Search

Answer:  It’s easy to get confused. There is a lot to remember.  Generally all of the answers are contained in ORS 90.630[Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent].[1]Here is a short summary:

· The landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy in a manufactured housing community by giving not less than 30 days’ noticein writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant:

• Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740[Tenant Obligations];
• Violates a rule or rental agreement provision;
• Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587; or
• Fails to pay a (i) a late charge pursuant to ORS 90.260; (ii) A fee pursuant to ORS 90.302; or (iii) a utility or service charge pursuant to ORS 90.534or 90.536.

· The tenant may avoid termination of the tenancy by correcting the violation within the 30-day period specified in notice of violation. However, if substantially the same act or omission recurs within six months after the date of the notice, the landlord may terminate the tenancy upon at least 20 days’ written noticespecifying the violation and the date of termination of the tenancy.  In such cases, the tenant does nothave a right to correct the violation – and the notice must so state. 

· Oregon’s “three strikes” law only applies to cases in which the tenant is issued three 72-hour [or 144-hour] notices within a 12-month period.  [Caveat: All three notices must have been validly prepared and delivered or served. – PCQ]The “three strikes” law is found at ORS 90.630(8)-(10).As noted above, multiple violations of the same or similar rule within six months can result in the landlord’s issuance of a non-curable 20-day notice to the tenant.

Answer: There is no specific law regarding this issue. However, you clearly understand the ramifications i.e. if a service or amenity is withdrawn, the inference usually is that the landlord has received some financial benefit. In this case, the "benefit" is that the landlord is no longer responsible for maintenance, and the resident is. My position generally is that this type of arrangement should net out to zero in cost/benefit to both sides. That is, here, if the cost of maintenance is shifted from the landlord to the resident, then there must be some offsetting benefit to the resident. If you believe you can allocate the estimated cost that has been shifted to the resident, e.g. $5.00 per month [I am using the figure as an example - I have no idea what the actual figure might be. - PCQ] then there would be a commensurate $5.00/month reduction in rent. The more difficult issue is whether you may "require" this. I doubt it. The residents never signed on to ownership of a park amenity when they commenced their lease or rental. In fact, a cynic would say that you're only doing this because of the condition or age of the carports. I'm not, but I'm suspecting this as a response from some if you attempted to "require" that all residents assume ownership of them. There is also the issue of the condition of the carports. Are you going to warrant to each resident that they are in good condition? Or, is this going to be an AS-IS sale? If the latter you most certainly cannot require they agree to take over ownership of carports when you decline to stand behind their quality. If the idea is that once bought, a resident could "upgrade" them, you need to think the idea all the way through. For example, any such construction must first be approved by Management. Are you going to require that all work must be performed by bonded contractors who have liability insurance and are licensed with the Construction Contractors Board? You will need to post a Notice of Nonresponsibility for construction liens. [I have seen liens imposed on park owned property for a resident's construction project that was (foolishly) approved by Management.] Are you going to permit residents to do the construction work themselves? If so, you must make clear that the work must be performed in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, especially the applicable building codes. Who is going to then monitor construction to make sure what was approved is what was built? Is the manager qualified to do this, and does he/she have time? Are you going to require the residents undertaking construction [either themselves or through a contractor] first sign an agreement to assume all liability and release the park and Management from damages? If a third party does the work, besides licensing, you have to make sure they have workers comp insurance (i.e. SAIF). You cannot assume all contractors have this insurance. The smaller the contractor, e.g. solos, the greater the chance they may have neglected to obtain workers comp. If there were an accident resulting in personal injuries, e.g. falling off the roof of the new garage, without SAIF, the injured worker could look to you. Lastly, what are you going to do upon sale of the home? I assume the resident will be selling title to the garage. Since the garage is affixed to the land, would assume a regular "deed" be given, as opposed to a bill of sale [as is common for personal property, such as a manufactured home]. So how is this going to work? Certainly, you don't want residents delivering deeds to the garage, since they actually don't own the underlying land. Yet once affixed to the land, the garage becomes a part of the land. You will certainly have to cover this issue if/when you undertake this program. It's possible that you would just give a revocable "license" or "permit" to the resident, allowing the use and construction, but not pure ownership. And be careful of a resident claiming that you owe them for the value of the improvement, since upon resale of the home, you might increase the space rent because of the "enclosed garage." In light of all the issues, it seems that if you decide to plow ahead with this idea, it seems to me that it should be voluntary, with adequate disclosures and releases per above, so that the resident can never say they had no choice in the matter. There is little question in my mind, that if you made this program mandatory, a court of law would not enforce it, no matter how ironclad.

Answer: The short answer is "no," you cannot evict an existing RV tenant who has been there for more than one year for no reason.

Under newly enacted Senate Bill 608, landlords cannot evict RV tenants for no reason after the first year of occupancy. After the first year, the tenant cannot be evicted as long as the tenant (1) pays the rent, and (2) follows the park rules. Since your existing RV tenant has been in the park for more than one year, you cannot evict the tenant with a no-cause notice.

The new law forces landlords to primarily rely on for-cause notices after the first year of tenancy (i.e., rent nonpayment, violation of park rules, etc.). As such, I recommend that you carefully monitor RV tenants during the first yearof tenancy and evict tenants who seem likely to become "problem" tenants. During the first year, month-to-month RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day, no-cause notice.

Please note that there are some exceptions that would allow a landlord to evict long-term tenants on 90 days' notice if the RV rental space is being converted to another use, or substantial repairs are planned. Even then, the tenant must be paid one month's rent if evicted with a 90-day notice. However, these exceptions would generally apply only if the park (or parts of it) are closed and converted to another use.

Answer:  Oregon House Bill 4213 prohibits residential evictions (including eviction notices) based on nonpayment of rent and other charges owed to the landlord that became due during the “emergency period.”  HB 4213 specifically defines the “emergency period” as beginning April 1, 2020 and ending on September 30, 2020.

Governor Kate Brown’s Executive Order No. 20-56 extended the eviction moratorium through the end of the year until December 31, 2020.  However, like HB 4213, the “nonpayment” period is specifically defined to mean payments that became due to the landlord during the period beginning on April 1, 2020 and ending on the extended date of December 31, 2020.

Both HB 4213 and EO 20-56 specificallyset April 1, 2020 as the starting point for the eviction moratorium. Any amounts that were owed before that date to the landlord are therefore notcovered by the eviction moratorium prohibitions.

In my opinion, you could lawfully serve a 72-hour rent nonpayment notice on these tenants requiring payment of their rent for January, February and March.  If they failed to pay the full amount due for those months by the 72-hour notice deadline, you could file an eviction case in court.

There are (of course) a few caveats. First, you or your attorney would likely need to educate the court with this analysis to allow the case to proceed. Second, you should probably expect an argument from the tenants or their attorney on this issue, but if the court follows the specific language in the regulations, you should prevail.  Third, it is possible the tenants could try to short-circuit the eviction by invoking the federal CDC eviction moratorium that is also on the books, but they would have to submit a sworn declaration stating that, among other things, they are unable to pay rent because they have lost income, employment, or suffered extraordinary medical expenses as a result of COVID-19.  It does not sound like any of these facts fit the couple you have described.

Obviously, you should consult with a knowledgeable attorney before you decide to pursue this eviction strategy.  Also be sure to check whether your county or local municipality may have enacted a broader moratorium that might cover the rent amounts due earlier in the year. And finally, you may want to consider simply suing the tenants in small claims court for these rent amounts instead of pursuing a full-blown eviction case.

Answer:  It’s easy to get confused. There is a lot to remember.  Generally all of the answers are contained in ORS 90.630[Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent].[1]Here is a short summary:

· The landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy in a manufactured housing community by giving not less than 30 days’ noticein writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant:

• Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740[Tenant Obligations];
• Violates a rule or rental agreement provision;
• Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587; or
• Fails to pay a (i) a late charge pursuant to ORS 90.260; (ii) A fee pursuant to ORS 90.302; or (iii) a utility or service charge pursuant to ORS 90.534or 90.536.

· The tenant may avoid termination of the tenancy by correcting the violation within the 30-day period specified in notice of violation. However, if substantially the same act or omission recurs within six months after the date of the notice, the landlord may terminate the tenancy upon at least 20 days’ written noticespecifying the violation and the date of termination of the tenancy.  In such cases, the tenant does nothave a right to correct the violation – and the notice must so state. 

· Oregon’s “three strikes” law only applies to cases in which the tenant is issued three 72-hour [or 144-hour] notices within a 12-month period.  [Caveat: All three notices must have been validly prepared and delivered or served. – PCQ]The “three strikes” law is found at ORS 90.630(8)-(10).As noted above, multiple violations of the same or similar rule within six months can result in the landlord’s issuance of a non-curable 20-day notice to the tenant.

Answer:  I find no statutory authority giving tenants a legal right to access the records maintained by the landlord or manager. There is nothing in the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Act allowing this.

By “records” I am referring to those maintained by the landlord or manager regarding tenant performance, conduct, complaints made by or against a tenant, and related information. And this only makes sense. No one would file a written complaint against another tenant if that tenant could legally access it and retaliate. And few managers would freely document events or run-ins with a tenant if that person could immediately demand copies of the report. These documents are legitimate “business records” kept in the ordinary course of the Park’s management and part of its legal responsibilities.

However, copies of those documents describing the tenant’s legal responsibilities, such as the rental agreement, lease, rules, or Statement of Policy, may certainly be requested by a tenant who lost or misplaced their copies. But this cannot be done repeatedly to harass the landlord. A copying charge may be assessed.

In litigation between landlord and tenant, including evictions, the tenant may legally demand that the landlord turn over copies of managements file if the content was directly related to the litigation. But if the landlord or manager opposed the request, the Court would have to decide. The issue would depend upon whether the records sought were directly related to some issue in the litigation.

Answer. I'm not a bankruptcy attorney, but can tell you generally what the process entails. The moment the resident files for bankruptcy - or even tells you they filed, you should halt any action you're in the process of taking. In the case of the 72-hour notice, you should not file for eviction, even though no rent payment was timely made. In the case of a 30-day notice, same thing; don't file for eviction even though correction was not timely made.

The main thing you want to verify is that, in fact, the resident did file for bankruptcy. In such case, they should be able to give you some evidence of the filing, such as the bankruptcy court filing number. Needless to say, if no filing was made, you are within your rights to proceed, at least until they do file, at which point you should then stop moving the matter forward legally. However, if the resident tells you they have taken out bankruptcy, you should assume it to be true unless and until you verify that that is not the case.

Once you have verified that the resident is in bankruptcy, the question is what you should do. Not being a bankruptcy attorney, I cannot tell you how long to expect the entire process will take before the resident exits the process. However, if you are listed in the bankruptcy petition, you will receive a notice of the First Meeting of Creditors, which you should attend. That will give you an opportunity to learn what the resident intends to do, i.e. abandon the home or remain there and resume paying rent. Your goal should be to have the resident resume making rental payments as soon as possible. You will have an idea whether that will occur at the First Meeting of Creditors. The same thing applies if the resident is under a curable 30-day notice.

If the situation is such that the tenant cannot pay, or cannot give you assurances that he or she can pay, or if the resident is under a default notice that is not curable, and you simply want them out, you should confer with a good bankruptcy attorney regarding your alternatives.

What you will likely be presented with from your attorney is a decision about whether you should file with the court to "lift" the bankruptcy stay of proceedings[1], so that you may complete whatever legal action you were in the process of taking when the filing occurred.

In the cases I have been involved with in the past, my experience was that if the bankruptcy stay was not going to assist the resident in dealing with his or her debts (e.g. it was a "no asset" case, and there was no chance the resident could pay the rent, etc.) the bankruptcy trustee would likely agree to lifting the stay so that your legal action could proceed. The decision to file is usually a cost-benefit analysis, e.g. what will the procedure cost, will it get the resident out sooner, and will you be able to get a rent-paying tenant into the space relatively quickly?

The take-away in all bankruptcy filings is (a) you do not want to take any steps (including a demand letter from a lawyer) against the resident the moment you know (or reasonably believe) he or she has filed for bankruptcy, and (b) you want to consult with an attorney to evaluate your legal alternatives. I have seen many cases where landlords simply stop, wait for the bankruptcy to be over, before pursuing legal action. That is a mistake. Too many times, the bankruptcy continues for several months, the resident has remained there rent-free for that time, and the landlord is the one who loses. The same thing applies when the resident has abandoned the premises and then files for bankruptcy. While you cannot legally proceed until the stay is lifted or the bankruptcy proceeding has either been dismissed or is completed, waiting without taking action to lift the stay means the space cannot be re-rented to anyone else.

[1] This means that upon filing, everything comes to a halt, i.e. it is "stayed."

In response to the COVID 19 epidemic, Governor Kate Brown joined nearly a dozen other governors on Monday issuing a sweeping order (Executive Order 20-12) that essentially requires people to stay home except for essential travel, such as to the grocery store or for medical needs. Violation of the Order is a Class C misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and/or a fine of $1,250.

As of 12:01 a.m. on March 24, a long list of businesses (from amusement parks to youth clubs) were ordered shuttered. Most likely, the list of businesses ordered to close does not affect a manufactured home park, RV park or floating home community; however, community owners should review the list of businesses to ensure compliance.

Although “campgrounds” were ordered closed, RV parks are exempted.

Pools, sports courts and playgrounds must be closed. 

The Governor's order does not change her previous order (Executive Order 20-07) with respect to restaurants, bars, and other establishments that serve food and drink, which Order prohibits on-premises consumption of food or drink but allows take-out or delivery services.

Outdoor Activities

Governor Brown's order specifically allows people to be outside for walking or hiking but any outdoor activity that cannot be done while maintaining social distancing (i.e. basketball) is prohibited. State and community parks may remain open if social distancing can be maintained and signage about social distancing must be prominently displayed.

Employees

Effective March 25, all businesses in Oregon shall facilitate telework and work at home by employees, to the maximum extent possible. Work in offices is prohibited whenever telework and work at home options are available, in light of position duties, availability of teleworking equipment, and network adequacy. In other words, your employees do not have to work from home if their duties require them to be on site (maintenance workers) or if they are not set up to work from home (they don’t have the ability or capability from working from home).

Social Distancing Policy

When telework is unavailable, businesses must designate an employee to establish, implement and enforce social distancing policies, consistent with the guidance from the Oregon Health Authority. Such policies must address how the business or non-profit will maintain social distancing protocols for business-critical visitors.

Bill Miner | Davis Wright TremaineLLP

1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 | Portland, OR 97201

Tel: (503) 778-5477 | Fax: (503) 778-5299 

Email: billminer@dwt.com| Website: www.dwt.com

If you do not yet have a policy in place, you should contact your legal or human resource advisor to assist you with the drafting of a social distancing policy. Please note that DWT is offering a draft policy at a fixed price for MHCO members.