Search

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.

• |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

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]. 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’ notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant: o 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]; o Violates a rule or rental agreement provision; o Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587; or o 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 90.534 or 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 notice specifying the violation and the date of termination of the tenancy. In such cases, the tenant does not have 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. 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 are several that come into play:

• A tenant may terminate a rental agreement upon written notice if the tenant provides the landlord with proof of official orders showing that the tenant is:

(a)Enlisting for active service in the Armed Forces[1] of the United States;

(b)Serving as a member of a National Guard or other reserve component or an active service component of the Armed Forces of the United States and ordered to active service outside the area for a period that will exceed 90 days;

(c)Terminating active service in the Armed Forces of the United States;

(d)A member of the Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services detailed by proper authority for duty with the Army or Navy of the United States and: (A) Ordered to active service outside the area for a period that will exceed 90 days; or (B) Terminating the duty and moving outside the area within the period that the member is entitled by federal law to the storage or shipment of household goods; or

(e)A member of the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ordered to active service outside the area for a period that will exceed 90 days.

• Termination of a rental agreement is effective on the earlier of:

1. A date determined under the provisions of any applicable federal law; or (b) The later of: (A) 30 days after delivery of the notice; (B) 30 days before the earliest reporting date on orders for active service; (C) A date specified in the notice; or (D) 90 days before the effective date of the orders if terminating duty described under subsection (1)(d)(B) of this section or terminating any active service described in this section.

• A tenant who terminates a lease on account of the reasons listed above is not: (a) Subject to a penalty, fee, charge or loss of deposit because of the termination; or (b) Liable for any rent beyond the effective date of the termination.

[1] "Armed Forces of the United States" means the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps or Navy of the United States.

Answer. Admittedly, this area of Oregon landlord-tenant law is not my strong suit. But here is what I understand. For more detail, go to this excellent article by Sybil Hebb, of the Oregon Law Center, here.

The Housing Choice Act of 2013 (HB 2639) went into effect on July 1, 2014. While the law says that landlords are not required to accept Section 8 tenants, landlords may not refuse to rent because their source of income is a Section 8 voucher, or any other local, state, or federal housing assistance program. However, an applicant's (a) past conduct or (b) inability to pay rent, may be taken into consideration, so long as the landlord's screening protocols are consistent with local, state and federal laws. Landlords must include the value of the applicant's housing assistance when evaluating their ability to pay rent. See, ORS 659A.421(2)(a)

The Section 8 voucher program is a federally program available throughout Oregon. According to Sybil's article above:

'_the program is not achieving its goals: too many tenants struggle to find places where their vouchers will be accepted, and fear of administrative issues causes landlord reluctance to participate. As a result, families have fewer choices and face barriers to success. When vouchers are not accepted, the important public purpose of the housing assistance program is undermined, and the stability of low-income families is threatened. HB 2639 is intended to balance and meet the needs of vulnerable tenants and communities, landlords, and housing authorities."

According to the Fair Housing Counsel of Oregon, '_low-income Oregonians may apply to their local public housing authority or agency for a Section 8 voucher." The local housing authority does perform an inspection of the residence.

As for any required repairs, Sybil's above article includes the following discussion by Jim Straub, Legislative Director for Oregon Rental Housing Association:

"Do you have the right to refuse to make repairs without running afoul of the new law? Clearly we are not talking about minor repairs here. If Section 8 requires you to change a broken light bulb or replace a broken switch cover, no reasonable person would see that as a reason to refuse to move forward with the tenancy. Likewise, this isn'tyour opportunity to object to the entire law and simply decide ahead of time you aren'tgoing to make any repairs, then refuse to rent to the otherwise-qualified applicant after the Section 8 inspection. If you did that, the applicant could sue you under the law and, frankly, most any judge will see that as a transparent attempt to use your refusal as a tool for non-participation in the Section 8 process. I'm thinking more of a landlord who, based on Section 8's exterior paint standards, is asked to repaint their entire property prior to renting to the Section 8 applicant. For some landlords on a budget, especially if we're talking about pre-1978 paint that requires lead-based paint remediation methods, this Section 8 requirement could be entirely cost prohibitive. What happens then? That's a good question, and no one really knows the answer right now. What I will say is that if you have an otherwise-qualified Section 8 applicant who you decide NOT to rent to based on a refusal to comply with Section 8's inspection requirements, be sure you have valid reasons for not making the repairs and moving forward with the tenancy. If you are sued, you will stand in front of a judge and have to justify your decision. If you choose this route, make sure you can defend your reasons for refusing to make the repairs. "I didn'tthink I should have to" is probably not going to

Probably the biggest thing you want to look for when Section 8 makes inspection repair requirements is whether the recommendation is a habitability issue.[1] You, of course, don't ever want to refuse to repair a problem that is a habitability concern. Worse, however, would be to have a habitability problem "on the record" for your property that you refuse to repair and then proceed to rent the property to someone else. If injury or damage is caused to those new tenants by the habitability problem, they will be able to make the case that you knew of the problem and rented the property anyway. I can't think of a faster way to lose a lawsuit than this."

Conclusion. Here is the take=away from my perspective: It does not appear that the local Section 8 housing authority will require you to perform repairs that would not otherwise be imposed upon you by Oregon's habitability requirements. That appears to be the litmus test, according to Mr. Straub.

[1] Note that Oregon landlord-tenant law specifically identifies specific habitability requirements at ORS 90.320. ~PCQ

Answer: In Oregon, month-to-month RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day, no-cause notice during the first year of their tenancy. After the first year, the no-cause notice to a monthly tenant would need to be a 60-day notice. Use MHCO Form 43C for no-cause RV evictions, choosing either the 30-day or 60-day notice option, depending on the length of tenancy.

Caveat: Portland and Milwaukie both have ordinances requiring 90-day no-cause notices to all monthly tenants, regardless of how long they have been tenants. The City of Bend requires 90-day notices after the first year of tenancy. In addition, Portland requires landlords to make "relocation assistance" payments to tenants evicted for no-cause, ranging from $2,900 to $4,500 - although the applicability of this requirement to RV tenants is legally questionable. Bottom line: Consult an attorney if you have an RV park in any of these cities.

If you have any week-to-week RV tenants, they can be evicted with a 10-day, no-cause notice. This applies even in the municipalities mentioned above, which all provide exceptions for weekly tenants. However, remember that to have a valid "week-to-week" tenancy, you must meet these specific requirements: (1) Occupancy is charged on a weekly basis and is payable no less frequently than every seven days, (2) there is a written rental agreement defining the landlord's and tenant's rights and responsibilities, and (3) there are no fees or security deposits (other than applicant screening charges). If your weekly tenant arrangements do not meet these specific requirements, your tenants will be treated as month-to-month tenants under Oregon law.

If you happen to have any fixed-term RV tenants, you cannot evict them with a no-cause notice until the fixed-term ends. Before that, it would require a for-cause notice (i.e., for breaking a park rule or for not paying the rent).

Finally, there is also an exception under Oregon law for RV "vacation occupants." A "vacation occupant" is someone who: (1) Rents the RV space for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence, (2) has a principal residence other than at the RV park, and (3) does not occupy the RV park for more than 45 days. You would need to have these facts documented in a written agreement. "Vacation occupants" are not "tenants" under Oregon law. They can be asked to leave without any eviction proceedings and the sheriff can be called to assist if necessary.

As usual, you should always seek the advice of a knowledgeable attorney if you are unsure whether you can or should issue a no-cause eviction notice.