Search

Answer: This fact patter should be a cautionary tale for all park owners and managers about the risk of letting too much time elapse between the violation and legal action. In order to fully answer the question, I need to assume certain facts. First, I assume that the rules clearly do not permit one to occupy a home without management approval. Secondly, I assume that some form of permitted subleasing is OK, so long as the subtenant is approved by management. Third, I assume that someone - presumably the father - has been paying the rent.

If rent has been accepted with knowledge of this violation, it would be deemed to have been waived after the second acceptance of rent - regardless of who paid it. Clearly, if the rules prohibit this, as does the rental agreement and law, action should have been taken the moment she refused to cooperate.

The best solution may be for the father to proceed with the eviction, since he is a "landlord" under the non-manufactured housing side of the Landlord-Tenant law. Clearly, he can work it out with her and/or the court, better than management working with the recalcitrant occupant, who has already established her unwillingness to cooperate. Besides, why should the park absorb this expense, when it is really between the father as a "landlord" and his daughter as the "tenant." (I don't know why the judge sent them home, but suspect it was to try to resolve it as a family matter rather than a court matter.)

As for whether to accept the rent, it's already pretty late to be worried about "waiver" since that has long since been confirmed to have occurred. Nevertheless, I would NOT accept the rent until this matter is resolved.

The problem with park management doing the eviction based upon an "unauthorized occupant," violation, is that it's too late to enforce, in my opinion. However, your question about a "No-cause" eviction suggests that you believe this might be a viable alternative - i.e. the legal basis for eviction arises under the non-manufactured housing side of the statutes. I don't think so. First, because the manufactured housing side of the law still applies vis a vis the father, and regardless, rent has been accepted, making the waiver argument a real possibility.

As a community manager, you will normally be charged with accepting or rejecting prospective residents. This is one of the most important functions that you will perform as a manager of a manufactured home community. Done properly and effectively, the rental application and screening process will minimize potential problems in landlord - resident relations. If the process is done incorrectly the seeds of future problems will be sown. Every prospective resident should be given sufficient information to make an informed decision about living in a manufactured home community.

When an individual stops by the manufactured home community office inquiring on the possibility of becoming a resident, always give them an application packet. Anyone who is interested in applying should be given the application packet - inconsistency in giving out application packets could lead to cause of action by the resident selling the home in the community or a fair housing violation.

The application packet is your opportunity to sell the prospective resident on your community. Include in the application packet an application and "Minimum Criteria Standards", optional information may include what homes are available in the community, a community newsletter, information on the history of the community, the advantages of living in a manufactured home community etc. You may also want to include at this time a copy of the rental/lease agreement, rules and regulations, rent history, and statement of policy. Remember, you want to sell the prospective resident on your community, but you also want them to make a well informed decision.

Providing a prospective resident's with extensive information regarding your manufactured home community allows the applicant to evaluate for themselves if they qualify. Including what your expectations are in order to qualify and expectations and requirements to maintain residency in the community allows the prospective resident to self qualify.

Rental Application Process

The overall rental application process should include:

1. Review application to make sure it has been completely filled out.
2. Check to make sure that the applicant has included social security number, driver license information etc.
3. Provide the applicant with a copy of the Statement of Policy (keep a signed copy or receipt for your file), the rent history of the space, Rental Agreement/Lease, Park Rules & Regulations, RV Storage Agreement and Pet Agreement (if applicable), and a Flood Plain Notice. None of these documents should be signed by the community owner or manager until the application process is complete and the prospective resident is accepted.
4. Collect application fee.
5. Provide prospective resident with application fee receipt.
6. Conduct credit, rental and criminal check.
7. Attach copies of credit, rental and criminal check to application
8. If credit, rental and criminal checks are acceptable contact prospective resident.
9. If they are denied and they are purchasing an existing home in the park, send them an application denial form. Also, send a copy to the resident selling the home and one for the tenant's file.

Under current Oregon law you will have not more than 7 days to accept or reject a prospective resident. The 7 days begins on the day of receipt of a complete and accurate written application. The landlord and the prospective resident may agree to a longer time period for the landlord to evaluate the prospective resident's application to address any failure to meet the landlord's screening or admission criteria.

If the existing resident fails to give the required 10 day notice in writing prior to the sale of the home, the landlord may extend the written application process by 10 days. (ORS 90.680)

An application is not complete until the prospective purchaser pays any required applicant screening charge and provides the landlord with all information and documentation required pursuant to ORS 90.510 including any financial data and references. 

Answer. By all means. The bases for terminating a tenancy are found in ORS 90.630; there are several. It provides that '_the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the resident not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the resident. Among others, the following are listed:

• If the resident violates a law or ordinance related to the resident's conduct as a resident, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740 (Resident obligations); and

• If the resident violates a rule or rental agreement provision related to the resident's conduct as a resident and imposed as a condition of occupancy.

The definition of a "law" is a state statute. The section of the landlord-resident law (ORS 90.100) does not expressly define "ordinance" but does define "building and housing codes" to include '_any law, ordinance or governmental regulation concerning fitness for habitation, or the construction, maintenance, operation, occupancy, use or appearance of any premises or dwelling unit."

Elsewhere, a good definition of an ordinance is the following:

An ordinance is a law enacted by a municipal body, such as a city council or county commission (sometimes called county council or county board of supervisors). Ordinances govern matters not already covered by state or federal laws such as zoning, safety and building regulations. (See, http://www.lectlaw.com/ def2/ o045.htm)

So, do you need to expressly provide in your rules or rental agreement that residents must obey all state laws and local ordinances? No. In legal parlance, ORS 90.630 is "self-executing", i.e. it is effective by its own terms. [1]

However, if you are using the MHCO Lease or Rental Agreement, the forms contain text that expressly states what ORS 90.630 already provides. This is the "belts and suspenders" approach to park management.

So if a resident has a pet, you want to make sure they comply with all of the local ordinances as well as any specific rules and regulations you may have - even if the rules and regulations are stricter than the local ordinances.[2] In order to avoid unpleasant surprises, I suggest you prepare a separate "Pet Policy" handout for residents, prospective and current, making sure that it correctly states exactly which ordinances you intend to apply,[3] together with all park rules that are not already covered by the applicable laws.

[1] To be clear, however, if the park is located in Deschutes County, you may not enforce a Jefferson County ordinance unless you have incorporated that ordinance in your rules, either directly or by reference. As I said above, you may impose rules that are stricter than those found in your local jurisdiction, but you have to expressly include them in your rules.

[2] Note that if you have not been enforcing current laws, ordinances or park rules regarding pets, you may run into some push-back if you have not enforced them previously, e.g. pet size, breed, or number. Certainly, if a resident has one pet, and your pet policy is set at one, you want to make sure that you keep all non-violating residents at that number. In my opinion, your failure to enforce a rule, law or ordinance against one resident who has two pets, does not mean you may not enforce it against other residents with only one, on a going forward basis.

[3] Out of an abundance of caution, I would identify all the important ordinances, either verbatim or carefully summarized, but make it clear that this Pet Policy is for "informational purposes only", and is not to be construed as being in lieu of the actual law or ordinance. Always include the citation to the law or ordinance you are summarizing or quoting.

Answer:  My answer requires that I make some assumptions:

• When you say “pre-approved” I will assume he has not received a final approval;
• I will assume that somewhere in your application paperwork it states that the landlord-tenant relationship does not commence until the rental or lease agreement is signed.
• I will assume that management did not say or do anything to cause the applicant to believe he could purchase the home before final approval.
• Accordingly, I will assume that the person is NOT legally a tenant in your community.

ORS 90.303(3)(Evaluation of Applicant)[1]provides that when evaluating the applicant, the landlord may consider criminal conviction and charging history if the conviction or pending charge is for conduct that is: 

     (a) A drug-related crime; 

     (b) A person crime; 

     (c) A sex offense; 

     (d) A crime involving financial fraud, including identity theft and forgery; or 

(e) Any other crime if the conduct for which the applicant was convicted or     charged is of a nature that would adversely affect: 

  (A) Property of the landlord or a tenant; or 

(B) The health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of residents, the landlord or the landlord’s agent.  (Emphasis added.)

So, under the facts of your question (subject to my assumptions), you are within your rights to decline the applicantat the present time.[2]  Since he is not legally a “tenant” under ORS Chapter 90, the landlord tenant law would not apply, so I would notsuggest proceeding under the abandonment statute, ORS 90.675(Disposition of Manufactured Dwelling). 

There is no “limit” on how long an approved applicant has to sign the rental agreement in ORS. But there is nothing preventing you from inserting this requirement in your application paperwork.[3]

So that he could recoup the cost of the home, I would try to reach out to him and propose, subject to a carefully drafted agreement, that he could sell the home to an approved tenant. Have him enter into a storage agreement with monthly payments, but no occupancy.  

While technically you would not be subject to the park-sale statute, ORS 90.680(Sale of Dwelling), you could use it for guidance when screening other applicants for tenancy.

Answer. Here is a short summary of the law regarding "service animals" and "assistance animals."

Service Animals. A "service animal" under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") is limited solely to dogs that have been individually trained to work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, e.g. guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, or protecting a person who is having a seizure. The ADA does require that landlords make reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities requesting to have a service animal. Note that the term "disability" under the ADA is very, very, broad.[1]

Although service animals must be on leash or harness, they may also be controlled through voice commands or hand signals. Service animals are not "pets." This means, among other things, that certain park rules for pets, such as requiring residents sign a Pet Agreement, cannot be required if it is a service animal. Dogs whose only purpose is to provide comfort or emotional support to a resident do not qualify under the ADA.

Assistance Animals. Under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, housing providers, including manufactured housing communities, must make also "reasonable accommodations" for persons with disabilities requesting to have an assistance animal for emotional support, or to provide other forms of help.

Similar to service animals, assistance animals are not regarded as "pets," and residents cannot be required to sign a Pet Agreement for them. According to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (here), as assistance animal:

'_ is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability. Assistance animals perform many disability-related functions, including but not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to sounds, providing protection or rescue assistance, pulling a wheelchair, fetching items, alerting persons to impending seizures, or providing emotional support to persons with disabilities who have a disability-related need for such support. For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests (the law does not require) an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified. While dogs are the most common type of assistance animal, other animals can also be assistance animals."

Companion Animals. A "companion animal" is more of a generic term, and the role it serves is what determines which laws will apply.

Approval Requirements. You are correct that you may not refuse to permit an assistance animal or service animal based upon size or breed. This means that you may not, based upon an animal's "propensity" restrict a resident from having a particular animal. There must be some evidence of actual risk to persons or property, such as history of such conduct.

The one limitation where it appears there is some latitude, where the landlord's liability insurance carrier would increase the premium or deny coverage. However, according to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, even this issue could be problematic for landlords, unless they first sought, as a reasonable accommodation, to obtain another liability insurance carrier that did provide coverage. I suggest that if/when such issues arise in your community that you check first with your attorney to determine how to proceed. Better safe than sorry!

For a very good summary of reasonable accommodations under the federal law, go to: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/huddojstatement.pdf

[1] An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

See, http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

Answer. I'm confused. May I assume the grandmother or her sister are at least 55 years old? If so, they qualify both as to the requirement that there be at least one occupant 55+, and as to the second person requirement. That should be the end of the age issue.

As for the babysitting, this is not a for-profit enterprise, so presumably does not violate any rules you might have for such situations. So all it is is family visiting, which is permissible under the rules. So long as the children are not staying overnight, I do not understand there to be a 30-day limit on this. If they do stay overnight, it appears there is a 30-day cap. But you don't say whether the 30-days is consecutive or cumulative. Unless there is some reason to believe the grandmother is lying about the children staying overnight (and even then, there is the 30-day rule) I don't see anything that suggests a violation. I know of nothing under the 55+ housing law that places restrictions on family visitors under age 55. In fact, as you may know, 55+ parks are permitted to have up to 20% of their spaces rented to families (which is not something should consider for a variety of reasons). However, the point is that the presence of children in a 55+ park does not, per se' cause the park to lose its 55+ designation.

I believe this situation demands a practical approach. Is the babysitting situation causing a problem, e.g. noise, disruption, children in street, lack of supervision, etc? Are other residents complaining? If none of these consequences are occurring, I don't see a concern, or a need to start counting days, etc. If the situation is not being abused, I'd leave it alone. You may want to privately discuss this with the grandmother, just to make sure she understands that it is important that she monitor her grandchildrens' activity at all times, just to make sure other (less child-friendly) residents don't complain.

The take-away here is that while rules are important, so long as they are not being abused, the need to be concerned primarily arises when there are complaints from other residents. If no one is complaining and the rules are not being blatantly abused, it does not seem necessary to become concerned.

Answer. I believe that what you want to do is possible; you want to verify with your own legal counsel.

But let me suggest that you asked the question in the wrong way. Rather than asking whether the law allows this, you should ask whether the law disallows it. In other words, in most cases, when it comes to landlord-tenant legal rights and duties, Chapter 90 sets a "floor" below which you cannot go.[1] So although the law does not address this specific issue, that does not mean you cannot do institute such a policy, so long as it does not violate other portions of the chapter.

What laws might apply? Here are the ones that come to mind:

90.130 Obligation of good faith. Every duty under this chapter and every act which must be performed as a condition precedent to the exercise of a right or remedy under this chapter imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement. [Formerly 91.730]

90.135 Unconscionability. (1) If the court, as a matter of law, finds:

(a) A rental agreement or any provision thereof was unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision, or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result; or

(b) A settlement in which a party waives or agrees to forgo a claim or right under this chapter or under a rental agreement was unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the settlement, enforce the remainder of the settlement without the unconscionable provision, or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result.

(2) If unconscionability is put into issue by a party or by the court upon its own motion the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to the setting, purpose and effect of the rental agreement or settlement to aid the court in making the determination. [Formerly 91.735]

90.220 Terms and conditions of rental agreement; smoking policy; rent obligation and payment. (1) A landlord and a tenant may include in a rental agreement terms and conditions not prohibited by this chapter or other rule of law including rent, term of the agreement and other provisions governing the rights and obligations of the parties. ****

90.262 Use and occupancy rules and regulations; adoption; enforceability; restrictions. (1) A landlord, from time to time, may adopt a rule or regulation, however described, concerning the tenant's use and occupancy of the premises. It is enforceable against the tenant only if:

(a) Its purpose is to promote the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants in the premises, preserve the landlord's property from abusive use, or make a fair distribution of services and facilities held out for the tenants generally;

(b) It is reasonably related to the purpose for which it is adopted;

(c) It applies to all tenants in the premises in a fair manner;

(d) It is sufficiently explicit in its prohibition, direction or limitation of the tenant's conduct to fairly inform the tenant of what the tenant must or must not do to comply;

(e) It is not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord; and

(f) The tenant has written notice of it at the time the tenant enters into the rental agreement, or when it is adopted.

(2) If a rule or regulation adopted after the tenant enters into the rental agreement works a substantial modification of the bargain, it is not valid unless the tenant consents to it in writing. ****

90.510 Statement of policy; rental agreement; rules and regulations; remedies. ***

(6) Every landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall provide rules and regulations concerning the tenant's use and occupancy of the premises. A violation of the rules and regulations may be cause for termination of a rental agreement. However, this subsection does not create a presumption that all rules and regulations are identical for all tenants at all times. A rule or regulation shall be enforceable against the tenant only if:

(a) The rule or regulation:

(A) Promotes the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants;

(B) Preserves the landlord's property from abusive use; or

(C) Makes a fair distribution of services and facilities held out for the general use of the tenants.

(b) The rule or regulation:

(A) Is reasonably related to the purpose for which it is adopted and is reasonably applied;

(B) Is sufficiently explicit in its prohibition, direction or limitation of the tenant's conduct to fairly inform the tenant of what the tenant shall do or may not do to comply; and

(C) Is not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord. ****

Conclusion. Note that ORS 90.295 pertains to "applicant" screening charges, etc. The statute is very specific and detailed. However, that is because it is limited to situations where a prospective tenant is seeking entry into the park as a tenant. There is nothing in Chapter 90 dealing with background check for guests who will remain at the park in excess of 14 days. However, if I were to draft a rule to implement your suggested policy, I would likely use it as a general template of issues that should be addressed, since some of them are the same, e.g. denial of the right to remain at the premises because of a failure to pass the background check. Additionally, you would want to make the list of disqualifying criteria known in advance, so tenants and applicants knew whether it would be worth the cost and effort to apply.

Lastly, I suggest that you implement such a rule through a rule change in accordance with ORS 90.610. Good luck!

[1] For example, on nonpayment of rent notices, you would not want to institute a payment period shorter than 72 hours. Similarly, you would not shorten the cure time for a rules violation to less than 30 days. Conversely, if you wanted to lengthen the time to pay late rent or cure a violation, you can certainly do so.

Answer: This is a good question, and all too frequently ignored by owners and managers. The first question is whether the issue is addressed anywhere in the community documents, i.e. the statement of policy, rules, or rental agreement. Likely not. It really isn'taddressed in the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, with the exception of ORS 90.222, which covers renter's liability insurance, and is excluded from the manufactured housing section of the law.

Strictly speaking, the fact that the home was destroyed and is likely uninhabitable does not make it any less of a resident responsibility than before the fire. In other words, it is the resident's primary responsibility to either promptly repair, replace, or remove the home. The space is still under lease or rental to the resident, so all of the same rules apply, i.e. to keep it in good condition and safe. If the home is nothing more than a shell, the resident should likely remove it as soon as possible.

If the resident does not have fire insurance to repair or replace the home, I suspect he or she will abandon it, thus making it your problem - or the problem of the lienholder if there is one. Incidentally, if there is a lienholder, the loan documents likely require fire insurance, and that it be a named insured on the policy. If that is the case, then hopefully, between the resident and their insurance company, there may be available proceeds to repair or replace.[1]

If the resident abandons the home, you should immediately send out a 45-day abandonment letter, thus triggering your right (and duty) to take control of the personal property. It is likely an attractive nuisance for children, which could result in injury to them, and liability to you. In such case, you should consider having it either cordoned off with "No Trespassing" signs, or removed. Make sure that you independently confirm that it is a total loss, and with no salvage value. If there is salvage value, it belongs to the resident.

[1] Note that the MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements do have a provision for the resident to maintain fire insurance, but it is optional, and applies only if the box is checked. This situation should be a cautionary tale for owners and managers requiring such insurance, with proof that it is being maintained.

Mistake #1: Rent increases

A lot of times owners act as if below market rent is the same as earning a merit badge. It isn’t. Having under market rent loses you money every month. If the property ever goes on the market, it will sell for less and maybe a lot less. Today a tenant isn’t going to move because the rent goes up to market. Most tenants know what the rents are at other mobile home parks (often having better market rent intel than the owner). They won’t be surprised when the rent goes up to market. If the owner is doing a good job of operating the mobile home park, higher rent won’t be cause to move. When doing a rent increase, include the rent survey for your market, showing the rent charged at other communities. Also, be sure to factor in the water, sewer and garbage, if included in the lot rent. The water and sewer are probably $30–$60 per month per house- hold, depending on the city, and the garbage is probably $9–$15 per month per occupied site. If you are paying for these, consider how you may pass these utilities through. Be sure to factor in an estimate of water, sewer and garbage for the owners that pay it or the tenants.

Mistake #2: Rent Survey

What should the rent be? Not that many owners do annual rent surveys. If you have a manager, that should be their job. If there are owners of multiple mobile home parks in your market, look to their rents as a benchmark of the real rent. After all, these companies have to report earnings to shareholders or investors. They can’t succeed by charging above market rents.

Mistake #3: Holding On Too Long

When you have a park owned home that isn’t selling, it’s time to let go, and get it sold or rented. Anyone that has been in this industry for a while and sells homes knows what it feels like to have an unsold mobile home that sits month after month with no offers. You market it, keep utilities on, pay insurance and cleaning, the staff shows it countless times and nothing. It’s time to cut the price (ouch!) or do whatever needs to be done to sell the home. Each month that passes is another month of rent you’ll never recover.

The same thing is true for mobile home park ownership. Sometimes the mobile home park property looks great on paper. After you actually own it, you find it’s not your cup of tea. Maybe it’s too far away from your office, the demand for homes isn’t good, or a major employer shuts down, to name a few reasons why investors sell a mobile home park. In Warren Buffet’s 2014 Letter To Investors, he freely writes about big mistakes he made early on with Berkshire Hathaway; mistakes that might have been deadly for the company. In fact, the Berkshire company (a textile company) which became the Berkshire of Berkshire Hathaway, closed 18 years after Mr. Buffet acquired it, and he writes, “During all of those 18 years, we struggled unremittingly, all to no avail. But stubbornness —stupidity—has its limits....I finally threw in the towel and closed the operation.” Mr. Buffet goes on to say that he knew the Berkshire company acquisition “... was a mistake. Having committed much of (the company’s) resources...I quickly compounded the error by continuing to invest in a business that eventually became the most costly of my career.” If the Sage of Omaha can admit to millions of followers that he blundered, then perhaps business owners and investors should take a page out of Mr. Buffet’s playbook and cut the cord when something isn’t working, be it a park owned home OR a park.

Mistake #4: Financing

There is a lot of refinancing and new loan action today. Why? The low interest rates plus the threat of rising interest rates are the reasons. The Federal Reserve has been making noise for what seems like years, about increasing the interest rates. As the economy improves and the jobless recovery continues to dissipate, the

Federal Reserve finally raised interest rates in late December of 2015. Not all lenders are the same though, and finding a lender, whether it be local, regional or national will make a big difference in both the amount financed (dollars to you!) and the ease of the transaction.

Mistake #5: Records

Today there is truly user friendly and effective software for mobile home parks. I use Rent Manager and so do a lot of other mobile home park owners. For your own peace of mind do yourself, your accountant, your manager and a buyer a big favor, and invest in good software (it’s not that much money). A couple of years ago, I hired a property manager with no accounting background. She took to Rent Manager like a duck to water. My accountant is also a big fan. Don’t be intimidated by upping your game with great software.

Mistake #6: Survey, Phase I and Appraisal

Once upon a time, when you acquired your property, you might have had the property surveyed, appraised and a Phase I (California) environmental assessment done. If you didn’t order these reports, whoever you bought from may have left them in the office or the survey may have been recorded. Try checking with the county recorder or county engineer. These re- ports will save you money and time if you ever need to update them, or your heirs or a buyer require them. It’s faster and cheaper, for example, if the land surveyor has an existing survey to start with.

Mistake #7: Water and Sewer

Please do something about this, both for your cash flow and the environment. These pesky leaks can be tough to find. Some of the large owners use American Leak Detection (Google it —they have regional offices). They are not cheap, but they will find your leaks and fix them. Water leaks are expensive; it is money you won’t ever recover. One time I sold a mobile home park where the owner knew he had a water leak to the tune of about an extra $2,000 per month. This was a small mobile home park. When he sold the park, a condition of the sale was to find the water leak(s) and fix them. By then, he really wanted to sell his park because his company (not the mobile home park business) was growing and the business re- quired his full attention. The upshot was that after losing at least $40,000 in water costs he hired two companies (the first company didn’t find it) about $3,000 to find the leak and another couple of thousand for the second company to fix the leak. The moral of the story is that you will never get back the wasted water bills, so it’s best to bite the bullet and find and fix the leaks.

Joanne Stevens is a real estate broker specialist in listing and selling mobile home parks and manufactured home communities throughout the U.S.

She can be reached at 319.378.6785 phone; 319.365.9833 fax; and email: joannestevens@ joannemstevens.com

This article was recently published in WMA's February 2016 "Reporter".  MHCO would like to express our deep appreciation to WMA for allowing MHCO to upload this article to MHCO.ORG.

Answer: Since you said that the rent is paid every month, I assume that your resident is a month-to-month tenant (as opposed to weekly or fixed-term). If the tenant is within the first year of occupancy in the park, you can evict with a 30-day, no-cause eviction notice (MHCO Form 43 C).

(Caveat: Portland and Milwaukie both have ordinances requiring 90-day no-cause notices to allmonthly tenants, regardless of how long they have been tenants. In addition, Portland requires landlords to make "relocation assistance" payments to tenants evicted for no-cause, ranging from $2,900 to $4,500 - although the applicability of this requirement to RV tenants is legally questionable. Consult an attorney if you rent RV spaces in either of these cities.)

Unfortunately, due to recently enacted Senate Bill 608, you no longer have the right to evict a month-to-month tenant for no-cause afterthe first year of occupancy except in very limited circumstances that do not likely apply in your case (i.e., the RV park is being closed and converted to a nonresidential use). Instead, Senate Bill 608 now forces landlords to primarily rely on for-cause evictions after the first year of the tenancy.

In your particular case, you should issue a 72-hour rent nonpayment notice each and every month that the tenant is late with the rent (MHCO Form 82). If rent is due on the first day of the month, you can issue a 72-hour notice as soon as the eighth day of the month. At some point, you may catch the tenant missing the payment deadline in the 72-hour notice, after which you can file an eviction action in court.

If allowed by the tenant's rental agreement, you should also assess a late fee every month. If the tenant fails to pay the late fee as required by the rental agreement, you should issue a 30/14-day, for-cause notice to the tenant requiring payment of the late fee. Under ORS 90.392 (4), if the tenant does not pay the late fee within 14 days after delivery of the notice, the tenancy terminates 30 days after the notice was delivered.

You are correct that the "three strikes" law does not apply to an RV tenant. Only manufactured home tenants can be evicted with a 30-day notice after receiving three or more 72-hour notices within a 12-month period. As such, RV park landlords must rely on the strategies outlined above to evict month-to-month tenants on late rent payments.

One final strategy for the future is to consider using a fixed-term rental agreement. Senate Bill 608 does allow a landlord to evict a tenant at the end of the fixed term with a 90-day notice if the tenant has committed three or more violations of the rental agreement within the preceding 12 months. You must give a written warning for each violation that specifies the violation, states that three or more violations within a 12-month period may result in termination of the tenancy at the end of the fixed-term, and states that correcting the third or subsequent violation is not a defense to the termination. While this would not help in your current situation, it could be used with future tenants if you choose this strategy of using fixed-term leases.

As usual, you should always seek the advice of a knowledgeable attorney if you are unsure whether to issue an eviction notice to an RV tenant, have questions on what kind of eviction notice to issue, or need guidance to use fixed-term agreements for future residents.