Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Today the Oregon Legislature convened for a 'short' legislative session - lasting 35 days until the first week in March.

Legislators have strict limits on the amount of bills they can introduce this year (2 in the House and 1 in the Senate), so we don't expect a lot of proposed hostile legislation. What this means though, is that the bills that are introduced have less competition for attention and have fewer hurdles to passage. 

For the first time in over five years the legislature has not submitted a rent control bill and the number of hostile landlord/rental property bills is minimal.  The war on landlords seems to have taken a pause.  The political reality is that the same political dynamics are in place that existed at the end of the full legislative session in July 2017.  Depending on the outcome of the primary elections in May 2018 and the general election in November 2018 we could and most likely will face a significant rent control fight in 2019 and a pile of anti landlord legislation. 

There are two bills that MHCO is watching during this short legislative session:

HB 4006:  Requires Housing and Community Services Department to annually provide to each city and county data showing percentage of individuals resident in city or county who are severely rent burdened. Requires city or county in which at least 25 percent of population is severely rent burdened to hold public meeting to discuss issue and submit plan to department to reduce rent burdens for severely rent burdened individuals in city or county.

Observation:  MHCO Opposes. The legislature has for a long time wanted better data on rent.  As many of you know MHCO has been collecting rent data on a voluntary basis from MHCO members for a number of years.  This data was very helpful in defeating rent control proposals in the 2017 Legislative Session.  We have attempted to broaden that database to include non-members with little success.  MHCO's concern has always been that the legislature will bend whatever data they collect to justify rent control.  As we have stated in testimony before the Oregon House Committee Housing in March 2017 - if the data shows there is little problem with rent and rent increases you (the Oregon Legislature) will say "see no problem if we do rent control because most properties are under the rent increase limits"; if the data shows there is a problem then the legislature will say "ha - this proves there is a problem".  MHCO opposes the state accumulating this information which will be used to justify whatever course of action the legislature chooses." The state collection of rent data adds yet another paperwork drill to an already over regulated industry.

HB 4085: Requires court to award attorney fees

Landlord-Tenant Law Four (4) Hour Training Seminars

MHCO will continue to offer the regular four (4) hour trainings during the usual timeframes. We will be doing two seminars via Zoom (see OHCS Zoom Requirements below) & one seminar in Wilsonville. The 2025 Annual Conference will be held on October 27th and 28th at the Graduate Hotel, Eugene, Oregon as well as broadcast via Zoom (see OHCS Zoom Requirements below).

Online via Zoom on February 27, 2025

https://register.mhco.org/management-training/session-one

Wilsonville Holiday Inn on May 8, 2025

https://register.mhco.org/management-training/session-two

Online via Zoom on July 31, 2025

https://register.mhco.org/management-training/session-three

Graduate Hotel, Eugene and via Zoom on October 27 & 28, 2025, Online Registration available late summer of 2025

https://register.mhco.org/conference

MHCO is excited to announce Legal Briefs with Warren Allen, LLP will continue in 2025! We are grateful to continue to expand our commitment to provide the manufactured home community industry with quality, relevant information and to continue working with Warren Allen attorney Jeff Bennett.

The Legal Briefs are presented in four, one-hour Zoom Sessions (see OHCS Zoom Requirements below). We are offering the 2025 sessions in two sets. Within each set, all four sessions are required for you to receive credit with OHCS. Registrants must be on time, present & have their camera on for the full hour of each session for MHCO to certify the training hours to OHCS.

Set One of Legal Briefs with Warren Allen will begin on February 27th 2025 and will be held on the 2nd Tuesday of February, March, April & May at 01:00PM. Set Two of the Legal Briefs program will begin on September 9th 2025 and will be held on the 2nd Tuesday of September, October, November & December at 01:00PM.

Set One Sessions:

February 11th
Mediation: Compliance Strategies, From Forms to Finality

March 11th
Fair Housing: A Crash Course in Claims Avoidance

April 8th
For Cause Notices: ‘Cause You Can Do Better Than That

May 13th
What’s in Your Lease? Assembling Packages Tailored to Your Needs

https://register.mhco.org/legal-briefs/

Set Two Sessions:

September 9th
Mediation: Compliance Strategies, From Forms to Finality

October 14th
Fair Housing: A Crash Course in Claims Avoidance

November 11th
The Eviction Process, From Notices to Lock Outs   

December 9th
Happy Almost New Year: A 2025 Wrap Up and 2026 Primer

Registration for Set Two will be available in August of 2025.

OHCS Zoom Requirements

The Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services (OHCS) requires all Zoom participants to have a camera and to have that camera on. Without a camera on to show your participation, OHCS will not allow MHCO to report your name as having completed your continuing education requirement.

Download MHCO State Mandated Continuing Education Opportunities cover letter

The person is first and foremost a trespasser.  As such, you should first try contacting the police or sheriff, explain the situation to them, and ask them to remove this person from the park.  You should also ask them to issue a no trespass order so that if the person returns, they can be arrested for trespassing.

However, sometimes law enforcement officers are reluctant to remove squatters even when they have the lawful authority to do so.  In that case, you may need to resort to court action.

There is a “midnight move-in” statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(c)) that allows RV parks to immediately file an eviction case in court without notice if the owner or possessor of an RV places it on park property without the park’s prior consent.  If you are forced to go to court, you would cite this statute on the eviction complaint when you file it with the court.  At trial, you would present your case with testimony and perhaps a few photos to explain to the judge that the person is a squatter who should be immediately evicted.

There is another statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(b)) that also allows a landowner to file an immediate eviction case when a “person in possession . . . is holding possession without any written lease or agreement.”  This would apply if someone doesn’t have an RV, but perhaps only a regular passenger vehicle and/or a tent.  When you file the eviction case at your county courthouse, ask for and fill out the eviction complaint form for a tenancy not covered by ORS Chapter 90. In the section where you must indicate why the park is entitled to possession of the premises, check the “No Notice” box and write: “ORS 105.115 (1)(b) – Trespasser in possession.” The filing fee for this kind of case is more than a regular residential eviction case, but after filing the case will proceed like any other eviction case.

Answer: You haven'tindicated whether this person is a long-term tenant or perhaps just a "vacation occupant." Under Oregon law, 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 some type of 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.

Assuming this person is an actual "tenant" (weekly, monthly, or fixed-term), then in the hierarchy of the quickest ways to get him out is cash. While this might sound counterintuitive to many landlords, I always advise my clients that it is sometimes far cheaper and quicker to get a tenant out by simply paying them to leave. This tactic is most effective when done shortly after issuing an eviction notice to the tenant using a "carrot and stick" approach. If the tenant isn'twilling to settle by accepting a payment to leave, then you can rely on the eviction notice.

The type of eviction notice will depend on the type of tenancy. Fixed-term tenants will require a for-cause notice (i.e., for breaking a park rule). Weekly tenants can be given a 10-day, no-cause eviction notice. Monthly 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. (Caveat: Portland and Milwaukie both have city ordinances requiring 90-day no-cause notices to all monthly tenants, regardless of how long they have been tenants.)

Also keep in mind that 72-hour rent nonpayment notices can be used if the tenant isn'ttimely paying the rent. This is sometimes an effective and quick tool in getting a tenant out of the park as well. Even if you've already issued a no-cause notice, you can still use a 72-hour notice in the meantime if the tenant decides to stop paying his rent.

If the tenant refuses to vacate by the deadline in whatever eviction notice you have used, then you will need to file an eviction case against him in your county's circuit court. That process can take anywhere from 3-6 weeks. However, even during that period you can still use the settlement tool of a payment to have him leave if he is willing to accept. You can point out to the tenant that if he is evicted by a court judgment, he may have a harder time finding a landlord who is willing to accept him as a tenant.

A final word of warning to seek the assistance of a competent attorney if you are unfamiliar with the strict statutory process that must be followed when issuing eviction notices. A good attorney can also help you try to settle the case with the tenant, and ideally obtain a written settlement agreement confirming the move-out terms and releasing all legal claims between the parties relating to the tenancy.

Answer: You must have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical. Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% occupancy [even upon death of a qualifying 55+ resident] means immediate disqualification. Does this mean that your 15% safety margin must be reserved for families with children? The answer is “No.” In fact, a 55+ community should strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over. Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age? Again, the answer is “No.” If desired, a 55+ community may impose a minimum age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years. However, it is also important for you to publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to operate as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory; i.e. you should make sure that in all advertising, rules, rental agreements, and policies, you always hold the community out as a 55+ facility. Lastly, you must comply with HUD’s age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that at least 80% of the community is intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older.

Answer:  Since there is no rental agreement and you (presumably) have not accepted any rent or other payments from him, he is technically a “squatter.”  Under Oregon law, a “squatter” means a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement (ORS 90.100 (43)).  The “dwelling unit” in this case is the RV space.  Occupancy by a squatter is not governed by the usual landlord-tenant laws under ORS Chapter 90.

This person is first and foremost a trespasser.  As such, you should first try contacting the police or sheriff, explain the situation to them, and ask them to remove this person from the park. You should also ask them to issue a no trespass order so that if he returns, he can be arrested for trespassing.

Unfortunately, sometimes law enforcement officers are reluctant to remove squatters even when they have the lawful authority to do so (i.e., if the squatter lies and says he has paid rent to the park).  In that case, you will need to resort to court action.

There is a “midnight move-in” statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(c)) that allows RV parks to immediately file an eviction case in court without notice if the owner or possessor of an RV places it on park property without the park’s prior consent.  However, since the statute is very specific about applying only to “recreational vehicles,” this statute would not work in your case where the squatter has only a tent.

Fortunately, there is another statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(b)) that also allows a landowner to file an immediate eviction case when a “person in possession . . . is holding possession without any written lease or agreement.”  When you file the eviction case at your county courthouse, ask for and fill out the eviction complaint form for a tenancy notcovered by ORS Chapter 90.  In the section where you must indicate why the park is entitled to possession of the premises, check the “No Notice” box and write:  “ORS 105.115 (1)(b) – Trespasser in possession.” (NOTE:  The filing fee for this kind of case is more than a regular residential eviction case – $281 vs. $88.)  After filing, the case will proceed like any other eviction case.

Finally, be aware that in rare instances, a court might decide that an eviction case is not the right kind of  case to file in this situation (although in my opinion, any such ruling would be legally incorrect under this particular fact pattern).  If that were to happen, you would likely need to file an ejectment case, which is similar to an eviction case, but takes longer and would usually require the assistance of an attorney.

Answer: You must have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical. Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% occupancy [even upon death of a qualifying 55+ resident] means immediate disqualification. Does this mean that your 15% safety margin must be reserved for families with children? The answer is "No." In fact, a 55+ community should strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over. Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age? Again, the answer is "No." If desired, a 55+ community may impose a minimum age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.

However, it is also important for you to publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to operate as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory; i.e. you should make sure that in all advertising, rules, rental agreements, and policies, you always hold the community out as a 55+ facility.

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