Question: A member is near the end of an abandonment notice.  The former resident and owner of the home without notice to the landlord sells the "abandoned" home to another person.   Does the landlord have to send a new abandonment notice to the new owner and restart the 60 day clock?  

Question.  As new managers, we are concerned about being able to spot problem issues before they get out of control.  What are some of the major management mistakes we should watch out for? 

Question: In March of this year a home in our community was destroyed by fire.  During the application process with the city and Marion County, it came to our attention that the Fire Marshall had contacted the city public works department, telling them that they needed to be contacted if our community made any placement applications to move a new home into the community.  The city would not accept our application.

Upon contacting the assistant Fire Marshall, she advised that any new homes within the community would have to be located within 600 feet of a fire hydrant.  She advised that this has been the requirement for approximately the last 15 years.  She explained that although there have been homes allowed to be placed in the park exceeding this distance within that time frame, the fact that they were more than 600 feet from the hydrant was apparently not an issue.

She further explained that the fire engines carry 600 feet of fire hose, and that during the March fire the responding fire fighters ran out of hose prior to reaching the fire.  A second fire engine was needed lay additional hose to the scene.  She said that until a solution was made to be able to supply a suitable water supply for firefighting, no homes could be placed in the park that are located more than 600 feet from the hydrant.

As an older park where the homes are quite vintage, this will obviously cause a major blow to our business in the future.  Are we in anyway protected or somehow "grandfathered" due to the age of our park? I can't imagine that we are the only park that may face similar situations.

HUD recently announced that it’s charging a couple who owns an apartment building in Georgia with violating fair housing law by refusing to rent to, imposing different rental terms and conditions on, and making discriminatory statements about families with children.

Question:  I gave a 5% rent increase in June 2019.  Can I do another rent increase again in September 2019?  If I can, how much more can I give?  If I did not give any rent increases in 2019 can I still do those increases in 2020 plus what I what is allowed in 2020?  Are rent increases based on calendar year? 

Question.  We have just begun managing a 55+ community. However, we are confused about the 80/20 rules and the possibility of losing our 55+ status. What is a safe margin for occupancy limits?  And if our community percentage is 85%, are we required to rent the 15% remainder to families with children?  

Introduction and Background (Part 2 of 2)

As previously mentioned last week, SB 586 was developed by the Manufactured Housing Landlord/Tenant Coalition during 19 meetings (each of approximately 3 hours) from September 2017 through February, 2019. There are several pieces to SB 586; however, this Q&A focuses on the limited mandatory mediation policy together with the $100,000 annual grant the Legislature has authorized be allocated to the Oregon Law Center to assist manufactured and floating home tenants with understanding and enforcing the Oregon Residential and Landlord Tenant Act.

As was reported by Chuck Carpenter during the Legislative session, the goal from MHCO’s perspective, was to use the coalition to get the best possible result considering the political landscape in the Legislature. Bluntly, some of the original ideas proposed by the tenants in the coalition were quite onerous. The end result, however, is a true compromise that is favorable to MHCO landlords, all things considered.

If you would like to learn more about these issues and/or you have particular questions, please join me for my presentation at the 2019 Annual Conference in October. In the meantime here are 17 questions (10 questions were uploaded on 9/4/19.  The remaining 7 were uploaded 9/10/19) and answers that will get you started.

Introduction and Background

SB 586 was developed by the Manufactured Housing Landlord/Tenant Coalition during 19 meetings (each of approximately 3 hours) from September 2017 through February, 2019. There are several pieces to SB 586; however, this Q&A focuses on the limited mandatory mediation policy together with the $100,000 annual grant the Legislature has authorized be allocated to the Oregon Law Center to assist manufactured and floating home tenants with understanding and enforcing the Oregon Residential and Landlord Tenant Act.

As was reported by Chuck Carpenter during the Legislative session, the goal from MHCO’s perspective, was to use the coalition to get the best possible result considering the political landscape in the Legislature. Bluntly, some of the original ideas proposed by the tenants in the coalition were quite onerous. The end result, however, is a true compromise that is favorable to MHCO landlords, all things considered.

If you would like to learn more about these issues and/or you have particular questions, please join me for my presentation at the 2019 Annual Conference in October. In the meantime here are 17 questions (10 uploaded today and the remaining 7 to be uploaded next week) and answers that will get you started.

Question. A resident recently moved out of state.  The landlord wants to mail a non-payment of rent notice, and would like proof that the notice was received by the resident.  Can the landlord mail the notice as a "Certificate of Mailing"?