Search

Solution: There are five steps you can take to minimize discrimination risks when dealing with undocumented aliens: 

1. Don’t make U.S. citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion for renting unless you have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and documented business justification for doing so—for example, because state or municipal law requires it;
2. Be consistent in applying whatever screening policy you do adopt;
3. Ask for the right form of verification of citizenship and/or immigration status (discussed below);
4. Apply your normal screening standards to immigrants; and
5. Don’t use an applicant or tenant’s immigration status as a bargaining chip.

How to Verify Immigration/Citizenship Status. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status, i.e., noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94, a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay. They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

You Make the Call

Which of the following would be a legitimate reason to reject applicants who aren’t U.S. citizens?

a.         Being a U.S. citizen is required for leasing property under HUD program rules and/or state or local law 

b.         A non-U.S. citizen is generally less likely to pay rent on time each month

c.          Non-U.S. citizens are totally judgment proof

Answer:

a. The fact that HUD program rules and/or state or local laws require landlords to verify that applicants are U.S. citizens before accepting them is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.

Wrong answers explained:

b.         The assumption that noncitizens are less likely to pay rent is just that—an assumption, and one based on stereotypes. Consequently, it’s not justification for requiring applicants to be U.S. citizens.

c.          The reason c. is wrong is that it’s overstated. While evicting or suing a noncitizen for lease violations poses challenges, it’s not accurate to characterize immigrants as “judgment-proof.” In fact, persons in the U.S. illegally are likely to be far more amenable to threats of litigation.

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.

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.
2. Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.  Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 
3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 
4. Comply with HUD age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that 80% of the facility be intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older. 

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

The above article is a discussion of the federal Fair Housing law governing 55+ communities.  The contents are not intended to constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon by the reader as such.  All legal questions regarding this complicated and important law should be directed to legal counsel familiar with the area.

© Copyright 2006.  Phillip C. Querin.  No portion may be reproduced without the express written consent of the author.

According to the American Psychological Association, “Don't let your fear of meddling in someone else's business stop you from reporting your suspicions. You could be saving someone's life. . . ”

You can help. You do not need to evict. You can help your abused resident oust the abusive caregiver immediately.  You can report, help with “move-out” orders, “stay-away” orders, and other relief for your abused residents in your parks. 

■ California Mobilehome Residency Law’s 

Absence of Protection for Seniors Can be 

Supplemented with Management Help (E.g., 

Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection

Act (EADACPA), Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)

     The common wisdom is that evicting an abusive co-occupant, even a criminal, is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. But the elder subject to an abusive caregiver, or other abusive household members, can seek an order to oust them by court order and without notice. The California Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code §§798, et seq.) (“MRL”) is no help here. The MRL is a prime enabler of elder abuse by its “hands off” policy to any occupants, and its unintended consequences welcome every predatory opportunist who cajoles his or her way into a senior’s coach. This while management is handcuffed from interceding with prevention, remedies, or even effective detection. But if we choose, we can do plenty to help the resident once we know.

     Evictions take forever.  Management must always wait for a 60 day notice to expire (once prepared and served) to even file suit to evict the abuser. That 60 day period enables the abuser to intimidate, terrify and coerce witnesses not to testify. Horrified, residents take shelter, lock themselves in and become prisoners in their homes. When WMA introduced legislation to evict such violent criminals, the State Senate Judiciary Committee killed the bill: not enoughreason to give management this remedy. So, the park owner’s hands remain tied for 60 days after notice of termination of possession based on outrageous abuse or even dangerous felonies (all on a “substantial annoyance” grounds) if anyone will testify as to the annoyance. But an at-risk elderly frail resident can go to court nowand obtain a “move-out” order without notice. We, as management, can educate and help.

     Move-Out Order Issue NOW- Without Notice.  In summary, management can assistthe abused or harassed senior and help get to court and get the abusive caregiver out NOW. Many residents cannot afford a lawyer, and often, it is the family that is responsible for the abuse. Management can do more than report. Maybe senior protective services will respond, maybe not. But court forms are designed for non-lawyers. We can help with these preprinted forms–and attend court with the resident, offer to be a witness, and also report to the police, County agencies and other family. As for courts, there are no filing fees or service costs.

     As the numbers of elder victims climbs, understanding management options will become a customary “best” management practice: a sign of good quality management, and a reflection of care and concern for frail and vulnerable residents. Actively enhancing lifestyle and atmosphere has always been a hallmark of the manufactured housing industry. 

     We can help end pain and misery to elder abuse victims of caregivers, family and deceitful predators. There are ways to bring immediate relief to desperate, life-threatening situations which usually are never detected, and which the Mobilehome Residency Law does not allow a park owner to initially prevent.

■ The Scope of the Mushrooming Epidemic:

For Every Reported Elder Abuse Case, 24 More are Unreported.

     The New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study found that for every case known to programs and agencies, 24 were unreported. Another reports that 1 in 10 older adults report emotional, physical, or sexual mistreatment, or neglect. Often, physical, emotional or psychological abuse accompanies financial abuse. Neglect and abandonment, for example, when the kids get a power of attorney and ability to withdraw money. 

     For about 40 years now, from 55+ to “all-age” parks, owners and management bring me problems that they observe or their residents bring to them. This is because of genuine concern, not out of sense of legal duty or obligation.  Because they care.       

■ Warning Signs and Indicators of Caregiver Elder Abuse.

     Watch for the following from your residents. There are signs that elder abuse may be occurring at the hands of the caregivers residing on the space. Bear in mind that the homeowner may not be capable of telling us of the abuse. The elder may also be ashamed, fearful of retaliation or punishment, or somehow assuming some of the blame for his or her own condition. 

     Who are The Exploitive and Abusers?  They May be Closer Than They Appear.

■        Family members, abusive children, nieces, nephews, past or present paramours, homeless 

■        Caretaker/caregiver/care custodian - any person who has the care, custody, or control of or who stands in  position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.

■        Banks, mortgage brokers, lenders

■        Insurance companies and their agents

■        Financial advisors and life agents

■        Trust mills

■        Real estate agents, title and escrow companies

■        Attorneys (and others holding themselves out as having legal expertise–tax preparers, paralegals, assistants, J.D. graduates)

■        Scams – lotteries, sweepstakes

■        Home repair, unsolicited work

■        Sweetheart scams

SUMMARY OF SIGNS OF ELDER ABUSE

Physical Abuse

■ Unexplained signs of injury such as bruises, welts, scars, broken bones or sprains

■ Report of drug overdose or apparent failure to take medication regularly

■  Signs of being restrained, such as rope marks on wrists

■  Caregiver's refusal to allow you to see the person alone

■ Physical or chemical restraints for caregiver's convenience 

■ Repeated unexplained injuries

Emotional Abuse

■ Threatening, belittling, or controlling caregiver behavior that you witness

■ Behavior from the elder that mimics dementia, such as rocking, sucking, or mumbling

■ Uncommunicative and unresponsive

■ Unreasonably fearful or suspicious 

■ Lack of interest in social contacts

■ Evasive or isolated 

■ Unexplained or uncharacteristic changes in behavior

■ Unexplained venereal disease or genital infections

■ Torn, stained, underclothing

Financial Exploitation

■ Significant or unauthorized withdrawals from the elder's accounts

■ Sudden changes in the elder's financial condition

■  Items or cash missing from the household

■ Suspicious changes in mobilehome title, legal owner, wills, power of attorney, titles, and policies

■ Addition of names to the elder's signature card

■ Unpaid bills or lack of medical care, although the elder has enough money to pay for them

■ Financial activity the elder couldn't have done, such as an ATM withdrawal by a bedridden account holder

■ Unnecessary services, goods, or subscriptions

■ New caregiver cars in the driveway; new high frequency of deliveries

■  Evidence of inadequate care when bills are paid in full

Elders May Contribute to Abuse, Secreting of Abuse, Fail to Recognize or Report

■  May lack cognitive ability to recognize abuse and/or their rights to safety and protection 

■ May be in denial; distorted view of treatment

■ May not have functioning neuro-pathways; not feeling normal pain, discomfort

■ May be incapacitated– unable to message out

■ Are often reluctant to report or prosecute

■ “Report me and I will put you in a home”

■ Afraid of removal from home

■ Fear of retribution

■ Dependence on others to assist with activities of daily living and personal care;

■  Communication or physical impairments which may limit ability to verbally or physically defend against a perpetrator and disclose abuse

■ FIVE (5) IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO CONSIDER NOW:

★  CONTACT FIRST RESPONDERS: USUALLY, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

                        ■             Adult Protective Services (“APS”) can provide investigations, needs assessments, remedial and preventative social work activities, food, transportation, emergency shelter.

■          Cross report to police for criminal restraining orders.

■          State mandates that each County establish a 24/7 emergency response adult protective services program to take and investigate reports of abuse of an elder or a dependent adult. Cal. W&I Code §15763)

■          “Protective services” include investigations, needs assessments, remedial and preventive social work activities; the necessary tangible resources such as food, transportation, emergency shelter, and in-home protective care; the use of multi-disciplinary teams; and a system in which reporting of abuse can occur on a 24- hour basis. (Cal. W&I Code §15760).

Keep Adult Protective Services Honest–Insist They Do Their Jobs: Mandatory Effort to Investigate

■          When an allegation of abuse of an elder or dependent adult is reported; and,

■              The agency social worker has reason to believe an elder or dependent adult has suffered or is at substantial risk of abuse pursuant to  Cal. W&I Code §15630; 

■          The social worker is required to attempt to obtain consent to:

–          enter and meet privately with the elder or dependent adult in the residence or dwelling in which the elder or dependent adult resides, 

–          without the presence of the person's caretaker, attendant, or family or household member, unless the person requests the presence of the attendant, care giver, or family member, or refuses to meet with the social worker. (Cal. W&I Code §15762)

■          APS action requires victim consent unless a Penal Code violation has been alleged. Cal.  W&I Code § 15636)

■          If the victim is incapacitated and cannot legally give or deny consent to protective services, APS may initiate a petition for temporary conservatorship.

★  HELP RESIDENT GET ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY OUST THE ABUSER. 

The courts make the applications, declarations and orders available as consumer friendly forms. No lawyers needed. Lawyers may be helpful in many circumstances. But do not let the absence of a lawyer stop a valid  application to the court from being made. 

Help the resident obtain a Move-Out Order (“Elder Abuse Restraining Order”) under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Originally, the Elder Abuse Act was designed to encourage the reporting of abuse and neglect of elders and dependent adults and continues to be a major component of the Elder Abuse Act as it stands in its current form today.

            The Elder Abuse Act now permits and even requires certain heightened remedies subject to statutory criteria and limitations, including attorney's fees, punitive damages, pain and suffering damages even after the abused elder's death, and fees for a conservator who successfully brings an elder abuse claim.

■          EADACPA allows a court to issue an order protecting an elder or dependent adult from further abuse by an individual including ordering a move-out from the property.  Cal. W&I Code §15657.03(c) provides that an order may be issued with or without notice, to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of abuse, if a declaration shows, to the satisfaction of the court, proof of a past act or acts of abuse of the petitioning elder or dependent adult. 

The evidence of past abuse is sufficient even without a particularized showing of evidence or risk that  wrongful acts will continue or be repeated.

■          Does Your Resident Qualify? In order to obtain an Elder Abuse Restraining Order, or EARO, the person requesting the order:

■          Must be an elder or dependent adult;

■          Must have suffered abuse.

■               An “Elder” is one who is 65 years of age or older.

■          For a Move Out Order, Must be a Legal or equitable Owner, and Defendant cannot be sole owner. 

■          Also included is the “Dependent Adult”, defined as a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict the person's ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights.

■          If the Resident hires counsel, there is an entitlement to attorney’s fees. No reason park owner cannot supply counsel with reimbursement agreement. There is a right to recovery of attorney’s fees.

■          Does Your Resident Qualify for a Move Out Order?  The court may issue a restraining order excluding the abusive caregiver (including family members) from the resident’s home on a showing of the following:

■          Proof that the resident has a right of possession.

■          Proof that the abusive caregiver assaulted or threatens to assault the resident or other named family or household member including a conservator.

■          Proof that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the person to be protected.

■           After the restraining order is issued (without notice), the court may issue, after notice and hearing, an order excluding a person from a residence or dwelling if the court finds that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the petitioner, other named family or household member of the petitioner, or conservator of the petitioner.

■          An order excluding the abusive caregiver from the dwelling is permitted, except not if legal or equitable title to, or lease of, the residence is in the sole name of the abuser, or is in the name of the party to be excluded and any other party besides the petitioner. Cal. W&I Code §15657.03 (b) (3) (B).

The courts provide pre-printed forms. This makes it easier to go to court and get the orders. The courts are familiar with the forms and often provide relief with the right language. Of course, management can assist in the preparation of the papers, if the resident is unable to do so in a winning fashion. 

The law states that (Cal. W&I Code §15657.03(d)) on filing a petition for protective order, “the petitioner may obtain a temporary restraining order.” The law says that an injunction is available without notice if:

■          It appears that great or irreparable injury will result before the matter can be heard on notice. 

■          The resident or his or her attorney certifies one of the following: 

–          That within a reasonable time prior to the application the applicant informed the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney at what time and where the application would be made. 

–          That the applicant in good faith attempted but was unable to inform the opposing party and the opposing party's attorney, specifying the efforts made to contact them. 

–          That for reasons specified the applicant should not be required to so inform the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney.

Note, that the court may grant a an elder abuse restraining order on a preponderance of the evidence.

★         HELPKICK-OUT THE ABUSER!!

(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT– DVPA). 

Your resident may seek a DVPA “move-out” order to immediately oust the abusive, dangerous or harassing caregiver. The “kick out” order forces an ouster of an abusive caregiver.  An order can be issued to restrain contact either directly or indirectly:

■         By mail or otherwise, 

■         Coming within a specified distance of, or

■         Disturbing the peace of the other party.  Cal.Family Code §6320, 6211.

            The law provides that a court may issue an order, without notice, to exclude a party from the family dwelling, the dwelling of the other party, the common dwelling of both parties, or the dwelling of the person who has care, custody, and control of a child to be protected from domestic violence. “Domestic violence” is abuse perpetrated against spouses, co-habitants, children and blood relatives within the second degree.  But the order may issues regardless of the owner of the property. 

            Types of “domestic violence protective orders” includes an order enjoining specific acts of abuse (Cal.Family Code §6320), excluding a person from a dwelling (Cal.Family Code §6321) and enjoining other specified behavior. (Cal.Family Code §6322).

■         For an order excluding a party from a dwelling, the following proof is required:

--         The resident has a right to possess the mobilehome; 

--         The resident’s spouse or significant other has assaulted or threatened to assault the abused resident,  child, or any person that is under the resident’s care, custody, and control;

--         If the exclusion order were not granted, physical OR emotional harm would otherwise result. 

While title ownership is not required, still, the relationship to the victim is a requirement must be established.  The resident must reasonably show that if the order were not granted, that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the other party, to any person under the care, custody, and control of the other party, or to any minor child of the parties or of the other party. (Cal.Family Code §6321)

■   What is  “Abuse”within the meaning of the DVPA? (Cal.Family Code §§6203 (a), (b), (c), (d).)

--         Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; or

--          Sexual assault; or

--         “Reasonable apprehension” of imminent serious bodily injury to person or

 another; or

--         Engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined

 (Cal. Family Code  §6320).

Thus, the requisite “abuse” need not be actual infliction of physical injury or assault.

★         HELPGET A HARASSMENT INJUNCTION!! 

CAL. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §527.6

Civil injunctive scheme has a separate procedure to prevent civil harassment to prevent unlawful violence, threats of violence and suffering of emotional distress. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §527.6).

■   Court forms are available: ttp://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ch100.pdf

■   Civil injunction requires demonstrating imminent irreparable harm, probability of success on the merits and a balancing of equities. An elder who has suffered financial abuse may seek a protective order, including a TRO:

            --         Enjoining someone from abusing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, or harassing the petitioning elder,

            --         Preventing the destruction of the elder’s personal property, and

            --         Excluding someone from the elder’s home.

            ■   Family members residing in the home with the elder and caregivers can be added as protected parties to receive the full protection of the temporary restraining order.

★         HELPARREST A “SHORT TERM” ABUSER, GET JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION FOR LONGER TERM ABUSER (CAL. CIVIL CODE §1946.5)

■              If there is a single lodger in the home:  Your resident can seek to oust the abusive occupant, boarder, lodger or caregiver.  Cal. Civil Code §1946.5 applies, only, if requirements are satisfied.

            --         The mobilehome must also be occupied by the resident; 

            --         The resident retains a right of access to all areas of the mobilehome and have overall control; 

            --         The abusive person is the sole, other, occupant, and 

            --         The abusive person must have contracted either for room, or room and board.

            ■         If all of the above conditions apply, the law prescribes an expedited procedure to bring about the removal of the lodger.The resident may terminate tenancy by serving written Notice of termination. The length of time must be equal to the tenancy period (e.g., 30 days for a month-to-month).  Note the occupant has no tenancy rights and is not subject to the MRL. 

            ■         At the expiration of the required Notice period, the resident must file an action for unlawful detainer. For short term occupants, the occupant can also be arrested if required conditions are met. A private person's arrest is authorized, on condition, for violation of Penal Code §602.3 (an infraction). 

            ■         In summary, if the situation involves a single occupant, the resident can make a private person arrest for Cal. Penal Code §602.3 in lieu of proceeding through the eviction process.  Penal Code§602.3 states:

  (a) A lodger who is subject to Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code and who remains on the premises of an owner-occupied dwelling unit after receipt of a Notice terminating the hiring, and expiration of the Notice period, provided in Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code is guilty of an infraction and may, pursuant to Section 837, be arrested for the offense by the owner, or in the event the owner is represented by a court-appointed conservator, executor, or administrator, by the owner's representative. Notwithstanding Section 853.5, the requirement of that section for release upon written promise to appear Shall not preclude an assisting peace officer from removing the Person from the owner-occupied dwelling unit.

(b) The removal of a lodger from a dwelling unit by the owner pursuant to subdivision (a) is not a forcible entry under the provisions of Section 1159 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Shall not be a basis for civil liability under that section.

            * * * 

            (f) This section applies only to owner-occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. Nothing in this section shall be construed to determine or affect in any way the rights of persons residing as lodgers in an owner-occupied dwelling where more than one lodger resides.

■              No “Good Samaritan” standing:  Management is not entitled to be a party to assist the resident. But we may be of assistance and help save a life. 

There is no “Good Samaritan” standing to help an abused senior escape elder abuse. A park owner cannot assert claims directly for residents. Management can report claims and keep up the pressure to insist on positive and prompt action. As revealed by various cases of recent elder abuse, not even the agencies touting their dedication to ending elder abuse take any action in very clear cases. 

There are limits as to who may have standing to bring an elder abuse action on behalf of an alleged victim during the elder’s lifetime.

            The EADACPA supports third-party standing for certain representativesto bring an elder abuse claim on behalf of an abused elder while he or she is still alive. Such as conservators. But not many others, including concerned family members. There is also no “Good Samaritan” standing, which would allow concerned persons to intercede and seek relief.

★         YOUR RESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND RETURN OF PROPERTY

WRONGFULLY TAKEN–ITSELF AN ACT OF ELDER ABUSE¹

■         The elder or a “representative of the elder” may demand the return of real or personal property from a person or entity who took, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained, or assisted in those acts when the elder or dependent adult lacked capacity or was of unsound mind.

■        The failure to return the property on demand gives rise to a separate claim for financial elder abuse, even if the original taking was not financial elder abuse within the meaning of EADACPA.

★        DEFINITIONS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, FURTHER INFORMATION 

              ■  What is Elder Abuse??  

Cal. W&I Code§15600 et seq.defines elder abuse as physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction or other treatment resulting in physical harm or pain or mental suffering, or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. This definition applies to elders and dependent adults. Cal.W&I Code§15610.63:  

As defined by Penal Code, “physical abuse” includes: 

■  Assault, battery, sexual assault, battery or rape, 

■  Prolonged or continual deprivation of food or water,

■  Use of physical or chemical restraints for punishment,

    convenience, or without or beyond the scope of the doctor's order.

■  What Is “Neglect” And “Self-Neglect”?

“Neglect”means either of the following:

■ The negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.

■  The negligent failure of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of self care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.

■  Neglect includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

■  Failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision of food, clothing, or shelter.

■  Failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs.

■  Failure to protect from health and safety hazards.

■  Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.

■ Failure of an elder or dependent adult to satisfy the needs specified in paragraphs (1) to (4) for himself or herself as a result of poor cognitive functioning, mental limitation, substance abuse, or chronic poor health.

         ■  What is “Isolation” ? 

“Isolation”means any of the following:

■ Acts intentionally committed for the purpose of preventing, and that do serve to prevent, an elder or dependent adult from receiving his or her mail or telephone calls.

■  Telling a caller or prospective visitor that an elder or dependent adult is not present, or does not wish to talk with the caller, or does not wish to meet with the visitor where the statement is false, is contrary to the express wishes of the elder or the dependent adult, whether he or she is competent or not, and is made for the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from having contact with family, friends, or concerned persons.

■ False imprisonment, as defined in Section 236 of the Penal Code.

■ Physical restraint of an elder or dependent adult, for the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from meeting with visitors.

         ■  What is “Financial Elder Abuse”?

“Financial abuse”of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:

■  Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

■ Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

■ Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence.

■ A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.

■ A person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.

■  Watch for “Powers of Attorney”  as Another Form of Elder Abuse

Powers of attorney are a frequent tool of abuse. These are low cost, easy to execute, can grant very broad powers and available on the internet without the need for legal counsel. The “POA” often grants the agent the same broad general powers of a Trustee but, unlike revocable trusts, generally lack provisions defining duties owed by the agent to the principal.  Because general POAs are not tied to particular assets, there may be multiple conflicting instruments empowering multiple agents.

■  Care-Giver Cannot Take from Estate of Deceased Resident 

California  law prohibits bequests to caregivers–they are barred from receiving anything from a homeowner.   A caregiver cannot move in with the hope of convincing residents to give them property after death. Cal. Probate Code §§21360 -21392. A caregiver, or "care custodian,"  means any ". . . person providing health services or social services. . . " Cal. W&I Code §15610.17(y). Fraud or undue influence is presumed if a bequest is made. Cal. Probate Code §21380(a)(3). The bequest is invalid.

Caregivers Can Steal Our Residents Blind (and do). Do they try to be signed on title for a "quick flip" of the mobilehome? Nothing stops that. And management must approve the buyer and not interfere with a sale. 

■ Conclusion: Make A Difference 

The expansive rights of “care-givers” and “companions” is a product of a pro-mobilehome-resident legislature that actively prevents park owners from ejecting even serious criminals. Moreover, the potential for resident abuse is drowned out by claims that owners will abuse such a remedy. So, the needy continue to suffer for sake of appeasement of tenants, who oppose anythinga park owner proposes. Usually, we do not evict without resident support. 

Plainly, the probability of resident abuse increases as the numbers of retirees grows in leaps and bounds. These people live in your parks. The additional occupant has an open invitation for interloping, domineering, and controlling the frail resident.  All these visitors–usually abusive family--are empowered to quash the free will of your frail resident, take the check book and lock them away. And the MRL provides no management rights to approve, affect or detect elder abuse. Management has no ability to intervene even if requested by a resident.

Watch for signs of elder abuse. Report it. You could be saving someone's life. Remember: The resident has five (5) options which can be pursued as soon as discovered.

Management’s powers of observation are therefore needed to report and persistently complain if needed. When objective evidence tells your instincts that something is “just not right,” report it and ask questions. Legally, is there a duty to do so? Absolutely not. But that is not us. We are in business to serve.

By Zach Koucos, Senior Director, HFF

The financial headlines during the first few weeks of the new year were dominated by political, stock market, and interest rate volatility. Nonetheless, 2018 is positioned to be another very strong year from a real estate capital markets perspective. Providers of capital across the industry are planning to match or exceed their lending and investment volume from last year. 2017 saw the manufactured home community (MHC) industry continue to benefit from a growing shortage of affordable housing in markets across the United States. Furthermore, demand increases have outpaced supply for MHC assets, a trend that should continue throughout 2018. 

Most investors and capital providers believe that 2018 will be an excellent time to consume and deploy capital, either by selling assets, acquiring value-add acquisitions, or taking advantage of attractive fixed and floating rate financing. Capitalization rates (the rate of return) for well-located, quality manufactured home communities remain aggressively low, as relatively slow deal flow cannot keep pace with the amount of desired equity deployment from institutional and private investors. Thus, we continue to see more flexible investment strategies across the board, as groups struggle to deploy a plentiful amount of capital.  

As an example, we have seen institutional and private investors with a traditional focus on Class A (top quality) MHC's in major U.S. metro areas expand their focus to include Class B and C properties in these same markets, or in secondary or smaller U.S. markets. The continuing disappearance of distressed acquisition opportunities, and the unwillingness of owners of Class A MHC's to sell, has forced certain investors to look at value-add deals that require more complex business plans to achieve acceptable investment returns. Buyers acquiring MHC's are still benefitting from very attractive fixed and floating interest rate financing, and interest-only payments, which help support higher transaction price points. Furthermore, investors understand that most assets will continue to benefit from additional revenue growth over the course of the coming years, and are often willing to factor this growth into present day valuations.

From an MHC financing perspective, liquidity continues to increase and various capital sources are showing more flexibility and aggressiveness as they try to keep pace with their dollar volume allocations. This translates to a very favorable financing environment for owners and buyers of MHC's. Life insurance companies are generally increasing real estate allocations, and can offer extremely attractive non-recourse long term financing solutions (up to 40 years) for owners looking to lock in today's still low interest rates. 

We have seen life company lenders reduce credit spreads (the method by which loan interest rates are priced), lengthen amortization schedules, and provide interest-only payment options before amortization kicks in. Since they are on-book" or "balance sheet" lenders

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.

2.  Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.   Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy

by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 

3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community.This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 

4.            Comply with HUD age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that 80% of the facility be intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older. 

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

Answer.   I’ll try.  First let’s start with some definitions:

Section 603 of the FCRA defines a “consumer report” as:

“…any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for (a) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes***

Section 605 provides that “…no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:

**** 

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years

1. Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes[1] which antedates the report by more than seven years (Emphasis added.)

Based upon the preceding text in subsections (3) and (4), I read (5) to mean that 7+ year old criminal convictions are excluded from the list of 7+ year old adverse information that is prohibited to be a consumer report.

So, from a consumer reporting perspective, I do not believe there is any restriction for convictions over seven years old.

The position of HUD is an entirely different matter.  This has nothing to do with consumer reporting; rather it relates to HUD’s views on “disparate impact”.

Disparate impact holds that certain practices in employment, housing, etc., may be considered discriminatory under the Fair Housing Act, if they have a disproportionately "adverse impact" on certain members of a protected class, i.e. those falling into the following groups: Race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.[2] 

Today, a landlord may be found to have discriminated against a prospective tenant, not because of an intentional discriminatory act, such as rejecting him or her based upon race or religion, but unintentionally, because the landlord relied upon a perfectly legal basis, except that it had a disproportionately adverse impact on members of a protected class. Proof of the “disproportional impact” is usually based upon some statistical correlation showing that a certain class of protected persons are negatively impacted more than others. In other words, unintentional discrimination can now be a violation of the Act.

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”). 

At footnote 43 of the Memo, the following appears:

***see Megan C. Kurlychek et al., Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Offending?, 5 Criminology and Pub. Pol’y 483 (2006) (reporting that after six or seven years without reoffending, the risk of new offenses by persons with a prior criminal history begins to approximate the risk of new offenses among persons with no criminal record). (Emphasis added.)

Does this mean that six or seven years is the maximum look-back that landlords can make when screening someone’s criminal background? I submit that in non-violent crimes, this is not an unreasonable review period. But in cases of crimes to the person, and most significantly, rape and child molestation, I agree a seven year period is not enough. However, the Memo is not to be read to say that any conviction over seven years may not be taken into consideration when screen potential tenants. Its purpose is to “…issue guidance, mostly by way of examples and prior case law, in how the use of criminal history during the tenant-screening process, may, and may not, trigger a disparate impact result.”

Here are some tenant screening tips based upon one of my earlier MHCO Q&As:

1.Beware of testers, calling over the phone and asking if you will rent to persons with a criminal background. Be careful about answering these blind calls with a “yes” or “no”. Make sure callers understand that no rental decisions are made in advance of reviewing all relevant background information, including a criminal background report. Encourage the caller to either come to the office and pick up the necessary paperwork, or if they prefer, send it to them at their provided address.

2.Ultimately, landlords should plan on making adjustments in their rules and application process.  

3.Do not have a rule or policy that treats an arrest, with no conviction, the same as a conviction. If you currently have such a rule, it should not be enforced.

4.Do not have a blanket guideline providing, for example, that conviction for any crime is an automatic denial.

5.Be sure that all rules or policies concerning criminal records are uniformly enforced – no exceptions.  However, note No. 7 below. You should avoid a policy saying that all persons with a felony are automatically disqualified. There is a world of difference between an ex-felon who served time for embezzlement ten years ago and has been a contributing member of society ever since vs. an ex-felon who served time for aggravated battery, and has been in and out of jail for similar violent crimes over the past five years.

6.If possible, evaluate all other rental history, such as prior tenancies, employment, credit, income and affordability, before even going to the results of a criminal background check. If the prospective tenant does not pass one or more of these other criteria, then the rejection can be based on that, rather than a criminal background report, thus avoiding the disparate impact issue entirely.

7.In evaluating an applicant’s criminal history, do not use a “one size fits all” approach. There are several gradations of severity. Additional issues need to be addressed before making a decision to reject a prospective tenant based upon criminal history. For example:

a.How long ago was the conviction? (A single conviction over 6-7 years old, in most cases should probably not be used as the basis for a denial (excluding registered sex offenders, or those convicted of violent crimes).

b.What has the person been doing since their release?

c.Has the person been convicted once, or on multiple occasions?

d.What was the nature and severity of the crime?

8.Note that according to the Memo, a refusal to rent to an applicant who has a conviction for one or more drug crimes involving the manufacture or distribution (not mere possession) of a federally defined controlled substance is permissible and not subject to a disparate impact claim. In other words, a landlord or manager may legally base the refusal to rent based upon a conviction for manufacture or distribution is not a violation of the Act, based upon disparate impact. Per the Memo: “Section 807(b)(4) of the Fair Housing Act provides that the Act does not prohibit ‘conduct against a person because such person has been convicted … of the illegalmanufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).’”

9.ORS 90.303 (Evaluation of Applicant) addresses some of the same issues as in the Memo, but not all of them. And where there is similarity, Oregon law does not go as far as the Memo on the issue of criminal records and disparate impact. Oregon’s statute provides:

(1) When evaluating an applicant, a landlord may not consider an action to recover possession pursuant to ORS 105.105 to 105.168 (Oregon’s eviction statutes – PCQ) if the action:

      (a) Was dismissed or resulted in a general judgment for the applicant before the applicant submits the application. This paragraph does not apply if the action has not resulted in a dismissal or general judgment at the time the applicant submits the application.

      (b) Resulted in a general judgment against the applicant that was entered five or more years before the applicant submits the application.

(2) When evaluating the applicant, a landlord may not consider a previous arrest of the applicant if the arrest did not result in a conviction. This subsection does not apply if the arrest has resulted in charges for criminal behavior as described in subsection (3) of this section that have not been dismissed at the time the applicant submits the application.

(3) 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. 

1. Landlords should not assume that compliance with ORS 90.303 means that a denial of tenancy automatically avoids a disparate impact claim.  Landlords and managers should be extra-cautious in this minefield, since where federal law is more restrictive (i.e. burdensome on landlords), it will likely pre-empt state law.  Thus, compliance with state law, but non-compliance with federal law, can still result in a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act, as amended.

Here are some considerations to keep in mind:

1. The Memo and ORS 90.303 both prohibit screening applicants for arrests, regardless of the conduct that led to the arrest;
2. ORS 90.303 says that an arrest which has not been dismissed, but is still pending (i.e. a conviction is still possible) may be considered in tenant screening. The HUD Memo does not address this issue – so we don’t know what the feds would say. Accordingly, it may be prudent to take a more balanced approach in these situations. For example, rather than having a blanket policy that a tenant will automatically be rejected if their charge is still pending, landlords and managers should evaluate the matter based upon (i) When the matter will be resolved, e.g. a week, a month, or a year? (ii) What was the charge? (iii) If convicted, would the applicant automatically be denied? As noted above, the whole issue of criminal background information is an element of the application process that need not be fully vetted, if, regardless of the crime, its severity or recency, the person would fail the application process on other grounds. If so, there is no need to rely upon a landlord’s criminal background policy at all. However, a word of caution here: Be prudent when selecting a basis for denial. Using a weak reason can be viewed as pretextual if the applicant is a member of a protected class. In other words, beware of using a credit basis for denial if it is “iffy” and exclude the criminal background basis. In these cases, landlords and managers should consult legal counsel; it may be best to use both bases.
3. ORS 90.303 says that a landlord may consider a conviction for certain conduct, generally relating to threats of violence, drugs, sex, or property damage, which would indicate risks to fellow tenants or the landlord. However, the HUD Memo is broader and more subtle (i.e. it demands an evaluation beyond a one-size-fits-all rejection policy). In short, do not rely solely on ORS 90.303, to the exclusion of the more balanced approach demanded by the Memo.
4. Unlike the HUD Memo, ORS 90.303 does not address how long ago the conviction occurred, or require an evaluation of what the applicant had been doing since the conviction. (e. g. evidence of rehabilitation). The General Landlord-Tenant Coalition could not reach agreement on whether to use a five or seven year standard in the statute[3], nor whether multiple convictions should be dealt with differently than single ones. Accordingly, our statute is silent on this issue.

• .  Landlords could be forgiven for feeling they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they follow Oregon statutes, it may not be enough. And while it may be sufficient to follow federal law, today that requires a “disparate impact” analysis, which, at best, is a shifting and nuanced set of “guidelines” based upon anecdotal information.

Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that today, a landlord’s good faith effort to comply with the tenant application process is not enough. Instead, unintentional discrimination, now known under the more benign title, “disparate impact”, has become a basis for Fair Housing claims. Yet unlike statutes, which can provide distinct guidance, disparate impact is more of a concept than a law, since it ignores one’s intent, and looks instead to the perceived long term consequences of certain actions based upon empirical statistics, academic writings, analysis, surveys, demographics and footnotes. Is this something landlords can or should be expected to fully appreciate and understand when evaluating a person for tenancy? 

[1] It would have helped if a comma had been inserted after “convictions of crimes”.

[2] Note, many local jurisdictions have additional class, including sexual orientation.

[3] It is believed that most screening services do not report criminal information over seven years old.

Answer. Your questions are all good ones, but generally are dealt with in the utility pass-through laws.[1] Here is a summary:

1. Right to Pass Through Utilities. If a written rental agreement so provides, the landlord may require tenants to pay a utility or service charge that has been billed by a utility or service provider to the utility or service provided directly to the tenant's space as measured by a submeter

1. Permitted Charges. The utility or service charge to be assessed to the tenants may consist of:
   1. The cost of the utility or service provided to the tenant's space and under the tenant's control, as measured by the submeter;
   2. The cost of any sewer service for stormwater or wastewater as a percentage of the tenant's water charge as measured by a submeter, if the utility or service provider charges the landlord for sewer service as a percentage of water provided; and
   3. A pro rata portion of any base or service charge billed by the utility or service provider, including but not limited to any tax passed through by the provider.

1. Prohibited Charges. The utility or service charge may not include:
   1. Any additional charges (including any costs of the landlord), for the installation, maintenance or operation of the utility or service system or any profit for the landlord; or
   2. Any costs to provide a utility or service to common areas of the facility.[2]

1. Unilateral Amendment. Landlords may unilaterally amend a rental agreement to convert a tenant's existing utility or service billing method to a submeter billing method. The language in the amendment must fairly describe the submetering provisions.

1. 180-day Notice. Landlords must give the tenants not less than 180 days' written notice before converting to a submeter billing method. (PCQ Comment - I believe landlords can send out the unilateral amendment anytime - It does not have to correspond to when they send the 180-day notice out. The "unilateral amendment" language means that the landlord does not need tenant "consent.")

1. Access to Install or Maintain Meters. Landlords must give notice before entering a tenant's space to install or maintain a utility or service line or a submeter that measures the amount of a provided utility or service.
   1. PCQ Comment - The statute does not treat submeter installation as something that must wait until the 180-day notice is mailed. Installation may commence at any time following unilateral amendment of the rental agreement.
   2. The landlord must give tenants at least 24 hours' actual notice of intent to enter and the landlord or landlord's agent may enter only at reasonable times.
      1. PCQ Comment - Although the statute only says "actual notice" (e.g. phone call or phone message left on recorder) I would make sure it is in writing. If it's mailed the landlord would have to add three additional days before gaining entry. If delivered, and the clock time of delivery was put on the notice, the landlord wouldn't have to add any additional time beyond the 24 hours. The 24-hours applies to the minimum amount of advance notice - not to the actual date of intended entry - so long as the entry is not within the 24-hour period.
   3. Landlords may not enter if the tenant, after receiving the notice, denies consent to enter. The tenant must assert this denial of consent by giving actual notice of the denial to the landlord prior to, or at the time of, the attempted entry.
      1. If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, landlords may obtain injunctive relief to compel access or may terminate the rental agreement with 30-day notice under ORS 90.630 (1). In addition, landlords may recover actual damages. I've never seen this happen, although I have seen situations where some tenants refuse to allow the installation, but they usually come around, since the benefits are well known.
      2. PCQ Comment - Once the amendment is in effect the landlord can start the submeter installation anytime thereafter.

1. Reduction of Base Rent. If the cost of the tenant's utility or service was included in the rent before the conversion to submeters, landlords must reduce the tenant's rent upon their first billing of the tenant using the submeter method.
   1. Although the statute does not set forth a "formula" for calculation, the rent reduction may not be less than an amount "reasonably comparable to the amount of the rent previously allocated to the utility or service cost averaged over at least the preceding six months."
   2. Before landlords first bill the tenant using the submeter method, they must provide the tenants with written documentation from the utility or service provider showing their cost for the utility or service provided to the facility during at least the six preceding months.
2. Prohibition on Subsequent Rent Raises. During the six months following a conversion to submeters, landlords may not raise the rent to recover the costs of installing, maintaining or operating the utility or service system or of new lines or submeters.
   1. Except as part of the rent, landlords may not charge the tenant for the cost of installation or for any capital expenses related to the conversion to submeters or for the cost of maintenance or operation of the utility or service system. (The term "operation" includes, but is not limited to, reading the submeter.)
   2. PCQ Comment: What this means to me is that the landlord can raise rent in the ordinary course after the six month period and apply it toward recoupment of the capital costs. However, I would not "advertise" it and the rent raise statute (ORS 90.600) does not require landlords to do so.

1. Entry to Read Submeter. Landlords or their authorized agent may enter a tenant's space without tenant consent for the purpose of reading a submeter. The following restrictions apply:
   1. Landlords may not remain on the space for a purpose other than reading the submeter.
   2. Landlords may not enter the space more than once per month.
   3. Landlords may enter the space only at reasonable times between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

[1] See, ORS 90.531 - 90.539.

[2] Note: Common area utility charges may be passed through, but that right must be included in the rental agreement and the amount passed through per tenant must be calculated on a proportionate basis, e.g. the number of spaces in the park being the denominator.

Answer. I remember writing this provision several years ago, and it has survived the test of time - in other words - to my knowledge it has never been set aside or otherwise ruled illegal or unconscionable by any Oregon courts.

The genesis of this provision relates to the change in Oregon law several years ago that prohibited landlords from imposing a "removal on resale" condition when consenting to the sale of older homes in their communities. Essentially, the condition said that if when the resident sought to sell the home to a new buyer, the landlord could consent, but could add the condition that the home had to be removed on resale. In theory, this was designed to permit landlords to incrementally upgrade the age of the homes in their communities.[1]

The law, prohibiting this practice, is found in ORS 90.680(12) which provides that:

A landlord may not, because of the age, size, style or original construction material of the dwelling or home or because the dwelling or home was built prior to adoption of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5403), in compliance with the standards of that Act in effect at that time or in compliance with the state building code as defined in ORS 455.010:

(a) Reject an application for tenancy from a prospective purchaser of an existing dwelling or home on a rented space within a facility; or

(b) Require a prospective purchaser of an existing dwelling or home on a rented space within a facility to remove the dwelling or home from the rented space.

The quid pro quo for landlords permitting this legislation was twofold:

• A law that expressly allowed landlords to impose maintenance requirements to the exterior of homes (ORS 90.632);
• A law providing that the failure to enforce the maintenance provision did not constitute a waiver of the right to do so in the future. See, ORS 90.414(1)(c).[2]

While these laws worked well for the exterior of older homes, they did not address the interior, where typically, landlords could impose no updating requirements. However, ORS 90.740 (Tenant Obligations), provided for several things I believed we could incorporate into the MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements. Among other things, the statute provides that residents must:

• Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire;
• Install and maintain in the dwelling or home a smoke alarm approved under applicable law;
• Install and maintain storm water drains on the roof of the dwelling or home and connect the drains to the drainage system, if any;
• Use electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems;

And since ORS 90.630(1)(a) provides that '_the landlord may terminate a rental agreement *** if the tenant: (a) Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant... " I felt it was not unreasonable to require that if the resident made any modifications to the home or its heating, cooling or electrical systems, they must comply with all local, state and federal codes and regulations in existence at the time of the modification."

I then consulted with one or more professional inspectors who specialize in manufactured homes, to ask if they could inspect the interior of the home and vet these issues. I was assured they could.

Lest your resident argue that neither they, nor their buyer, wants to pay for this, I would respond that this requirement is not just for their safety, but the rest of the Park's residents. If the home should catch fire, the conflagration could endanger others as well as them.

Lastly, it is my position, which I have vetted with others, that notwithstanding the ORS 90.680(12) proscription against imposing a "removal on resale" condition, it does not apply if the resident has made changes '_to the original construction material of the dwelling or home *** [that] was built prior to adoption of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5403), in compliance with the standards of that Act in effect at that time or in compliance with the state building code... ."

In other words, it is my belief[3] that if a resident has made changes to the heating, cooling, or electrical systems inside their home, he or she is no longer protected against the prohibition against "removal on resale" condition. So your recalcitrant resident has two choices: (a) Either consent to the interior inspection by a professional, to make sure it is "safe from the hazards of fire" or (b) You can impose a "removal on resale" requirement. And by the way, since you can impose, as a condition of approval, that the new resident has fire and liability insurance, you will want to consider imposing both conditions, and becoming a co-insured on the liability policy. Good Luck!

[1] Tenant lawyers argued that the provision was illegal, since it violated the law prohibiting termination of MHP tenancies without cause. It was the result of this standoff that resulted in the compromise legislation.

[2] When these laws were being negotiated, non-waiver was important to several landlords who had fixed income elderly residents whose homes were in need of exterior maintenance or painting. While they were willing to forego enforcing the maintenance requirements so long as the aged resident was living there, they did not want to waive the right to do so later, if the home was sold, or transferred by inheritance.

[3] You should verify this with your own legal counsel. MHCO's Q&A articles should not be relied upon as "legal advice".

It's also important to realize that there isn'tone source for information on all federal and state criminal records, said Richer, explaining what she considers to be the "biggest myth in resident screening." There is no single "national" database of criminal records available to screening company providers. In fact, even the FBI database doesn'tcontain all criminal records from every court or state criminal repository in the country.

The way most professional screeners obtain data is either to use a third party or gather their own criminal records from state, county, and local sources, Richer explained. Either way, there are states that restrict the release of electronic criminal records, and some that omit personal identifiers, like full name or date of birth, which makes the process of matching records impossible.

The bottom line: It's difficult to gather criminal records because each source has a different way of cataloguing records. Those differences can make it challenging for both screening and housing providers to conduct criminal records screening.

Understand Key Terminology

Before getting started, you should understand some key terms used in criminal record screening. If you review criminal records as part of your application process, being able to clearly understand the disposition of the record is critical in how you evaluate prospects for housing, Richer said.

Arrest: This word can be confusing or misinterpreted in the context of resident screening. Records of "arrest" refer to when a person is "picked up" or "cuffed" for a criminal event. He or she may be taken into custody (typically to a local police station), but a case has yet to be filed in a court. Richer said that most screening companies don't include records of arrest in their criminal background service.

Pending case: Once sufficient evidence has been presented, typically the prosecutor will file charges. The charge filed opens a case at the appropriate court and the case remains pending until a final disposition, such as guilty or dismissed, has been rendered. HUD's new guidelines warn against making housing decisions based on arrests, so it's important to distinguish between arrests and charges filed (that is, pending cases).

Disposition: Disposition refers to how the case was resolved in the criminal justice system. Any criminal record that isn'tpending would have some type of disposition.

Deferred adjudication: Some states use the term "deferred adjudication," which is a criminal record showing conviction status, but the court had "deferred" the conviction to allow the offender to participate in some type of community service program. If completed, the conviction status would be removed; if not, the conviction status would stand.

Conviction: A record of conviction means the case resulted in the offender either pleading guilty or being found guilty.

Look-back period: This refers to the amount of time a company will consider when evaluating criminal histories. You may have different look-back periods, depending on the nature and seriousness of the crime.

Exit from incarceration: The date of exit from incarceration, parole, or release date if the sentence included jail time.

TIME OUT!

What You Should Know about the FCRA

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is the main compliance law for all screening providers (known as consumer reporting agencies), Richer explained. This federal law provides guidance and obligations for screening providers, users of consumer reports (including housing providers), and consumers (including housing applicants).

Once the criminal records are obtained, screening providers can only deliver the information in accordance with FCRA requirements. Here are some key things to keep in mind about the FCRA:

Permissible purpose: To gain access to any consumer report (including criminal records), companies must certify a permissible purpose under the FCRA. For housing providers, the one that typically applies is "a legitimate business transaction initiated by the consumer." You also may have the written consent of the consumer.

Obsolescence reporting standards: The FCRA defines how long a record can be delivered on a consumer report. The federal FCRA allows for records of conviction to display indefinitely; records of non-conviction (pending, deferred adjudications, and the like) are limited to seven years.

State law limitations: There are 11 states with different reporting standards from the federal FCRA. Most limit records of conviction to seven years, but some have different rules. For example, Kentucky limits records to only convictions, but keeps the time frame the same as the federal FCRA. And California, New Mexico, and New York only allow for records of conviction and limit the time to display to seven years.

Accuracy requirement: Consumer reporting agencies must have reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. For example, if a criminal record does not contain enough information to match to an appropriate consumer (typically full name and full date of birth), then it shouldn'tbe delivered in a consumer report.

Adverse action: If you determine that an applicant isn'tsuitable for housing, or you decide to offer housing with a conditional offer, based on the consumer report, then a "statement of adverse action" is required under the FCRA.

Disclosure and dispute: The statement of adverse action directs the applicant (the consumer) to the "source" of the consumer report (the screening company) to find out what information was delivered to the housing provider (the user) and dispute any inaccurate or non-updated information. This is a free service to consumers and is required under the FCRA.

Answer: In a guest blog dated March 13, 2015, Jo Becker, Educational/Outreach Specialist for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon ("FHCO") posted an article for the Willamette Valley MLS titled: "Screening without Social Security Numbers: There are Options!" The post is set out in full at this link.

What I've set forth below is a summary of Ms. Becker's points, with some editorial comment of my own. First and foremost, this is not to be used as legal advice, as everyone's factual situation is different.

Mr. Obama's controversial (my word, not hers) amnesty program will result in approximately 4 million U.S. residents who are undocumented, coming into the United States. Although they will have an opportunity to apply for work permits and social security numbers, many may still not have SSNs when seeking housing.

In pointing out that '_the Fair Housing Act and Oregon law apply to everyone present in the US, regardless of immigration status" Ms. Becker suggests that there are alternatives to screening other than requiring proof of a SSN. Though she recognizes the "importance of thorough tenant screening," she states that:

'_criminal history information can be acquired without an SSN and, of course, current and past landlords can provide rental history and references. Applicants may be able to provide other information such as proof of "x" number of recent months' paid utility bills, rent, or other regular monthly bills that can show a pattern of timely payment."

However, regardless of a landlord or manager's willingness to rent or lease space to all who qualify, the litmus test in tenant screening is really what the screening company requires. Ms. Becker suggests that rather than issuing a "flat no," landlords and managers say to the applicant "show me what you can." She states that:

'_your screening company should be able to give you an informed estimate about how much time and money an evaluation could cost. Costs may vary so shop your screening company. Once you have a cost estimate, inform the consumer and, if you wish and do so consistently, you may then pass this cost on to them if they want to continue with the application."

This suggestion makes the following assumptions: (a) That the applicant actually has some reliable identifying information sufficient to permit the a company to complete the screening process; (b) The screening company is capable of completing the screening process - even for an increased fee - if it does not rely upon a SSN; and (c) That the screening report will provide equally reliable information as if the applicant had tendered a SSN.

Ms. Becker notes that an alternative to a SSN is an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number). Here is what the IRS says about ITINs:

• ITINs are for federal tax reporting only, and are not intended to serve any other purpose. IRS issues ITINs to help individuals comply with the U.S. tax laws, and to provide a means to efficiently process and account for tax returns and payments for those not eligible for Social Security Numbers (SSNs).
• If you do not have a SSN and are not eligible to obtain a SSN, but you have a requirement to furnish a federal tax identification number or file a federal income tax return, you must apply for an ITIN.
• By law, an alien individual cannot have both an ITIN and a SSN.
• For more information, go to link here.

Based upon the above, this leads me to believe - or at least suspect - that the use of an ITIN is really only appropriate if the individual has a federal income tax reporting obligation and is unable to obtain a SSN. So the question landlords and managers should ask their screening company is whether it can even use the ITIN for purposes of tenant screening. If the company can do so, and the background check can be accomplished with a comparable level of accuracy as with a SSN, then the following rules should apply:

• If applicants do not have a SSN, but do have an ITIN, their application should be processed.
• Make sure that the use of the ITIN in lieu of the SSN is applied evenly and consistently to ALL applicants.

If your screening company does not use the ITIN for tenant screening, are you legally required to find one that does? I will leave that question to your own attorney. As for me, if I could pass on the added cost, if any, to the applicant [as Ms. Becker's article suggests], and the company can provide equally reliable and prompt service, I would personally consider doing so.

However, Ms. Becker notes in her article that:

"After having consulted with screening companies and the credit bureaus, it does not appear that this will allow a credit report to be pulled in the same way that an SSN does." [Underscore mine.]

That statement does not sound like a ringing endorsement by Ms. Backer of her own suggestion that landlords use an ITIN in lieu of the SSN. In any event, it's worth a try.

Setting the ITIN issue aside, the FHCO's position is that:

'_a refusal to review alternative documentation when a SSN is not available will have a negative and disparate impact on individuals whose national origin is not the US, thereby having a disparate impact on that protected class. Therefore, a policy or practice of not accepting applicants because they do not have a SSN is not appropriate. That said, we feel that passing on actual additional costs of screening in a situation like this as a legitimate business expense that could be passed on to the applicant. [Underscore mine.]

Here is where Ms. Becker and I part company. What she is saying is that: (a) Since members of the protected class [i.e. Mr. Obama's four million invitees - who will be given an opportunity to apply for SSNs] will be adversely affected; (b) By insisting exclusively on the SSN as the sole screening tool, it indirectly singles them out, and that's discriminatory. That is what she means when she says it creates a "disparate impact." So even if a manager or landlord has no intent to discriminate - i.e. they are applying the SSN requirement to ALL applicants, it is the FHCO's position that such a screening practice is a violation of the Federal and State Fair Housing Laws.

"Disparate impact" is a controversial theory, and only recently was addressed by U.S. Supreme Court. On June 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in Texas Dept. of Housing vs. Inclusive Communities, ruled that under certain circumstances, disparate impact theory can provide the basis for liability in matters pertaining to the sale and rental of housing. While the holding was disappointing, Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote for the Majority, did state that claims based solely upon mere statistical outcomes are insufficient. He wrote:

"In a similar vein, a disparate-impact claim that relies on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a defendant's policy or policies causing that disparity. A robust causality requirement ensures that "[r]acial imbalance . . . does not, without more, establish a prima facie case of disparate impact" and thus protects defendants from being held liable for racial disparities they did not create.

***

Courts must therefore examine with care whether a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of disparate impact and prompt resolution of these cases is important. A plaintiff who fails to allege facts at the pleading stage or produce statistical evidence demonstrating a causal connection cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate impact.

***

It must be noted further that, even when courts do find liability under a disparate-impact theory, their remedial orders must be consistent with the Constitution. Remedial orders in disparate-impact cases should concentrate on the elimination of the offending practice that "arbitrar[ily] . . . operate[s] invidiously to discriminate on the basis of rac[e]." Ibid. If additional measures are adopted, courts should strive to design them to eliminate racial disparities through race-neutral means."

Conclusion. Thus, in recognition of the Inclusive Communities holding, I believe it could be risky to blindly adhere to an application policy that requires proof of a social security card, if a suitably reliable substitute can be found at a reasonable cost. Here are some take-aways:

• The FHCO believes that landlords and managers should review "alternative documentation" protocols, rather than just saying "No" whenever an applicant seeks to rent or lease a space without a SSN. I have no problem with that, and suggest park owners develop such protocols.
• However, the protocols must produce a reasonably equivalent [i.e. timely and reliable], result as when using a SSN.
• If there are companies out there that can produce such results without SSNs - even if more costly - they should be seriously vetted. According to Ms. Becker, the cost, as of today, can be passed on to the applicant, should he or she choose to proceed.
• Note that Ms. Becker is not saying that park owners and managers must use alternative procedures, even if they are bad or unreliable. She is only saying that, if available, alternatives should be considered. I repeat: Landlords and managers should not initially "screen" [i.e. reject] all tenant applicants based solely on whether or not they have a SSN.
• If (a) valid alternative screening tools exist, and (b) they are equally applied, there should be no legal basis for a claim of discrimination if the tenant applicant does not pass the screening protocol.

In the meantime, landlords and managers may want to investigate various screening companies today, to learn whether there are other suitable substitutes to using the SSN as a screening tool. If there are, and they prove reliable, these alternatives should be included on a written list and provided to tenant applicants preferably upon the first face-to-face contact. Remember to be consistent and apply this approach across the board to ALL tenant applicants. To be absolutely safe, I would even go so far as to say that the list - if one can be developed - should be given to all applicants with the rest of the park's paperwork. In other words, don't ask the applicant if they have a SSN, and if they do not, then refuse to give them an application. If there are comparable alternatives that a screening company will accept, then you may use one of them.

As to the question whether not requiring SSNs as part of the application process could open a community up to liability from the other residents, I'm not sure that is an issue. Criminal background checks can be conducted without a SSN. You always want a criminal background check, and the absence of a SSN should not prevent your doing so.

For more information go to the following links:

• https://www.landlordology.com/do-landlords-need-social-security-numbers/
• http://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/property-managemen…
• https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/183099-background-checks…
• http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-screen-select-tenants-faq-29…