented service decrease (no 90-day notice, no basis disclosure) is procedurally void on the same grounds as a defective rent-increase notice. If your park has decreased services in the same notice as a rent increase, the practical calculation is the net effective increase: the announced rent bump minus the rent reduction the resident is entitled to for the lost services. The calculator surfaces both lines so the resident can frame the rent-reduction demand in concrete dollar terms.

When to push back, and how

The procedural defects are the easy wins. A notice that is short of 90 days, that was delivered by email or text instead of in writing, or that omits the basis disclosure under the prospectus framework is procedurally defective on its face — the existing rent continues until a clean notice runs. Document the defect in writing to the park owner and continue paying the existing rent under protest.

The merits challenges are harder and require collective action. At the typically-reasonable tier (3 to 10 percent), the increase is unlikely to support a successful merits challenge in isolation; the leverage is in negotiating softer terms (longer phase-in, capped future increases). At the borderline tier (10 to 25 percent), a § 723.075 homeowner committee has real leverage to request the park's basis documentation, pursue mediation, and negotiate down. At the likely-challengeable tier (above 25 percent), an organized committee should pursue mediation under § 723.037(5) as a class-action prerequisite and prepare for litigation if mediation fails.

Throughout, paying under protest while pursuing the collective remedy is generally a stronger posture than withholding rent and risking eviction under § 723.061. The 5-day non-payment notice clock under § 723.061(1)(a) runs fast, and an eviction proceeding gives the park a procedural advantage that outweighs the symbolic value of withholding.

What this calculator does NOT do

This calculator is a forward-looking estimator and a procedural triage tool. It does not:

• Replace a Florida-licensed attorney's review of your specific situation. Lot-tenancy disputes are fact-intensive and the difference between a winning and losing posture often turns on the specific language of your prospectus and rental agreement.
• Compute the value of your specific service decrease for you. The dollar value of a lost amenity is fact-intensive and best estimated against either the resident's actual replacement cost (private trash hauling, gym membership replacing a closed clubhouse) or the line-item value from the park's prospectus.
• Capture every Chapter 723 right. The Florida Mobile Home Act includes additional protections around park sales (right of first refusal in some circumstances under F.S. § 723.071), the F.S. § 723.083 government-action protections, and the security-deposit framework under § 723.063 that this calculator does not surface.

For the broader picture of how a mobile home is taxed in Florida (the personal-property versus real-property classification decision under F.S. § 193.075), see our Florida Mobile Home Tax and Classification Calculator. For the eviction-timeline view of what happens if non-payment of the increased rent leads to a § 723.061 proceeding, see our Florida Residential Eviction Timeline Calculator — note that the calculator is calibrated to § 83 evictions; the § 723 framework has shorter notice windows (5-day non-payment instead of 3-day) and different defenses.

How this page is maintained

We refresh the F.S. § 723.037 procedural rules and the related § 723.011, § 723.061, and § 723.075 frameworks after each Florida legislative session (Chapter 723 has been substantially stable since the 2008 revision but is subject to legislative attention each year on the rent-increase regime). The reasonableness tiers are calibrated against current Florida case law on the HBCP standard; we revisit them annually against the Florida 2nd and 4th DCA published opinions on § 723.037 disputes. The typical-Florida-lot-rent band is updated against the Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida regional rent surveys.

Last reviewed: 2026-05-15 against F.S. § 723.037, § 723.061, § 723.075, § 723.011 and HBCP v. Palm Beach Park (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).