Search

Answer. This is a tough one, because there is really nothing in Oregon's landlord-tenant law addressing the situation, and if you don't have anything in your rules (and presumably rental/lease agreement) there is very little leverage you have to force the resident to remove the trampoline. It's on their space legally, and they are not in violation of any laws, rules, or the rental agreement. Some communities do have rules prohibiting trampolines because of their inherently dangerous nature.

This may be cautionary tale for including such a provision in your rules saying something about having recreational or playground equipment that can be inherently dangerous. Here is a sample provision:

Resident shall not construct or place devices, equipment, including playground or recreational equipment or structures on Resident's space that could cause or result in an increase in Landlord's liability insurance or a termination of Landlord's insurance coverage.

Example of such items include but are not limited to above-ground pools, trampolines; climbing structures or facilities higher than ____ feet from the ground, lawn darts, etc. In the event that Resident intends to construct, place, or use any such items on Resident's space, regardless of whether they are visible from the street, Resident shall first contact Landlord, and provide a description of the item. Before issuing approval:

(a) Landlord shall first secure confirmation from its insurance carrier that the item will not cause any increase in Landlord's insurance premiums;

(b) Resident shall sign a written release of liability to Landlord, and agree to indemnify and defend Landlord should any claims arise as a result of an injury to persons caused by the item; and

(c) Resident shall provide Landlord with proof of a current policy of liability insurance for not less than $______________________, naming Landlord as a co-insured (or otherwise agreeing to defend Landlord in the event of claims under such policy).

In the event of any claims, losses, liabilities, or threats thereof, or should Landlord's insurance carrier thereafter determine that use of the item could cause an increase in Landlord's insurance premiums, or a loss of Landlord's insurance coverage, Resident shall, within three days written notice from Landlord, remove said item from the Community.

Spot the Discrimination Mistake

The precise rule: “Children ages 18 and younger may not use the swimming pool unless they are supervised by a parent.”

Pitfall: As HUD acknowledges in a 1992 Memo, “requiring a responsible adult to supervise young children and provide written designation of an adult supervisor are policies which appear more tailored to protect legitimate health and safety interests and appear less problematic” than a total or partial ban on children’s use. However, the legality of adult supervision rules depends on how they’re framed. Basic Rule: You can require adult supervision as long as the rule is narrow and no more restrictive than it has to be to accomplish the purpose.

While it’s true that many young kids can’t swim, lots of adults also lack proficiency in swimming. The danger of swimming unsupervised, in other words, is based not on a person’s age but the fact that they can’t swim. Once you introduce age and family relationship into the equation, you take the supervision rule to places it shouldn’t go. 

Example: The parents of three young children sued their California landlord for adopting a rule stating that “Children under the age of 18 are not allowed in the pool or pool area at any time unless accompanied by their parents or legal guardian.” Too restrictive, said the federal court. A “prohibition on unsupervised swimming which would prevent even a 17-year-old certified lifeguard from swimming unaccompanied is overly restrictive.” While recognizing “the inherent dangers of unsupervised swimming,” the court concluded that requiring that a parent or legal guardian to supervise “transforms this rule” from a legitimate safety precaution to an unjustified restriction on children and their families” [Iniestra v. Cliff Warren Investments, Inc., C.D. Cal. 2012, 886 F.Supp.2d 1161].

Solution: The least restrictive and most nondiscriminatory way to accomplish the safety objective of the adult supervision rule is to frame the rule in terms of swimming proficiency and the ability to supervise responsibly. Options:

• Require supervision of not just children of certain ages but any person who can’t swim;
• Require all would-be pool users—and not just children—to pass a swimming proficiency test administered by a competent lifeguard or swim instructor; and
• Rather than a “parent” or “adult guardian,” require non-proficient swimmers to be supervised by a proficient swimmer.

Revised Pool Rule: In the interest of safety and in accordance with local laws, individuals who are not proficient swimmers may not use the community pool unless they are supervised by a person who is a proficient swimmer.

Answer: Making an accommodation like this without a writing is an invitation to problems. You can easily enter into an addendum to the Rental Agreement saying that "Rent will be paid by the 11thof the month, and late after the 15th"(i.e. 4 days per statute).

Under this scenario, a 72-hour Notice could issue no earlier than the 18th(seven days from first date rent is due, per statute). If the Rental Agreement provides that there will be a fine of $X for a bounced check and a late fee of $X, then you're OK to do so.

As to whether you created a problem for yourself by allowing the late payments, I would say "No" so long as you have it in writing. Without a writing there is too much chance for argument as to when rent is late and when a late fee can issue.

MHCO does not have a form for this, but could. I will check.

Lastly, to your question about insisting on a certified check or money order, I would like to see it in the Rules or Rental Agreement, so it is enforceable. If it is not in your rules, you can still tell the client that henceforth, he or she will have to pay the rent by certified check or money order, but you could not enforce it, if they refused.

The rule can simply say: "In the event a Resident's rent check bounces on more than one occasion within any twelve month period, all further payments for the following 12 months shall be paid by certified check or money order."

But this would have to be an amendment to your current rules, following ORS 90.610.

Answer: Generally the short answer is yes, the Federal Fair Housing laws apply to RV rentals. It also does not matter whether the RV rental is a vacation occupancy rental or a long-term rental. The discrimination laws apply either way.

Specifically, the Federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") prohibits discrimination in the rental of a "dwelling" based upon race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. "Dwelling" includes any vacant land which is offered for lease for locating any "structure" on it. A structure would include an RV.

(Note: State fair housing statutes also protect against discrimination based upon race, color, sex, marital status, source of income (excluding Section 8), familial status, religion, national origin, and disability. Some local ordinances [e.g., Portland and Eugene] protect against discrimination based upon age and sexual orientation.)

As such, and as an initial matter, landlords should avoid asking any questions of RV rental applicants related to these prohibited areas. The sole exception may be the age of a potential applicant if the RV section qualifies as a "55 or older" facility under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The qualifications for "55 or older" housing are very strict and you should always check with your attorney before asking age-related questions on your rental application.

During an RV tenancy, landlords must also be careful to avoid anything that might be interpreted as discriminatory. For example, rent increases should typically be made across the board to avoid discrimination allegations. Another thing to avoid is the uneven enforcement of your rules and regulations. Every RV tenant should be held equally accountable to follow the rules, and appropriate notices should be issued to every tenant who violates the rules to leave no room for any discrimination claims.

Reasonable Accommodation

The Fair Housing Act also prohibits acts that "discriminate against any person... in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling, because of a handicap of that person or any person associated with that person." The FHA defines discrimination as "a refusal to make reasonable accommodation in its rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a [disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The FHA obligates landlords to make "reasonable accommodations" in the "rules, policies, practices, or services," necessary to afford handicapped persons "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."

This means that if an RV tenant requests an "accommodation" for his or her handicap, the landlord is obligated to provide it unless it causes a financial or administrative burden. A typical example might be if a handicapped RV tenant requested an RV rental space closest to the park's RV restrooms/showers. In most cases, the landlord would need to accommodate this request if it were possible to accommodate the request without causing a "burden."

However, landlords need not provide housing to individuals whose "tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." A good example of this would be if an RV tenant requested to keep a pit bull as a "companion animal." In most instances, the landlord would be justified in rejecting this request since pit bulls are generally considered a dangerous breed.

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

Last week, the Senate Banking Committee passed legislation to clarify that a manufactured housing retailer or seller is not considered a "loan originator" simply because they provide a customer with some assistance in the mortgage loan process.  This is a key tenet of S. 1751, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, which excludes manufactured housing retailers and sellers from the definition of a loan originator so long as they are only receiving compensation for the sale of a home.  

The language was passed as a part of S. 2155, the "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act," which is a package of reforms intended to improve the national financial regulatory framework and promote economic growth. S. 2155 was passed by the Senate Banking Committee by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 7. 

In opening the Committee's consideration of the bill, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Crapo (R-ID) said, "The reforms in this bipartisan bill help tailor the current regulatory landscape, while ensuring safety and soundness and relieving the burden on American businesses that are unfairly being treated like the largest companies in our economy."  

MHI worked closely with Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN), author of the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act (S. 1751) and long-time supporter of manufactured housing, to include this important consumer access provision in the package. The language, included in Section 107 of the package, amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to exclude from the definition of "mortgage originator" an employee of a retailer of manufactured or modular homes who does not receive compensation or gain for taking residential mortgage loan applications while maintaining consumer protections. 

U.S. Senator Joe Donnelly said, "For many hard-working Hoosiers and Americans, manufactured housing provides the most affordable option available when they look to buy a home. I'm pleased the bipartisan regulatory relief legislation that I helped craft and that passed the Senate Banking Committee includes a provision based on my Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. This measure would help prevent federal regulations from getting in the way of financing that families need as they step into homeownership."

The passage of S. 2155 by the Senate Banking Committee affirms MHI's longstanding position that it is inappropriate for a manufactured housing retailer or seller - whose business is to sell homes and who is not receiving any gain or compensation for minimally helping the borrower with the mortgage loan process - to be subjected to compliance requirements and potential liability for areas that are clearly designed to apply only to the actual entity making the mortgage loan. MHI will continue working with its champions as the bill moves through the legislative process.

The inclusion of this language in the Senate's financial regulatory relief package is the result of MHI's persistent efforts to ensure the needed changes contained in the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act are passed into law as soon as possible. In addition to the Senate regulatory reform package, H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured House Act, was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 1.  The language was also passed as a part of the House's financial reform package (H.R. 10) in June. In September, the House also passed the bill's provisions as a part of its Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations package. 

Answer to Question 1: Generally, no. However, this isn'ta license to be rude to them. Let's start with the basics: If you are a legal 55+ community, you are not required to admit as residents, persons with children, i.e. those under the age of 18. If there are children in the community (perhaps before the facility converted to 55+, or simply because less than 20% of all spaces are occupied by persons with children), the park may do things that it could not do if it was a family park, such as prohibit children's Big Wheels and bicycles in the street. Generally, however, the best approach is to strive for 100% compliance with the 55+ laws in terms of occupancy. If you want to be a "safe" 55+ community, you will have rules that expressly say so; a rental/lease agreement that expressly says so; application and tenant home sale provisions that limit spaces to at least one occupant 55+; and generally hold yourself out in all advertising as a 55+ community. Of course, seniors are permitted to bring children (e.g. grandchildren, etc.) into the community, but the rules may place limits on the amount of time they may remain there.

Answer to Question 2: You need to go through the formal rule change process described in the statute. A rule that is not legally enacted, isn'treally an enforceable rule. However, you should immediately issue a written notice to all residents that based upon legal advice, those rules (identifying them) that appear to be discriminatory against children, will not be enforced. If you own a family park and are concerned that your rules may appear to "target" children, you should consult with your attorney for advice on how to proceed. Note that even if your rules don't appear to target children, if they, in fact, affect the activities of children more heavily than adults, they could still be deemed to be discriminatory (e.g. occupancy limits). And if you are a family park, but you have over 80% of the spaces occupied by at least one person age 55 or over, you should ask your attorney about "converting" to become a legal 55+ community. Until you do, even though 99% of the community's spaces are occupied by seniors, you're still a family park, and subject to the anti-discrimination laws protecting children.

Answer.  No. There are many reasons for this answer:

The term “rent” is defined in ORS 90.100(37) as “…any payment to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement, periodic or otherwise, in exchange for the right of a tenant and any permitted petto occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others and to use the premises.” Ergo,  rent already includes the tenant’s pet. You cannot charge twice for Fido.

Secondly, ORS 90.302 provides that landlords may charge certain “fees”; one of them is for violation of a written pet agreement or of a rule relating to pets in a facility, pursuant to ORS 90.530.

Here is a summary of ORS 90.530:

· A landlord may not charge a one-time, monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant’s possession of a pet; 

· A landlord may provide written rules regarding control, sanitation, number, type and size of pets. 

· The landlord may require the tenant to sign a pet agreement and to provide proof of liability insurance. 

· The landlord may require the tenant to make the landlord a co-insured for the purpose of receiving notice in the case of cancellation of the insurance.

· A landlord may charge a tenant an amount for a violation of a written pet agreement or rules relating to pets not to exceed $50 for each violation

Landlords may also charge tenants a security deposit for their pets. See, ORS 90.300. However, alandlord may notcharge a tenant a pet security deposit for keeping a service animal or companion animal that a tenant with a disability requires as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws.

So, while landlords may not charge a separate amount for “pet rent”, the Oregon Legislature has built in several protections for landlords where their tenant(s) have pets.  

• |Published: Nov. 10, 2024, 6:00 a.m.

By Carlos Fuentes

While Democrats nationally react to stinging losses in the presidential race and U.S. Senate, Democratic lawmakers in Oregon received a boost in this fall’s election, flipping a key seat in the Legislature to expand their control in the state Senate.

However, the party appears to have failed to flip any seats in the House, leaving it just one seat short of regaining a powerful supermajority in both chambers, which would have allowed it to push through new taxes or increase existing ones without Republican support.

Although Democrats were widely expected to keep their legislative majority, it was less clear whether they could reclaim the three-fifths majority in both chambers they lost in 2022.

In the Senate, they managed to do so, flipping the Bend seat long held by former Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp, who was barred from running for reelection for participating in a walkout during the 2023 legislative session.

Voters in that district had reliably supported Republicans for years before the map was redrawn in the wake of the 2020 census, turning it into what is likely to be a reliably blue district going forward. Democratic Bend City Councilor Anthony Broadman easily beat Redmond School Board Chair Michael Summers, a Republican, to claim the seat, with results as of Friday showing him up 59% to 41%.

“We are thrilled to be in the supermajority again,” Senate Majority Leader Kathleen Taylor, a Democrat from Southeast Portland, told The Oregonian/OregonLive. “Oregonians spoke up and said they wanted the Democrats to be running things, and they had the opportunity to make a different decision, but they absolutely chose the Democrats in a really strong way.”

Democrats didn’t fare quite as well in the House as four vulnerable House Republicans – Reps. Kevin Mannix, Tracy Cramer, Cyrus Javadi and Jeff Helfrich – all appeared to secure reelection.

Helfrich, the House Republican leader, led his Democratic opponent Nick Walden Poublon, a drug and alcohol prevention specialist, by just 1,000 votes as of Friday afternoon. The small margin separating the candidates comes despite Helfrich, who lives in Hood River, outraising his opponent $1 million to only $86,000.

While the race still remains too close to call, Helfrich, who trailed on election night, has since pulled ahead and extended his lead as more votes have been tallied.

Assuming results hold, Democrats will have an 18 to 12 supermajority in the Senate and a 35 to 25 majority in the House.

A Democratic supermajority in the Senate could have implications in next year‘s legislative session, in which lawmakers aim to create more funding sources to address a massive shortfall in Oregon’s transportation budget. However, Democrats’ failure to net any seats in the House could temper their power, especially since revenue bills must originate in the House and Democrats will need at least one Republican vote to pass any tax increases.

Democratic lawmakers are generally more supportive of tax increases than their Republican counterparts. For example, the 2019 Student Success Act, which raised corporate taxes to provide more funding for schools, passed with no Republicans voting in favor.

Officials say the need for more transportation funding is dire. The state transportation agency warned lawmakers earlier this year that it would have to lay off approximately 1,000 workers without more funding, and cities and counties have asked for increased state funding to better maintain their roads and traffic infrastructure.

Even when Democrats had a supermajority, “it definitely was always challenging to (raise taxes), because they’re serious votes,” Taylor said. “You don’t just say yes, you have to really be convinced that it’s the right thing to do.”

Although Republican lawmakers tend to oppose most proposals for new taxes, there are exceptions. Last year, four Republicans voted in favor of a bill that instituted a new tax on landlines and other telecommunications services to fund a suicide prevention hotline.

Republicans say it’s too early to determine which, if any, proposals to increase transportation funding they would support. Work groups are currently sifting through many options, including raising the state’s gas tax or imposing a tax on Oregon drivers based on the number of miles driven.

“We look forward to partnering with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on bipartisan solutions to tackle our state’s challenges, but House Republicans will also serve as a crucial check against unnecessary tax increases,” Helfrich said in a statement.

Despite their Senate supermajority, top Democrats have said they want any transportation package next year to receive bipartisan support.

They point to past efforts that received bipartisan support, such as lawmakers this year rolling back Oregon’s landmark drug decriminalization law, as evidence that both parties can reach a consensus on the state’s most pressing issues.

“We do need a bipartisan majority in order to pass the transportation package, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I think that was always the plan,” said House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, a Democrat from Tigard. “If we’re going to get it done, it’s going to force us all to collaborate and work together.”

Despite some Democrats expressing hope for compromise, some Republicans remain skeptical about the promise of bipartisan cooperation.

“As far as policy goes, under a supermajority, (Democrats) don’t have to have any discussion about it with us,” said Deputy Senate Minority Leader Cedric Hayden, a Republican from Fall Creek. “They just choose what they’re going to put through, and that’s it.”

As the minority party, Republicans have few options to prevent Democrats from passing their full agendas. In recent years, they have increasingly resorted to boycotting floor sessions to deny Democrats the two-thirds quorum necessary to vote on bills, but the days of extended walkouts might be over.

Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, prohibits lawmakers from running for reelection if they accumulate 10 or more unexcused absences from floor sessions. Ten Republicans who participated in a six-week walkout in 2023 were barred from seeking reelection under the law.

“The whole system is set up so that one side has the authority,” Hayden said. “For me, that’s a bit of a stretch to say, ‘It’s gonna be great, it’s gonna be bipartisan.’ But we’ll see.”

Fair Housing Update on Advertising Fair housing law prohibits housing providers and the media from printing or publishing an advertisement that indicates a preference, limitation, or discriminates based on a protected class. Currently state and federal law protects people from housing discrimination based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability. State law also protects marital status and source of income, and some cities or counties protect age, sexual orientation and gender identity. What should be avoided? o Direct discrimination, such as "No Children" or "Healthy Only" o Pictorial inserts that only show non-disabled white adults communicate the same illegal message as the words "non-disabled white adults only" What else should I know? o Words that describe behavior - not status - are generally permissible. Examples of acceptable words are "responsible" or "reliable." If the word "independent" is used, it should be clear that a person with a disability who can live alone with some outside assistance is not excluded. o Words that describe an attribute of a dwelling unit are permissible unless the ad restricts who can live there. For example "family room" or "mother-in-law apartment" are okay as long as it does not really mean only a mother-in-law can live there. Similarly "view" or "within walking distance of downtown" are descriptive and acceptable. What would be illegal are "no blind persons" or "no wheelchairs". o Age. Age is a protected class only in some areas, but beware of any ads limiting age, because they may discriminate against families with children. o Senior housing and "adults only". Senior housing may exclude families with children, but it must meet certain criteria, including an intent to be senior housing. Using "adults only" does not express the intent to be "senior housing." The ad should indicate the housing is for those over age 55 or age 62 or seniors. o Words that do not directly prohibit a protected class but are "neutral" are permissible. Permissible are phrases like "choice location, "executive home," "private." But if you know that your client wants to use "code" words because of an intent to exclude protected class individuals, follow the spirit of fair housing and do not do it. Other suggestions -- o Use the HUD fair housing logo where possible o If a dwelling unit is accessible to persons with mobility impairments, mention it in your ads