Search

The thought "Stick with the MHPs, Stevens" may have occurred to you. There is a point to the Camp David Accords reference. The point is, President Carter would not settle for anything other than peace. MHP park owners & managers can borrow this theme. Eviction (one could argue a violent action), is a last resort. Peace in the valley, while not easy, may be less stressful for manager and residents, as well as a better solution for all.

Key Points:

• It is stressful for managers and owners to deal with the same problems month in and month out, which might lead to burn-out. Burn-out may lead to a manager quitting or worse, just not giving the job 100%

• Budget: One manager sold life insurance for a national company, prior to being a park manager. In his training to sell life insurance, he was told the first thing to do is a monthly budget with the prospect. This way, the prospect quickly ascertains there is money to buy life insurance as long as they stick to a budget. Do a budget for the chronically late residents. Perhaps they truly cannot afford to live on the property.

• Earn More: In this full employment economy, it is reasonable to expect a struggling resident to ask for a raise, ask for more hours or get a second job. don't assume the resident realizes this.

• Resolve to take action on any resident that is consistently using up the manager's time and company resources with no resulting progress.

• What MHP projects and initiatives are delayed or not getting sufficient attention (buying homes, marketing homes, green initiatives, resident relations), because of time spent on this handful of residents?

• The residents are stressed too, when they are delinquent. Maybe forcing a resolution ultimately helps them to figure out what it will take for them to continue living in the park.

Gray Gardens Gail hails back to the movie "Grey Gardens":

It was about the once (but no longer) wealthy Bouvier mother and daughter that were called out by the local health department for the enormous number of cats in their home and on their property that had created a public health hazard. What made this "cat house" newsworthy is, the occupants were Jackie Kennedy's and Lee Radziwill's aunt and cousin, both of whom were suffering from mental health issues. And the "home" was a mansion in East Hampton, Long Island. The filth from the cats, the garbage and lack of litter boxes in the mansion made the property a fixer-upper extraordinaire. The decrepit mansion was purchased and beautifully restored, and in December 2018, it sold for $15.5 million.

Who among us does not have or had a Grey Gardens Gail in our parks? Not only is there no reasoning with Gail, there is usually no emergency contact person, let alone someone famous and rich to help this resident. To compound the dilemma, the government officials do not want to get involved. In Grey Gardens Gail's case, filing an eviction might be the only way to get the residents' attention and ideally, cooperation. This is a health issue for the resident, the animals and the property.

Carmen Sans Communicato:

Carmen's deal is she always pays her rent but is chronically delinquent. In addition, Carmen has a phone and face-to-face conversation phobia that often leads you to wondering. That is to say, she does not care to, want to, or cannot meet with the manager. She does not take the manager's calls (is this really a phobia and a mental health issue?). What to do? With Carmen, the only way to get the real story is to file an eviction. If the court allows the eviction, then Carmen will have to move. At the very least, the manager just might get a new application from Ms. Carmen Sans Communicato. This way, the manager can determine if Carmen can afford to live in the park.

Deadly Disease Donna:

Have you had a Deadly Disease Donna who has been informed of every non-profit, church and government agency under the sun as resources for assistance? But Donna doesn'twant to ask for help. Meanwhile, there is a healthy adult living in the home who does not work. Maybe the healthy adult is taking care of Donna. Recently, a new company bought Donna's park. The new owner has a policy of "No Pay, No Stay". What the new owner discovered is, Donna and her family actually moved into the home of the former owner for a time. That is, until the former owner couldn'ttake it anymore. Then Donna and her brood moved back to the park. The new owners commenced to send to Donna the proper legal Notice and an attorney has been hired to file for eviction. It is doubtful this will end up in an eviction, though. Donna paid off all but $150, once the Notice arrived. The next step is that two relatives will co-sign the lease and guarantee rent payments. This is a good outcome for all.

Joanne Stevens is a National Mobile Home Park Broker with NAI Iowa Realty Commercial, a Berkshire Hathaway Company.

Email: joannestevens@iowarealty.com

Website: www.joannestevens.com

Phone: (319) 310-0641

Answer. There is no such form. Perhaps there should be. But first, let's address some threshold issues, such as:

• Who owns the structure?
• Who has the duty to maintain it?
• What happens to it when the tenant vacates the space?
• Who would likely be held liable for injuries to persons/property using the structure?

If the structure was there when the resident first rented or leased the space, there isn'tmuch question but that the landlord "owns" it, if it remains there when the space is re-rented or re-leased. Although most rental/lease agreements and rules require the resident to "maintain" the space, in most instances, the text of these provision generally apply to landscaping-type activities. If the structure is expressly identified in the park documents, and allocates maintenance responsibility to the resident, then the issue is clearer. But it is my opinion that if the documents are silent about park-owned structures on the space, the duty to maintain, paint, etc., lies with the landlord. Why? Because the landlord drafted or selected the documents for the resident to sign, and accordingly, could have delegated the responsibility in whatever manner he/she saw fit. Having failed to do so, means that the agreement or rule will most likely be construed most strictly "against the drafter" - i.e. to the landlord.

Clearly, if the structure was on the space at the inception of the tenancy (therefor presumptively belonging to the landlord), when the resident departs, it would remain there. Similarly, if some liability occurred, it would fall on the landlord, unless it was from an event caused by the resident.

For example, say there is a storage shed located on the space at the start of the tenancy, and nothing is said in the park documents about maintenance responsibility. The resident uses the shed to store family items, including old photos and collectibles. Unbeknownst to the resident, the shed is not completely water resistant, and over the course of the winter, they are destroyed. Unless there is some evidence the resident knew about the leakage and did nothing to protect their belongings, this is likely a landlord liability.

Is this an instance in which the landlord could protect themselves by having a release of liability agreement saying that the resident assumes all responsibility for destruction or loss of any valuables stored in the shed? Possibly, but not absolutely. In other words, the more specific the agreement was, the better the chances are it would be enforced to the benefit of the landlord. But a simple statement saying that the resident assumes all responsibility for the contents stored in the shed, might not go far enough. Remember, absent the resident's duty to maintain the shed, if the landlord has the maintenance responsibility, management is arguably somewhat responsible for making sure that the shed is watertight - at least that's the argument the resident's attorney would make. So how can the landlord, who has the duty to maintain the shed, abdicate responsibility for not maintaining it in a secure manner?

Accordingly, to have a more enforceable release agreement, I submit that landlords should also have an agreement providing that: (a) landlord does not have a duty to maintain, inspect, or secure it; (b) landlord does not warrant or guarantee that the shed is waterproof, or free from mold and mildew; (c) before use, the resident should assure himself/herself that it is suitable for storage of the specific contents intended to be stored there; and (d) that the resident covenants and agrees to maintain the exterior and interior of the shed for the duration of the tenancy. Only then can you expect a full release and hold harmless clause to be effective, since by signing, the resident is now making an informed decision about the scope of responsibilities under the agreement going forward.

So the take-away here is that if you have not addressed these issues for park-owned structures in the lease, rental agreement and/or rules, you should do so upon turnover of the space. Until then, it would likely be difficult to shift responsibility onto a resident, when it was not expressly bargained for at the inception of the tenancy.

Similarly, even though a resident builds the structure, you may want to address these issues in a separate written agreement before the structure is built. In addition, you want to make sure that the construction of a tenant-built structure conforms to all applicable building codes and ordinances, including, where applicable, the taking out of one or more building permits. And if the resident hires a contractor, you will want to use MHCO Form No. 52.

And importantly, you will want to address whether the resident has a duty to remove it upon sale of the home. Alternatively, you can provide that the landlord reserves the right to make that decision if/when the resident who built it gives notice of intent to sell or remove the home. And if it stays, you'll want to have an agreement with the new resident, addressing the issues described above.

Lastly, if the structure is something built for children to play on, e.g. swing sets, ladders, slides, etc., I strongly recommend that you require the resident who built it, take it with them. Under no circumstances do you want to lease or rent space to another resident with this apparatus there. It creates too much liability for management, and even if it remained after a resident left, I would remove it before permitting possession by new residents with small children.

It is fairly common in litigation or disputes involving mobile home tenancies for title to a home to change hands, whether pursuant to a "warehouse lien" authorized by statute after an unlawful detainer (evictions) judgment is obtained against a defaulting tenant, or by reason of a settlement between the parties or a surrender of a home to the park by heirs of a deceased tenant. A park should always ensure that title is properly transferred from a current or former owner to the park pursuant to all applicable laws (e.g., Department of Housing and Community Development requirements in California). Failing to do so runs the risk of problems occurring later. For example, if the park places a new tenant in the newly purchased home, thinking that the park owns the unit but later finds out that it does not have title to the unit significant legal issues can arise. For example, would the park have authority or standing to evict without title? In a scenario where a home has not been transferred properly the park can ordinarily obtain good title by way of an Abandonment Petition (in California at least) if the home is unoccupied. However, by placing a tenant in a recently purchased home, the park could be denied this avenue of transferring title and may have to pay to relocate the new resident. In addition, there is no guarantee that the tenant will cooperate. At the very least a tenant will be very unhappy. Following through and making sure that the park has proper title can save this and other unforeseen headaches. Indeed, as just noted, an eviction might be impaired without proper title documents.

Mobile home residents are often unaware (or uncaring) of the legal problems they can cause a park owner by selling their mobile home without notifying or getting the approval of the park (as most parks require). Such individuals are also likely to fail to transfer title properly. When the new owner defaults on payment of the rent, the failure to transfer title properly can cause an eviction nightmare for the park. One example is having an individual, whose identity is wholly unknown to the park, insert himself or herself as a defendant in an unlawful detainer or (eviction) case even after the case is essentially completed and lockout is scheduled. This individual can claim that he or she is the owner of the mobile home (though not on title) and that park management knew or should have known that he or she was living there and that he or she should have been served with the notice to pay rent or quit. This happens notwithstanding that all legal documents were served on the unit itself, some addressed to "all occupants." If a judge allows this new "stranger" into the eviction lawsuit, further legal fees will be expended to resolve the situation.

Many parks have recreational vehicles (and other "motor vehicles" including boats and dune buggies) in addition to mobile homes, either as residences, for short term stays, or for long term storage. Parks should require and obtain all title and registration information before such vehicles are allowed to stay in the park. Some of these vehicles, for one reason or another, will be abandoned in the park. The law usually does not allow the park to simply discard these vehicles when they are thought to be abandoned. Obtaining court authority or other legal authority to discard or sell abandoned vehicles usually requires pieces of information about them such as the make, model, vehicle identification number and registered owner that are not readily apparent by physical inspection. Getting this kind of information up front can save all sorts of time and expense down the line, including trips to the Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain information. The sooner the park can rid itself of abandoned vehicles, the sooner the park can get back to the business of renting that space in exchange for rent.

The above situations illustrate just a few of the benefits of paying attention to the issue of title and registration. Park owners may not want to be in the business of concerning themselves with title to personal property within the park, but paying attention to title issues can save the park considerable time (and legal fees) in the future.

Bill Dahlin is a partner with the Southern California law firm of Hart King and a leader in the firm's Manufactured Housing Industry Practice Group. He can be reached at (714) 432-8700, (714) 619-7084 (direct dial) or bdahlin@hartkinglaw.com. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice for any reader.

The limitation on evictions after the first year of occupancy will likely have the biggest impact on landlords. During the first year of occupancy in a month-to-month tenancy, the landlord can evict a tenant with a written 30-day, “no-cause” notice. In a fixed-term tenancy, the landlord can similarly evict a tenant with a 30-day, no-cause notice at the end of the term IF the term falls within the first year of occupancy. After the first year, the new law essentially means that tenants can live in a rental unit for life unless they fail to pay rent, violate the rental agreement, or the landlord’s plans for the rental unit change substantially.

The main takeaway is that landlords should carefully evaluate tenants during the first year of occupancy to ensure that they would be good long-term tenants. If not, landlords should consider terminating the tenancy for no-cause before the second year of occupancy begins. There are some exceptions to the no-cause eviction rule after the first year, such as when a landlord intends to put the rental unit to a different use (i.e., to undertake substantial repairs, demolish the unit, move in family members, or sell the unit). Even then, the tenant can only be evicted with a 90-day notice and in some cases the landlord must pay the tenant one month’s rent to move out. There are also exceptions for tenants who live in the landlord’s primary residence as a tenant, or on the same property as the landlord (i.e., in a duplex).

Under SB 608, during any tenancy other than week-to-week, a landlord may not increase rent during the first year of the tenancy. After the first year, rent can only be increased with at least 90 days’ written notice. During any 12-month period, rent cannot be increased in an amount greater than 7% plus inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region. However, there are exemptions if the first certificate of occupancy for a rental unit was issued less than 15 years from the date of the rent increase, or if the landlord is providing reduced rent as part of a federal, state or local program or subsidy.

While most landlords would be content with 7% rent increases, the real danger is that this limit will be pushed downward by future legislatures. The 7% limit also prohibits landlords from quickly recouping large capital expenditures, such as unforeseen repair costs to their rental units. To guard against this, it seems likely that many landlords will set rents higher for new tenants, and/or regularly raise rents at 7% annually plus the CPI when they may not have done so before SB 608.

Mark L. Busch
Cornell West, Suite 200, 1500 NW Bethany Blvd
Beaverton, OR 97006
(503) 597 - 1309

mark@marklbusch.com

www.marklbusch.com

While we know that anyone in a trusting relationship with the older person has the potential to be abusive, the dynamic is still predominantly intimate partner violence. This can be a long term relationship that has had abuse occurring all throughout the history of the relationship. Another form is a new relationship, possible post-divorce or widowed. In this relationship an older person may have experienced abuse in the past or this may be his or her first experience with abuse. Late Onset is a description of a relationship that has changed with an organic condition. The abusive person could have been controlling and verbally abusive and now is physically abusive. Or abuse may have not been present in the history of the relationship and now is, due to an organic condition such as dementia or capacity changes. Another dynamic is a person who was abused in the past and is now abusing the abuser. Believing, safety planning and collaboration are key in supporting the older survivor.

Take action by not letting the older folks in your lives be invisible. Try to notice when your older neighbor isn'taround or big changes occur in his or her lives. An adult child moving in, mobility changing, caregivers that aren'tconsistent or anyone that appears to be controlling the older person's life. Are the same support folks coming around or has something changed? Try to give that older adult some private space to have a safe conversation. Often, if the abuser thinks the older adult might be asking for help or telling others about the controlling behaviors, the abuser will retaliate. This could be punishing, physically and emotionally abusing or further isolation. Connecting with your local Adult Protective Services agency, Domestic Violence Agency and Social Service Senior agencies are a key way to help the older adult. The collaboration of these agencies can provide protection and support by the way of Elderly/Disabled Persons Abuse Prevention Act, criminal charges, emotional and resource support.

Answer: Much depends on your rules and rental agreement, which you've not addressed. For purposes of my response, I will assume that one or both of these documents require that if a resident wants to have a person live with them at the home, they must so notify the landlord, get a background check and have management approval. If they are going to go onto the lease, then their credit record becomes important, and they would have to provide financial information as well. If the person will not be living there as a resident, then they could enter into a temporary occupancy agreement under ORS 90.275.

However, in your case, assuming that this person is actually a pedophile with a criminal record, he is not someone you want in the community under any circumstances. If he was a resident who signed a rental agreement or lease, Oregon law provides that you may terminate it by giving him not less than 30 days' notice if he is classified as a level three sex offender under ORS181.800 (Risk assessment tool) (3) or is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.838 (Juvenile predatory sex offender defined). (See, 90.630(1)(c).

However, this person is a visitor/guest - you are not legally obligated to permit him in the community if he poses a threat to other persons, or interrupts their peaceful enjoyment. You certainly do not have to give 30-days' notice for him to vacate.

You should promptly contact the mother and tell her that the son must leave. If you are willing to give him a short period of time to find other living arrangements, make sure that he is not loitering around the community. If this is a family park, I would not permit him much more than three days to be gone. He should be warned not to come back. If he and his mother want to visit, it must be outside the community.

If the mother refuses to cooperate, you should contact the local police, and ask them what protocol they would like to you follow to have him removed as a trespasser. In most cases, you would first issue him a written notice (with copy to the mother) informing him that he is not welcomed in the community, and if he comes back after a certain date, you will call the police and have him removed as a trespasser.

Hopefully, this will resolve the matter. If it does not, either because he is seen still coming back into the community, you may have to issue the mother a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630 for violating the rules and/or rental agreement. The rule that would likely apply would prohibit persons from staying in homes as occupants or guests without landlord approval. In such case, you would have to issue her a 30-day notice for cause.

Lastly, until this matter is resolved, I don't recommend accepting rent from the mother (or son). If she pays, return it within ten (10) days after receipt. See, ORS 9i0.412(3)(a).

If you're a landlord, you may use consumer reports to evaluate rental applications - as long as you follow the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA is designed to protect the privacy of consumer information report information and to guarantee that the information supplied by consumer reporting agencies (CRA's) is as accurate as possible. The FCRA requires landlords who deny a lease based on information in the applicant's consumer report to provide the applicant with an adverse action notice."

What is a Consumer Report?

A consumer report contains information about a person's credit characteristics

Answer: HB 2639 will become effective on July 1, 2014. It applies to all housing, whether or not it is manufactured housing inside of a community. The current law provides that a landlord may not refuse to sell, lease or rent any real property to a prospective lessee or tenant based upon the following factors: - Race; - Color; - Religion; - Sex; - Sexual orientation; - National origin; - Marital status; - Familial status (i.e. children under 18 years of age); and - Source of income. Under HB 2639 "source of income" now includes federal rent subsidy payments under Section 8 and any other local, state or federal housing assistance. [However, it does not include income derived from a specific occupation or income derived in an illegal manner.] Your concern is misplaced, but you still must be careful. HB 2639 clarifies that the prohibition against discrimination does not prevent you from refusing to rent or lease real property to a prospective renter/lessee based upon their inability to pay rent. If you have a 33% rule, and consistently apply it, you should be fine. However, what you must do is to include in your 33% calculation, any moneys the applicant is receiving from other state, local, or federal assistance, including Section 8 subsidies (collectively "Government Assistance"). You may not deny an applicant solely because they are receiving Government Assistance, and you must include it in your calculations. Conclusion. It is my opinion that HB 2639 means that going forward, you should include all Government Assistance, as well as other income, when calculating your applicants' ability to pay the space rent. In other words, just because they receive Government Assistance does not mean that you may deny them occupancy. Lastly, even if they qualify under your 33% rule, after including their Government Assistance, if there are other legitimate grounds for denial, such as prior rental history or criminal record, you are still legally entitled to reject them. Please understand that this is not legal advice, and you should verify my interpretation with you own attorney.

Elder Abuse in our society is hidden.  For every one case that is reported, 24 cases go unreported (National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Late Life).  There are several factors that contribute to this.  An older adult is reluctant to admit that abuse is happening.  Guilt and shame are silencers in Elder Abuse.  Some folks do not have the capacity to report that abuse is happening.  This could be a capacity issue but also is impacted by Generational Culture.  Does the older adult know that rape in a marriage is rape? Rape in a marriage was legal until 1976.  Is the older adult comfortable talking about his or her body? Another reason cases go unreported is because no one inquires how an older person is doing with changes in their lives.  For example, when an adult child moves back in with the older person the assumption is it's a positive change.  Does the older person get asked about the change in his or her living situation? Elder abuse can also be physically hidden.  When an older adult is hurt it can go unnoticed because of the belief that bruises and falls are part of the aging process.

While we know that anyone in a trusting relationship with the older person has the potential to be abusive, the dynamic is still predominantly intimate partner violence.  This can be a long term relationship that has had abuse occurring all throughout the history of the relationship.  Another form is a new relationship, possible post-divorce or widowed.  In this relationship an older person may have experienced abuse in the past or this may be his or her first experience with abuse.  Late Onset is a description of a relationship that has changed with an organic condition.  The abusive person could have been controlling and verbally abusive and now is physically abusive.  Or abuse may have not been present in the history of the relationship and now is, due to an organic condition such as dementia or capacity changes.  Another dynamic is a person who was abused in the past and is now abusing the abuser.  Believing, safety planning and collaboration are key in supporting the older survivor.

Take action by not letting the older folks in your lives be invisible.  Try to notice when your older neighbor isn't around or big changes occur in his or her lives.  An adult child moving in, mobility changing, caregivers that aren't consistent or anyone that appears to be controlling the older person's life.  Are the same support folks coming around or has something changed? Try to give that older adult some private space to have a safe conversation.  Often, if the abuser thinks the older adult might be asking for help or telling others about the controlling behaviors, the abuser will retaliate.  This could be punishing, physically and emotionally abusing or further isolation. Connecting with your local Adult Protective Services agency, Domestic Violence Agency and Social Service Senior agencies are a key way to help the older adult.  The collaboration of these agencies can provide protection and support by the way of Elderly/Disabled Persons Abuse Prevention Act, criminal charges, emotional and resource support.

Question: We just acquired a manufactured home in our community. I would rather sell it to a new tenant, but would consider renting it out or doing a rent-to-own. If I pursue rent-to-own option, will I be subject to the new SAFE Act?

Answer: Remember that the SAFE Act only applies if the seller/landlord is providing financing, and in doing so, is going to make a credit decision regarding the buyer's financial capacity.

In short, so long as you don't extend credit (which includes carrying back a security agreement or other form of installment payment contract) you're not subject to the Act. If you do a credit check for your prospective tenant, this would not be covered by SAFE. Make sure that your lease/option or rent-to-own paperwork is reviewed by legal counsel - and under no circumstances do you want to offer an extension of credit in the transactional documents. Under SAFE, if you extend credit for the purchase of the home you would have to be a Mortgage Loan Originator as described in the Act. I did an extensive summary (FAQs) on the SAFE Act, and you can link directly to it on the MHCO website.

However, on another note, you might want to consider what you are getting into as a landlord of mobile homes. First, you will be responsible for providing certain statutory essential services" which are far more extensive than if you were merely a landlord of the space. Additionally