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. 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.

Although not a true capital expenditure; computer hardware, software and peripherals do not last forever. Deciding when is the right time to replace them or upgrade is always a difficult decision. Will upgrading increase productivity? A new system can affect productivity in positive ways. In today's business environment many users have more applications open at one time and a new system with increased speed will have a positive effect on managing the time spent moving between applications. One of the obvious reasons to upgrade is your operating system is probably running Windows XP which was released to the market in 2001 and support for this system is no longer available. So not upgrading isn't even an option, it's a cost of doing business today. Advances in computers and software dictate that every few years you are going to need to make some upgrades. If you are eight years behind, this becomes a more formidable task and a larger learning curve. It's far better to continually upgrade your systems. The expense will be the same in the long run, but the result is that you will be more productive and ease into incremental training. These are all things to consider when determining a budget for your reserve account.

There are several capital improvements that can increase the value of your MHC. Filling vacant manufactured home sites is one. A vacant home site is costing you money to keep the lawn mown, the weeds removed and lot to be cleaned, not to mention the loss of revenue. It also can cause your residents angst having an unsightly empty lot next door. Putting together a strategic plan for filling your vacancies is proactive and critical. Be creative. For example, consider looking at a vacant single wide site that may be able to fit a double wide home by setting the home back and installing a front load driveway. Another is submetering water, sewer and passing through the garbage service expense. By installing water meters at each manufactured home and billing the resident's back for water, sewer and passing through the garbage you are in effect increasing your bottom line. This is one of the most equitable ways to pass on expenses to the residents as they only pay for what they use. Commonwealth can discuss with you how to install submeters with zero investment from you, the owner. Other ideas to add value is to increase curb appeal in your community and install new and attractive signs at the entrances. Maintain adequate energy efficient lighting to save on your electric bills while also promoting safety in the community. If you have vacant land, consider developing more MH sites, RV storage or storage units. All of these are things to consider when you're reinvesting into your community.

Tom Petitt
Vice President

Article provided by Tom Petitt, Vice President for Commonwealth. Tom joined Commonwealth Real Estate Services in July, 2012 and will oversee the Oregon Property Management Division and work closely with all other aspects of our company helping us further develop and grow our existing business as well as managing a portfolio of properties. Tom attended Western Oregon State University where he majored in Business and Marketing, he has over 15 years' experience in the manufactured housing industry working in property management, retail sales management, operations, and property development. Tom is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Oregon. In his spare time Tom enjoys spending time with his family, coaching youth sports in his local community, and volunteering for special events and organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. Also Tom is actively involved in multiple committees at Commonwealth Real Estate Services. Learn more about Tom and the rest of the Commonwealth team here!

Answer:  The park cannot guarantee that health safety measures will be followed by everyone and it is not your job to police the stay-at-home order.  There is little in the way of legal enforcement mechanisms that the park can use to enforce COVID-19 safety measures, particularly on the tenant’s own space.

The best that you can do is to remind residents that for the overall safety of everyone in the park, they should avoid congregating on anyone’s rental space.  Your reminder could include the admonition that residents are obligated under Oregon law to notdisturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises, and that gatherings right now pose a threat to that peaceful enjoyment. (With regard to visiting family members or guests, there is little you can do to prohibit that issue as long as they are not otherwise violating park rules.)

You do have more control over common areas such as playgrounds, recreational halls, swimming pools, etc. To the extent possible, you should close those areas to help reduce your risk of liability for any claims of negligence should someone become sick after using your park facilities.  For common areas that are necessities, such as laundry rooms or restrooms, post and enforce reasonable social distancing requirements according to government recommended practices, and more regularly clean and sanitize those facilities. 

If certain tenants or groups of tenants persist in gathering in an unsafe manner on their rental spaces, you might have good reason to issue a 30/14-day, for-cause eviction notice for disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the premises.  Or, if a tenant did something intentional like trying to cough on someone, for example, then you could probably issue a 24-hour eviction notice for “outrageous behavior.”  However, as always, check with an attorney before issuing any eviction notices along these lines.

Yesterday, the Senate Banking Committee released a bipartisan agreement 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 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. 

MHI successfully argued that just as a real estate agent's sales commission does not make him or her a loan originator under current law, a similar distinction is needed for those selling manufactured homes.  While they are only in the business of selling homes and do not originate loans, manufactured home retailers and sellers currently run the risk of being considered mortgage loan originators. This is problematic because loan originators must comply with licensing or qualification requirements that are completely unrelated and irrelevant to manufactured home retailers and sellers.  This agreement affirms MHI's longstanding position that it is inappropriate for a manufactured housing retailer - 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 costly and labor-intensive activities that are clearly designed to apply to the actual individual making the mortgage loan.

The manufactured housing language was a part of a bipartisan regulatory reform package drafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID). A bipartisan group of nine Republicans and nine Democrats cosponsored the measure, including: Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), David Perdue (R-Georgia), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), Jon Tester (D-Montana), Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Angus King (I-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), and Gary Peters (D-Michigan). 

The provision is in Section 107 of the package, which is within the title of the bill dealing with improving consumer access to mortgage credit.  Specifically, Section 107 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. Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN), author of the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act (S. 1751) and long-time supporter of manufactured housing, strongly advocated for inclusion of this important consumer access provision in the package. 

The Senate's bipartisan reform package is expected to be considered by the Senate Banking Committee in the coming weeks. MHI will continue working with its champions as the package 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, the full Preserving Access to Manufactured House Act was 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: So long as the park reasonably believes under all the circumstances that the tenant has left behind the RV with no intention of asserting any further claim to it, the park does not need to file an eviction action. Instead, the park can treat the RV as abandoned property and issue an abandoned property notice.

The abandonment process for RVs is similar to that for abandoned mobile homes. Under ORS 90.425, the park must issue an abandonment notice for the RV. The notice must state that: (a) The RV and any other property left behind is considered abandoned; (b) The tenant or any lienholder or owner must contact the landlord within 45 days to arrange for the removal of the RV; (c) The RV is stored at a place of safekeeping; (d) The tenant or any lienholder or owner may arrange for removal of the RV by contacting the landlord at a described telephone number or address on or before the specified date; (e) The landlord will make the RV available for removal by appointment at reasonable times; (f) The landlord may require payment of removal and storage charges; (g) If the tenant or any lienholder or owner fails to contact the landlord by the specified date, or after that contact, fails to remove the RV within 30 days, the landlord may sell or dispose of the RV; and, (h) If there is a lienholder or other owner of the RV, they have a right to claim it.

The park must send the notice to the tenant's park address and any other known address for the tenant. The park must also conduct a title search on the RV and send the notice to any listed lienholder or other owners. The notice must be sent by regular first class mail, except that lienholders must also be sent the notice by certified mail.

The good news is that after the park issues the abandonment notice, the RV itself can be removed from the rented space to open it up for a new RV tenant. The abandoned RV simply has to be stored in a "place of safekeeping," such as an on-site storage lot.

Finally, if the RV remains unclaimed after the 45-day period, the park can either throw away or give away the RV if the park estimates that the current fair market value is $1,000 or less, or so low that the cost of storage and conducting an auction probably exceeds the amount that could be realized from a sale. If the estimated value is more than $1,000, the park must hold an abandonment auction using the procedures described by the abandonment statute. (As usual, retain experienced legal counsel if unfamiliar with the abandonment process and procedures.)

Answer: Oregon law addresses tenant responsibilities in ORS 90.740. Subsection (4)(h) says that except as provided in the rental agreement it is the tenant’s responsibility to “(m)aintain, water and mow or prune any trees, shrubbery or grass on the rented space….” In my opinion, this provision is a good example of how not to draft a statute. Trees are not “mowed” and grass is not “pruned.” However, it is correct that “pruning” of trees [whatever that entails] is a tenant responsibility unless otherwise provided in the rental or lease agreement. As with everything these days, the Internet is replete with discussions and definitions of pruning. One example is found here: http://tinyurl.com/Q-Law-Definitions-pruning. Regardless of your reference source, it is clear that there are many, many, different types of pruning, depending upon the goal sought. You can prune to “teach” a tree or shrub how to grow in a particular fashion; you can prune for appearance; you can prune for maintenance, i.e. the health of the tree or shrub. Lastly, you prune for safety - this is called “hazard pruning.” Putting my “lawyer’s hat” on and returning to my law school roots, I recall a rule of interpretation called “ejusdem generis”. Here is one definition: “(eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.” http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/ejusdem-generis.htm Applying that legal rule to ORS 90.740(4)(h), it could reasonably be argued that the words “maintain, water and mow or prune” are intended to refer to normal and routine landscaping activities. In other words, a tenant’s landscaping responsibility for his or her own space is limited to normal and routine activities. In other words, imposing a statutory duty and financial responsibility of “hazard pruning” on manufactured housing residents was unlikely. ORS 90.730(3) provides that “(f)or purposes of this section, a rented space is considered inhabitable if it substantially lacks: (e) At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin [underscore mine];” Thus, there is little question that as of the commencement of the tenancy, it is a landlord duty to make sure the community grounds, including the spaces and common areas, are safe for “normal and reasonably foreseeable uses….” Is a 40-foot fir tree “safe” at the commencement of the tenancy? Can it be made safe? If it is made safe, e.g. by hazard trimming, will it stay safe for the entire duration of the tenancy? It seems to me that a community landlord has two choices: 1. Doing nothing, and relying upon a poorly drafted statute for absolute immunity when a giant tree falls, killing an entire family during a windstorm; or 2. Envision the Doomsday Scenario – i.e. assume that such a disaster could occur regardless what a poorly drafted statute says, and that a multi-million wrongful death lawsuit will surely be filed by some aggressive plaintiff’s attorney, arguing to a jury that the landlord owns the ground, owns the trees coming out of the ground, and is simply trying to avoid the financial responsibility to thin and top dangerous trees. So my advice would be the following: (a) If you are in doubt about your legal responsibilities because the law is unclear, and (b) where doing nothing could place lives in danger, it is far better to undertake the financial responsibility of hazard pruning on a regular basis. In short, relying upon ORS 90.740(4)(h) when it comes to trimming and topping potentially dangerous trees, could be a serious and costly mistake.