Question. As a follow-up to your prior Q&A about assistance animals, I'm confused as to the distinction between them, "service animals" and "companion animals." Are we, as landlords, required to make a "reasonable accommodation," by allowing all of them? My understanding is that such animals cannot be counted as "pets" in regard to number, size, breed, or anything else as it relates to park Rules and Regulations. The exception being for animals that cause disturbance, injury, or is threating. Please clarify.

If you are reading this, chances are you are one of the millions of baby boomers at or near retirement. Although you might not care for the moniker, the government has officially designated you as an "older person." If you own property designated as housing for "seniors," you should periodically refresh yourself on the state of the law protecting "older persons" and to avoid the mistakes of other property owners.

Question: A landlord recently purchased a manufactured home in his community. He wants to fix the home up and then resell it. Does the landlord have to be a licensed plumber or electrician to do the respective work on the home?

Question: It has recently come to our attention that a tenant is in violation of our two-pet policy, as she has admitted that she has 4 small dogs living in her home. When we speak with her through her door, the smell of dog urine is overwhelming. We have mailed her a letter explaining that this is rules violation and asked that she remove two of the pets by a certain date. Our letter warned that if she failed to comply, she would be sent a 30-Day Notice to Vacate.

She stated she would keep the two extra dogs and claim them as service animal. This week she gave us a letter from her nurse practitioner stating she needed the pets for a medical condition. What are our options? We would like to serve her a 30 Day Notice to Vacate for Cause (violating our 2 pet policy). However, she has been speaking with advocacy groups that tell her we have no right to make her get rid of the two "service animals."

We feel that it is our responsibility as landlords to consistently enforce our community rules, but also don't want to get dragged into costly litigation just to lose in the end due to federal regulations of some kind.

“In 1988, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (“FHA”) was overhauled [by the] Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988…. Prior to the amendments, the Fair Housing Act prohibited various forms of housing-related discrimination based on ‘race, color, religion, or national origin.’ … In 1974, discrimination based on sex was added. … In 1988, prohibitions against housing discrimination based on ‘familial status’ …[was] added to the Act. Pub. L. No. 100-430, § 6, 102 Stat. 1619, 1620-21 (1988) [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq]….” United States v. Southern Management Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 917 (4th Cir. 1992).

The FHA as amended now prohibits refusals to negotiate for the rental of a dwelling space on the basis of familial status, as well as statements indicating such discrimination. Morgan v. HUD et al, 985 F2d 1451, 1457 (10th Cir. 1993) stated that manufactured home “lots are considered dwellings under and within the scope of the [FHA].” (Id. at 1454) Under the FHA, “familial status” is defined as one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) living with a parent or other designee having custody of the minor(s), i.e., families with children. 42 U.S. C. 3602(k)

Early on the courts begin analyzing familial status discrimination claims by first focusing on the language contained in the landlord’s rules and regulations. For example, the plaintiff buyers of a manufactured home in Morgan, cited above, contended in a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that the park owner had refused to allow the moibilehome sale because the buyers had a three year old son. The judge looked to the park rules, which were drafted by a tenants’ committee before discrimination based on familial status was prohibited, that expressly stated the park was “entirely an adult park” and “no children will be allowed in the park.” Even after the landlord agreed to retract this policy and the mobilehome was sold to a couple with children, after being notified by the buyer’s attorney the “adult only” policy was illegal, the administrative law judge found the landlord liable for discrimination under FHA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed.

This analytical approach used by courts and regulators of scrutinizing a manufactured home community’s rules for evidence of discrimination against families with children has continued to evolve and is even more prominent today as demonstrated by a recent federal case arising out of California.

Question: One of our long-time RV residents recently passed away. He didn't have any next of kin or friends who might want to claim his property. What can we do with his RV, pickup truck, and other personal property items on the space?

Question: We have a tenant whose son (age 65) is her caregiver. They spend winters in Southern California. The son/caregiver used to work for us a few years ago, but was fired due to his terrible attitude and disrespect for management. The situation has continued to worsen, and he has filed false complaints against the park with the DEQ over our wastewater.

He submitted a Temporary Occupant Agreement (MHCO #25) dated March 13, 2013, containing an expiration date of November 2049. Obviously, we would not accept that request. We have spoken to the Oregon Fair Housing Council, and they advised us that a resident is entitled to have the caregiver of their choice, and if we resisted he could possibly take the case to BOLI and we would not prevail, with a very costly defense.

Since then we sent him a revised Temporary Occupant Agreement, identifying that it was a "reasonable accommodation compromise," setting forth specific conditions limiting his interactions with management and physical proximity to the wastewater plant. After no response, we again spoke with a Fair Housing Council representative again, and they stated they would contact the resident and her care provider to ask them to send the signed agreement back to us. So far, we have never received it back, so currently, he does not have any written agreement with us for his occupancy, temporary or otherwise.

We are concerned that when his elderly mother passes away, he will apply for occupancy. We do not believe that he could pass our income requirements for residency. He currently does "handy man" jobs for other residents, and likely cannot demonstrate sufficient income.

Two weeks ago he took his mother to Southern California for the winter and returned without her. It is unclear if he will stay through the winter, or return to California. Can we write him a letter saying that as a caregiver, he is not allowed to be here without her?

Question: An occupant lives in a home that is sub leased from her father. The father, who is the official tenant on the lease, does not live in the home. The occupant has been in the house since the beginning of January. The occupant was asked at the time to complete and submit a criminal background check, but refused. So the occupant is living there as an unauthorized person. The father has given the occupant (his daughter) an eviction notice. They went to court, and the judge told them to come back in two weeks. This morning the occupant gave the community owner a money order for February rent. What should the community owner do with the money order. Should it be returned? Should the community owner issue a 24 hour notice since the occupant is there without another person in the home having signed a rental agreement? Or should the community owner give a no cause eviction?

As a Manufactured Home Park owner, there are many things to consider in regards to water submeter conversion in Oregon. "To Submeter or Not to Submeter?"

Question. In 2011 we passed through sewer directly to our residents. It was previously included in the base rent. The total monthly sewer bill is $2,174.00. We have 62 spaces and we divided the $2,174 by that number to get $35.00 per month per resident.

We gave a 30-day notice stating the gross monthly amount of the sewer bill and the amount we were passing thru to each resident. In our Statement of Policy it says that the sewer is paid by the landlord but that we could change that with a reasonable notice at any time. Is there anything wrong in the way we handled this?