Is an RV park guest in Texas a tenant or a licensee for eviction purposes?

Plain-English summary

A Texas state senator asked the AG whether guests at recreational vehicle parks count as licensees or tenants when it comes to eviction. The label matters a great deal, because Texas law gives tenants and licensees very different rights. A tenant has a vested interest in the property and obtains exclusive possession and control of the premises; a tenant can sue to recover possession, and ending the tenancy requires proper notice and, if the tenant will not leave, a civil forcible-detainer action under the Property Code. A licensee, by contrast, only has permission to use another's land for a particular purpose, takes no interest in the land itself, and the permission is revocable at will. A licensee cannot sue to recover possession, and removing one does not require civil process. The classic example the AG used is a hotel guest, who is a licensee rather than a tenant and can be removed on reasonable notice without a detainer suit.

The AG explained that whether a person is a tenant or a licensee is generally a fact question that depends on the terms of the parties' agreement. It does not turn on the type of business alone. The AG pointed to an earlier opinion, GA-0606 (2008), which had already addressed the relationship between an RV park and its guests and concluded they do not have a uniform status. Because a guest pays to use the property under an agreement, express or implied, that agreement might address the length of stay, the right to have other guests, and each party's right to terminate, and it could amount to a lease, a license, or some other legal relationship, each with different consequences.

The AG also addressed an argument in the briefing that RV parks are commercial properties providing only transient lodging, like hotels or motels. The statutory definitions of "recreational vehicle" and "recreational vehicle park" do describe them as "primarily" for transient or temporary use, but the AG noted those laws do not prohibit a park from giving an individual guest more permanent lodging, and the Penal Code even recognizes that a recreational vehicle may be used as temporary or permanent living quarters. So no blanket rule applies to all RV park guests. The legal relationship, and with it the eviction process, depends on the terms of the agreement between the park and the particular guest. The AG limited the opinion to guests staying in a recreational vehicle and did not address RV parks that lease lots for manufactured homes.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

RV park operators: The AG explained that whether a guest is a tenant or a licensee turns on the parties' agreement, so a park's contract terms (length of stay, exclusivity, termination rights) determine whether removing a guest requires landlord-tenant notice and a civil eviction or can be handled like a hotel checkout.

RV park guests: The opinion explained that a guest may be a tenant with eviction protections or a licensee removable on reasonable notice, depending on the agreement, not on the fact that the stay is at an RV park.

Anyone wanting a single rule: The AG declined to give one. It confirmed there is no uniform status for RV park guests; the relationship is decided case by case on the agreement's terms.

Common questions

Is an RV park guest a tenant or a licensee in Texas?
At the time of this opinion, it depended on the agreement. The AG explained that whether a guest is a tenant or licensee is generally a fact question turning on the terms of the parties' agreement, with no blanket rule.

Why does the tenant-versus-licensee label matter for eviction?
The AG explained that a tenant can be evicted only with proper notice and, if needed, a civil forcible-detainer action, while a licensee can be removed on reasonable notice without civil process.

Can an RV park evict a guest like a hotel removes a guest?
Only if the guest is a licensee, not a tenant. The AG explained the answer depends on the agreement; a guest who is a tenant has eviction protections, while a licensee can be removed without a detainer suit.

Does an RV park being "transient" lodging settle it?
No. The AG noted that the statutory definitions call RV parks "primarily" transient but do not prohibit providing an individual guest more permanent lodging, so the relationship still depends on the agreement.

Background and statutory framework

Texas distinguishes tenants, who hold a vested interest and exclusive possession and may be evicted only through notice and a civil forcible-detainer action (Tex. Prop. Code § 24.002; Otley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied); City of Irving v. Seppy, 301 S.W.3d 435, 446 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); Mallam v. Trans-Tex. Airways, 227 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1949, no writ); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0237 (2000)), from licensees, who hold no interest, are revocable at will, and may be removed without civil process (Martin v. Cockrell, 335 S.W.3d 229, 241 n.20 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2010, no pet.); Otley, 449 S.W.3d at 575-76; McBride v. Hosey, 197 S.W.2d 372, 374-75 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).

Whether someone is a tenant or licensee is a fact question turning on the parties' agreement (Brown v. Johnson, 12 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. 1929); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-407 (1981)), and a tenancy requires intent to dispossess and a definite, certain place demised. The AG confirmed that RV park guests have no uniform status (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0606 (2008)) and that the statutory "primarily" transient definitions do not bar more permanent lodging (Tex. Transp. Code § 522.004(b); Tex. Water Code § 13.087(a)(3); Tex. Penal Code § 46.02(a-2)). The opinion did not address RV parks leasing lots for manufactured homes (Tex. Prop. Code §§ 94.001-.303).

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Prop. Code § 24.002; §§ 94.001-.303
• Tex. Transp. Code § 522.004(b)
• Tex. Water Code § 13.087(a)(3)
• Tex. Penal Code § 46.02(a-2)

Cases and Attorney General opinions:

• Otley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied)
• City of Irving v. Seppy, 301 S.W.3d 435, 446 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.)
• Mallam v. Trans-Tex. Airways, 227 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1949, no writ)
• Martin v. Cockrell, 335 S.W.3d 229, 241 n.20 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2010, no pet.)
• McBride v. Hosey, 197 S.W.2d 372, 374-75 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• Brown v. Johnson, 12 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. 1929)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0237 (2000)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0606 (2008)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-407 (1981)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0222
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2018/kp0222.pdf

Original opinion text

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

November 21, 2018

The Honorable Charles Perry Opinion No. KP-0222
Chair, Committee on Agriculture,
Water, and Rural Affairs Re: Whether recreational vehicle park guests
Texas State Senate are licensees or tenants (RQ-0222-KP)
Post Office Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Dear Senator Perry:

    You ask whether guests at recreational vehicle parks are licensees or tenants for eviction

purposes. [1] Texas law distinguishes between the rights of tenants and licensees. A tenant has a
vested interest in the property of another and obtains exclusive possession and control of the
premises. See Otley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014,
pet. denied); City of Irving v. Seppy, 301 S.W.3d 435, 446 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.).
Therefore, a tenant may file suit to recover possession of leased premises, terminating the tenancy
requires proper notice, and eviction may require civil process. See Mallam v. Trans-Tex. Airways,
227 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1949, no writ); see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No.
JC-0237 (2000) at 4-5 (discussing notice required to terminate tenancy); TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 24.002 (providing for forcible detainer action to evict tenant who refuses to surrender possession
of real property). In contrast, a license merely entitles a party to use the land of another for a
particular purpose without conveying any interest in the land itself and is revocable at will. Martin
v. Cockrell, 335 S.W.3d 229, 241 n.20 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2010, no pet.); see Otley, 449 S.W.3d
at 575 ("A guest in a hotel is a mere licensee, not a tenant."). Accordingly, a licensee may not sue
to recover possession of the premises and eviction does not require civil process. See Otley, 449
S.W.3d at 576 (concluding hotel guest did not have arguable right to possession of hotel room);
McBride v. Hosey, 197 S.W.2d 372, 374-75 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
(concluding that, in absence of landlord-tenant relationship, a hotel need not resort to a civil
detainer action to evict guest upon reasonable notice).

   Whether a person is a tenant or a licensee is generally a fact question, dependent upon the

terms of the parties' agreement. Brown v. Johnson, 12 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. 1929); see also Tex.
Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-407 (1981) at 2 ("Whether or not two parties intend to enter into a lease
agreement or some other agreement is determined by the contract between them."). Thus, a prior
opinion of this office addressing the legal relationship between a recreational vehicle park and its
guests, Attorney General Opinion GA-0606, determined that persons staying at these facilities do
not have uniform status as either licensees or tenants. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0606 (2008)
at 3-5. Rather, the opinion concluded that the legal relationship between a recreational vehicle
park and its guests depends on the terms of the parties' agreement:

                     The operations of an RV park or similar commercial
             enterprise may present special considerations because of the likely
             existence of a contract pertaining to the use of the property. As you
             explain, a guest pays for use of the property, which we assume will
             be pursuant to an agreement or contract, express or implied, with the
             proprietor of an RV park. If express, their contract may address such
             matters such as the length of the guest's stay, the guest's right to
             have other guests, and the right of either party to terminate the
             agreement. The agreement may constitute a lease, a license, or some
             other legal relationship, each with potentially different
             consequences.

Id. at 3. Thus, a court would look to the facts of each case to determine whether a guest at a
recreational vehicle park is a tenant or licensee. [2] See id. "To create the relationship of landlord
and tenant, no particular words are necessary, but it is indispensable that it should appear to have
been the intention of one party to dispossess himself of the premises and the other party to occupy
them." Brown, 12 S.W.2d at 545; see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-407 (1981) at 2-3 ("The
first and perhaps most important test to determine whether or not the contract is for a lease of real
property is the extent to which the consumer obtains exclusive possession of the property.").
Additionally, a tenancy will only arise when "a definite, certain place [is] demised or rented." Tex.
Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-407 (1981) at 3 (concluding that right-to-use timeshare did not convey
an interest in real property, in part, because the consumer could not expect any definite, certain
space to be allotted (quotation marks omitted)).

    Briefing submitted in response to your request argues that under Texas law, recreational

vehicle parks are commercial properties that provide lodging only to transient or temporary guests
and are akin to hotels, motels, or lodges. [3] Although statutory definitions of "recreational vehicle
park" and "recreational vehicle" explain that both are "primarily" designed for transient or
temporary use, such laws do not prohibit a recreational vehicle park from providing an individual
guest with more permanent lodging. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 522.004(b) (defining "recreational
vehicle"); TEX. WATER CODE § 13.087(a)(3) (defining "recreational vehicle park"); see also TEX.
PENAL CODE § 46.02(a-2) (recognizing that recreational vehicle may be used as either temporary
or permanent living quarters). Thus, a blanket rule does not exist for all recreational vehicle park
guests; rather, the legal relationship between a recreational vehicle park and its guest depends on
the terms of the parties' agreement.

                                   SUMMARY

                  An agreement between a recreational vehicle park and a
          guest staying on the premises in a recreational vehicle may establish
          a landlord-tenant relationship, a license, or other legal relationship
          depending on its terms.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         KEN PAXTON
                                         Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

ASHLEY FRANKLIN
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Request Letter from Honorable Charles Perry, Chair, Senate Comm. on Agric., Water, & Rural Affairs, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Apr. 17, 2018), https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] We note that you seek an opinion addressing only the relationship between a recreational vehicle park and a guest staying on the premises in a recreational vehicle. Request Letter at 1-2. As you exclude from the scope of your request recreational vehicle parks that lease lots for the installation of manufactured homes, we likewise do not address manufactured homes in this opinion. See id. at 1 n.1; see also TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 94.001-.303 (governing manufactured home tenancies).

[3] See Brief from Bill Cobb, Cobb & Counsel, on behalf of Tex. Ass'n of Campground Owners at 2-3 (May 21, 2018) (on file with the Op. Comm.).