MHCO Legal Counsel

Question:  A resident wants to see their file kept by the landlord.  Does the landlord have to show the resident the file?

HB 2680 makes several changes to the procedure for tenant screening under ORS 90.295. These changes will be updated in the MHCO Forms.

Screening Notice. The law specifies that upon completion of an applicant’s screening by a screening company or consumer credit agency, the landlord must provide the prospective tenant with confirmation of the screening and a receipt for the screening service from the company and/or agency.

Question. When I try to trespass people off of park grounds, the cops refuse to do so based on the reasoning that they could be invited there by a resident, and they (the cops) have no way of knowing. I have dealt with this issue in numerous parks throughout Oregon, so I know I am not the only one. What can we do?

Question. I am looking for information dealing with fence liability between landlords and tenants, and between tenants and other tenants.

Our Park Management has not put up any fences. All fences were installed by current and past tenants. Generally, my questions relate to the duty to maintain these fences, liability from trees (hazard and otherwise), and repair issues and fences that were installed by past vs. current tenants.

Question:  What happens to the home of a tenant living alone? What protections are in place?

Question:  .  What is the landlord’s responsibility when it comes to trees falling on a tenant’s house. Does it make a difference if it is a hazard tree vs. not a hazard tree? What about roots crossing over a space and causing damage to the home on the tenant’s space or the neighbor’s space?

By way of refresher, ORS 90.630 pertains to curable maintenance/appearance violations relating to residents’ spaces.  However, if the violation relates to the physical condition of the home’s exterior, ORS 90.632 applies, to address repair and/or remediation that can take more time to cure, either due to the weather, the amount or complexity of the work, or availability of qualified workers.

As a result, SB 277A, which became law on June 14, 2017 (“Effective Date”), will apply: (a) To rental agreements for fixed term tenancies – i.e. leases – entered into or renewed on or after the Effective Date; and, (b) To rental agreements for periodic tenancies – i.e. month-to-month tenancies – in effect on or after the Effective Date.

MHCO has significantly changed its current form No. 55 to address the changes in the new law. The major issue going forward is for managers and landlords to be able to recognize when to use Form No. 55 to address disrepair and deterioration conditions, versus Form No. 43C, which is appropriate for violations relating to maintenance and appearance of the space.

90-Day Rent Increase Notices Sent Before 2023 Legislation Becomes Law

Question:  All indications are that the 2023 legislature is going to revisit the rent increase formula currently in effect, and once passed it would likely become law immediately upon the Governor’s signature. How can landlords deal with having already issued a September 2022 90-day rent increase notice if the 2023 rent cap is legislatively reduced before the landlord’s previously-issued September 2022 increase goes into effect?

Introduction. First, let’s start with the basics: There are two main types of property, real and personal. (There is a third category, a hybrid actually, called a “fixture,” which was originally personal property that when securely attached to the real property becomes a part of it. Removal would cause damage to the structure. Fixtures transfer with the structure unless removed by pre-agreement before closing of the sale. In residential housing, attached light fixtures are the main example.) For purposes of this article, we  will ignore fixtures.

Introduction. A recent ruling from the Oregon Court of Appeals should be of interest to landlords, including those owning manufactures housing communities. Many provisions in the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Act apply a multiplier for the landlord’s violation of a statute.

A case in point is 90.315(4), a utility billing statute which allows that aggrieved tenants may recover the greater of “one month’s periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged” for each individual violation. In Shepard, the plaintiff sought to apply the statute in an ongoing manner for every month the alleged violation existed. It does not require a calculator to conclude that an alleged violation that existed for 12 months (the statute of limitations under the Act) can amount to a sizeable claim against the landlord – and especially so if brought as a class action on behalf of the entire Park.