Querin Law

Question.  What is the difference between the enforceability of our rules vs our rental agreement? What if they conflict?

Question: What are a landlord's rights against a lender holding a lien on the tenant's home following the tenant's abandonment? We have a lender who signed the storage agreement, but has failed to maintain the space. What notice should the landlord give? Do we have to start the abandonment notification all over again?

Question.  Following your article on screening for criminal history, I’m needing some help digesting all the Do’s and Don’ts.  Are there any recent visual aids that might help?

Background. On April 4, 2016, the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued its “Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions” (hereinafter, the “Memo”). The full text of the 10-page Memo can be found here. Not surprisingly, it follows the June 25, 2015 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court, in the Texas Dept. of Housing vs. Inclusive Communities case, which upheld the much-debated concept of “disparate impact” under the Fair Housing Act, as amended (the Act”).  

Oregon landlord-tenant law is complicated.  And mistakes in understanding the law frequently work against landlords.  The basic rule-of-thumb to remember is that the written document which defines the landlord-tenant relationship must be complete and must be followed.  While Oregon law does contain some restrictions upon what landlords can put into their rental agreements,[1] generally, they are far better off commencing the rental relationship with a strong, clear and fair written document.   MHCO has gone to great lengths in making sure that its forms meet these criteria.  What follows is a list of ten tips and traps to remember when using the MHCO Rental Agreement form.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) went into effect on March 12, 1989.  That Act amended Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the sale, rental, or financing of residential housing.  The FHAA added two additional protected classes; (1) persons with disabilities and (2) families with children.  Children include persons under the age of 18 years.

Background. The Fair Housing Act (“FHA” or “Act”) was passed in 1968, and has been an important fixture in the law ever since. Essentially, its purpose was to prohibit discrimination in the sale and rental of residential housing. At the time, there were five main protected classes, i.e. groups of persons entitled to the protection of the Act. Those classifications were race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  In 1988, the FHA was amended to include two additional protected classifications: disability and familial status.[1]

The language of the Act makes it illegal “(t)o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the  sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”[2]  [Underscore mine.]  In other words, certain conduct is prohibited if it is “because of” another’s race, color, etc. 

Notwithstanding the text of the Act suggesting that Fair Housing claims may only be based upon intentional forms of discrimination, for many years several lower federal courts have ruled otherwise; i.e. holding that certain actions, though “facially neutral” (i.e. with no proof of improper motive), may constitute a violation of the Act if they adversely impact a protected class. This is the premise underlying the principle of “disparate impact”; the consequence rather than the motivation can be found to violate fair housing law. For a more detailed background on disparate impact, see my post here.

When reduced to its lowest common denominator, the ultimate question raised by disparate impact theory is whether the FHA forbids actions that may have a statistically adverse impact upon members of a protected class, even though those actions were not motivated by any intent to discriminate.[3]

Hoarding is distinct from simply building a collection, which is usually displayed with pride, or letting a few days of dishes and laundry pile up when life gets busy. A person who has been diagnosed with hoarding has a disability under the Fair Housing Act1.

Question: Over the years Oregon rental laws change. When should I update my rental agreement to reflect those changes? Can I change my “Statement of Policy”? What about the community rules and regulations?

Question:  I am still unclear on the issue of whether we may insist that all applicants for tenancy produce a valid social security number. Is it legal that we do so?