Search

Answer: The following answers should not be regarded as "legal advice" since this column is intended to be purely educational and for general information purposes. You need to consult your own attorney for a legal opinion. - You are correct about the law; the limited dealer's license is just for park owners with abandoned homes. There is no provision for dealers with a limited license to sell new homes. According to the law, you need a regular dealer's license. See, ORS 446.696, 446.701 and 446.706. - I am troubled that the DFCS said they thought it was OK for you to sell new homes under a limited license, since limited licenses are for abandoned homes which are (presumably) pre-owned. Having said that, if you wanted to proceed on the DFCS's advice, I suspect that if some official later objected, they would have a hard time taking any punitive measures you're your noncompliance. Of course, you never know. The IRS gives out information all the time, and following their advice is no defense to a violation. Why don't you ask if they will put their verbal statement in writing? - I agree that the law says a dealer under a regular license (as opposed to a limited license) may sell new and used homes (so long as he/she discloses that they will sell used homes in the application). - Note that you do not need a MLO license to sell homes. You may use a real estate broker to list and sell your new homes. The fact that they are sited at your park and later sold does not make them "resales." However, to offer or negotiate the financing terms of a purchase money loan, you would need the services of an Oregon licensed MLO (i.e. a mortgage broker or mortgage banker). The real estate brokers can handle the transaction, write it up, etc., but cannot advertise or negotiate specific financial terms were you to carry the paper. - However, if you are going to require that the buyers secure their own financing (i.e. you are not going to "carry the paper"), I see no reason that you need to worry about MLOs, since you will be selling for cash. You will not be taking payments over time. It will be the buyer's lender who will be acting as the MLO (i.e. the mortgage broker or mortgage banker), and negotiating the terms of the purchase money loan to the buyer. - My reading of Oregon administrative rule 441-446-0203 prohibits dealers from acquiring an ownership interest in a park only appears to apply if you are going to offer or negotiate the terms of a residential mortgage loan, i.e. engage in MLO activities or are doing so under an exemption under the MLO laws. Since buyer financing is going to occur via third-party lenders, I do not believe you are prohibited as a "dealer" from owning an interest in a manufactured housing community. - From my perspective, you would be much safer to have someone with a full dealer's license handle the sales program. The real estate licensee can list the homes, find the buyers, write up the transactions (making them subject to third-party financing, etc.). The dealer can handle the transaction from there. Footnotes: Footnote 1: 446.696 Renewal of dealer license. A manufactured structure dealer license is valid for three years, but the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services may adjust the term of an initial license for the purpose of establishing uniform expiration dates. A dealer may renew a license as provided by the director. The director may renew a license only if the dealer: (1) Delivers to the director a bond or letter of credit that meets the requirements under ORS 446.726. (2) Provides evidence acceptable to the director that the dealer obtained a corporate surety bond as provided in ORS 86A.227 if the dealer employs or intends to employ a mortgage loan originator, as defined in ORS 86A.200, or is otherwise subject to ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239. (3) Certifies to the director in a form and manner the director specifies by rule that the dealer has independently verified that every individual the dealer hired or intends to hire as a mortgage loan originator meets the requirements set forth in ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239 and in ORS 86A.186. (4) Pays the fee specified in ORS 446.721 for renewal of a manufactured structure dealer license. (5) Submits a completed application for renewal in a form approved by the director that includes: (a) The name and residence address of the dealer. If the dealer is a firm or partnership, the application must include the names and addresses of the members of the firm or partnership. If the dealer is a corporation, the application must include the names and addresses of the principal officers of the corporation and the name of the state in which the corporation is incorporated. (b) The name under which the business will be conducted. (c) The street address, including city and county in Oregon, where the business will be conducted. (d) If the location of the dealership is being changed at the time of renewal: (A) For a business that will be conducted in a residential zone, a statement by the dealer that all manufactured structures sold or displayed at that address will meet any architectural and aesthetic standards regulating the placement of manufactured structures in that residential zone. (B) For a business that will offer for sale new manufactured structures that are recreational vehicles greater than eight and one-half feet in width, a certificate from the applicant stating that the applicant will maintain a recreational vehicle service facility for those recreational vehicles at a street address provided in the application. (e) Information the director requires to efficiently regulate manufactured structure dealers and dealerships or other relevant information the director requires. [2003 c.655 _29; 2009 c.863 _30] Footnote 2: 446.701 Issuance of temporary manufactured structure dealer license. (1) If a licensed manufactured structure dealer dies or becomes incapacitated, the Department of Consumer and Business Services may issue a temporary manufactured structure dealer license to the executor, administrator or personal representative of the estate of the dealer or to an agent of the dealer approved by the department. A temporary license issued under this subsection expires after six months, but the department may extend the license for good cause. The department may not extend a temporary license if the license has been suspended or the licensee placed on probation by the department. (2) A person issued a temporary manufactured structure dealer license must deliver to the department a bond or letter of credit that meets the requirements under ORS 446.726. A bond or letter of credit covering a license term of less than one year must be for the sum otherwise required for each year a license is valid and must be renewed if the term is extended. The temporary manufactured structure dealer is responsible for ensuring that, during the term of the temporary license, the dealership and its employees comply with ORS 446.661 to 446.756. and rules adopted thereunder. This subsection does not relieve a manufactured structure dealer licensed under ORS 446.691 or 446.696 from liability for a violation arising out of actions or omissions by the dealer. (3) Notwithstanding ORS 446.731: (a) Issuance of a temporary manufactured structure dealer license does not, by itself, affect the rights or interests of any creditors of the dealer in dealership assets or inventory. (b) Issuance or expiration of a temporary license is not a transfer of interest for purposes of ORS 446.736. (4) A person obtaining a temporary manufactured structure dealer license must pay the applicable fee specified in ORS 446.721 for issuance of a temporary manufactured structure dealer license. [2003 c.655 _29a] Footnote 3: 446.706 Limited manufactured structure dealer; licensing. (1) A person who holds a limited manufactured structure dealer license issued under this section may sell during a calendar year up to 10 manufactured dwellings located at a manufactured dwelling park identified in the license. The manufactured dwellings sold under a limited manufactured structure dealer license must be dwellings that: (a) Have been abandoned as described in ORS 90.675 at any manufactured dwelling park. If the manufactured dwelling is not subject to sale by the limited manufactured structure dealer under ORS 90.675 (10), the dealer must have the certificate of title or registration for the dwelling transferred to the dealer prior to offering the dwelling for sale; or (b) Have been purchased by the park owner from a person holding title, and at the time of purchase by the park owner, were sited in the manufactured dwelling park identified in the license. (2) Notwithstanding ORS 90.525, if a limited manufactured structure dealer sells a manufactured dwelling that was abandoned at a manufactured dwelling park other than the park where the dwelling is being sold, the sale terms for the manufactured dwelling must require that the dwelling is to be sited under a rental agreement at the park where sold for at least 12 months following the sale. (3) Except as provided in ORS 446.741, the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall issue a limited manufactured structure dealer license to a person if the person: (a) Owns or operates a manufactured dwelling park as defined in ORS 446.003; (b) Submits a completed application for a limited manufactured structure dealer license in a form approved by the director; (c) Delivers to the director a bond or letter of credit that meets the requirements under ORS 446.726, except that the bond or letter of credit must be in the sum of $15,000 for each year that the license is valid; (d) Delivers to the director a corporate surety bond that meets the requirements specified in ORS 86A.227 if the person employs or intends to employ a mortgage loan originator, as defined in ORS 86A.200, or is otherwise subject to ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239; (e) Certifies to the director in a form and manner the director specifies by rule that the person has independently verified that every individual the person hired or intends to hire as a mortgage loan originator meets the requirements set forth in ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239 and in ORS 86A.186; (f) Is 18 years of age or older or is legally emancipated; and (g) Pays the fee specified in ORS 446.721 for issuance of a limited manufactured structure dealer license. (4) If the person is a firm or partnership, the application for a limited manufactured structure dealer license must include the names and residence addresses of the members of the firm or partnership. If the person is a corporation, the application must include the names of the principal officers of the corporation and residence addresses of the officers and the name of the state under whose laws the corporation is organized. If the person is the owner of a manufactured dwelling park, the person may submit a joint application on behalf of the person and a named park operator employed by the person. If the person is the operator of a manufactured dwelling park, the application must include the name and signature of the park owner. (5) A limited manufactured structure dealer license is valid for use at a single manufactured dwelling park. The manufactured dwelling park location must be specified in the license application. A limited manufactured structure dealer may not employ a salesperson. (6) A limited manufactured structure dealer license is valid for two years, but the director may adjust the term of an initial license for the purpose of establishing uniform expiration dates. (7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the limited manufactured structure dealer license for the person expires immediately if the person ceases to be an operator or owner of the manufactured dwelling park at which the license may be used. The owner of a manufactured dwelling park shall immediately notify the director if a person licensed under this section ceases to be an owner or operator of a manufactured dwelling park at which the license may be used. (8) Notwithstanding subsections (6) and (7) of this section, if a licensed person ceases to be an operator of the manufactured dwelling park, the park owner may apply to have a corrected license issued to a new operator employed by the owner. A corrected license issued under this subsection is valid for the unexpired portion of the original license term. The director shall charge the fee specified in ORS 446.721 for issuing a corrected license. (9) A limited manufactured structure dealer may renew a license as provided by the director. The director shall renew a license only if the dealer: (a) Submits a completed application for renewal in a form approved by the director; (b) Delivers to the department a bond or letter of credit that meets the requirements described in subsection (3) of this section; and (c) Pays the fee specified in ORS 446.721 for renewal of a limited manufactured structure dealer license. [2003

Answer.  When you say “our defense” I’m hoping you are referring to yourself andyour attorney.  While there may be certain “disagreements” with HUD that can be handled directly by a housing provider, most such cases require the assistance of good counsel. If you have not yet done so, please reconsider.

My answer below is for general purposes and should not be construed as legal advice in dealing with your specific case.

First, HUD says there are twotypes of assistance animals: 

(1) serviceanimals, and 

(2) other trained oruntrained animals that do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for individuals with disabilities. This category HUD refers to as “support animals”.

Second, to your point that landlords may reject a requested accommodation for a non-service (i.e. non-certified” animal), I must respectfully disagree.  The term “assistance animal” includes both, and they are protected under the Fair Housing Act. MHCO’s Form 21A applies to both trained and untrained animals.

In January, 2020, HUD issued new guidance in FHEO Notice FHEO-2020-01 (“Notice”), here.  It addresses the obligations ofhousing providers under the Fair Housing Act with respect to animals for which persons with disabilities may request areasonable accommodation. The Notice has two purposes:

The first, “Assessing a Person’s Requestto Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Underthe Fair Housing Act,” recommends a set of best practices for complying with the FHA when assessing accommodation requests involving animals to assist housing providersand help them avoid violations of the FHA. 

The second section to this notice, “Guidance on Documenting an Individual’s Need for Assistance Animals in Housing,” provides guidance on information that an individual seeking a reasonable accommodation for an assistanceanimal may need to provide to a housing provider about his or her disability-related need for the requested accommodation, including supporting information from a health careprofessional.

I suggest that you review the Notice and related information in the above link.

Lastly, it is correct that there are other applicable laws – not just those promulgated by HUD: Specifically, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

For these reasons, I recommend that you consult with your legal counsel in this dispute.

Answer: I assume when he was first accepted as a resident he did not have a criminal record for any sex offenses. The statute that comes into play is ORS 90.630 (Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent.) It provides, in part: " ... the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant: (c) Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587;" This statute has only been in existence for a few years. As I read it, assuming that at the commencement of the tenancy, a landlord ran a criminal background check on a prospective resident and nothing showed him to be a sex offender - and they he later committed a sexual offence - you can evict them at as soon as you find out. In this case, it would seem that you can exclude him on that basis alone. Had this law been on the books when he committed the crime, and he didn'tgo to jail, you could have evicted him at the time. Now that it's on the books, I think you have the same right to keep him out, i.e. to protect the residents' visiting grandchildren. The only issue is whether he is '_a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587." Here is what those statutes say, and I imagine you will have to verify whether he falls into one of the categories. 181.585 "Predatory sex offender" defined; determination. (1) For purposes of ORS 181.585 to 181.587, a person is a predatory sex offender if the person exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others and has been convicted of a sex crime listed in ORS 181.594 (5)(a) to (d), has been convicted of attempting to commit one of those crimes or has been found guilty except for insanity of one of those crimes. (2) In determining whether a person is a predatory sex offender, an agency shall use a sex offender risk assessment scale approved by the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency. [Formerly 181.507; 1997 c.538 _10; 2005 c.567 _16; 2009 c.713 _14] 81.586 Notice to appropriate persons of supervised predatory sex offender; content; additional duties of supervising agency. (1)(a) If the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for a person on parole or post-prison supervision or the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency for a person on probation makes a determination that the person under its supervision is a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall notify: (A) Anyone whom the agency determines is appropriate that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (B) A long term care facility, as defined in ORS 442.015, or a residential care facility, as defined in ORS 443.400, that the person is a predatory sex offender if the agency knows that the person is seeking admission to the facility. (b) When a predatory sex offender has been subsequently convicted of another crime and is on supervision for that crime, the agency supervising the person, regardless of the nature of the crime for which the person is being supervised: (A) May notify anyone whom the agency determines is appropriate that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (B) Shall notify a long term care facility, as defined in ORS 442.015, or a residential care facility, as defined in ORS 443.400, that the person is a predatory sex offender if the agency knows that the person is seeking admission to the facility. (2) In making a determination under subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall consider notifying: (a) The person's family; (b) The person's sponsor; (c) Residential neighbors and churches, community parks, schools, convenience stores, businesses and other places that children or other potential victims may frequent; and (d) Any prior victim of the offender. (3) When an agency determines that notification is necessary, the agency may use any method of communication that the agency determines is appropriate. The notification: (a) May include, but is not limited to, distribution of the following information: (A) The person's name and address; (B) A physical description of the person including, but not limited to, the person's age, height, weight and eye and hair color; (C) The type of vehicle that the person is known to drive; (D) Any conditions or restrictions upon the person's probation, parole, post-prison supervision or conditional release; (E) A description of the person's primary and secondary targets; (F) A description of the person's method of offense; (G) A current photograph of the person; and (H) The name or telephone number of the person's parole and probation officer. (b) Shall include, if the notification is required under subsection (1)(a)(B) or (b)(B) of this section, the information described in paragraph (a)(D), (F) and (H) of this subsection. (4) Not later than 10 days after making its determination that a person is a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall: (a) Notify the Department of State Police of the person's status as a predatory sex offender; (b) Enter into the Law Enforcement Data System the fact that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (c) Send to the Department of State Police, by electronic or other means, all of the information listed in subsection (3) of this section that is available. (5) When the Department of State Police receives information regarding a person under subsection (4) of this section, the Department of State Police, upon request, may make the information available to the public. (6) Upon termination of its supervision of a person determined to be a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall: (a) Notify the Department of State Police: (A) Of the person's status as a predatory sex offender; (B) Whether the agency made a notification regarding the person under this section; and (C) Of the person's level of supervision immediately prior to termination of supervision; and (b) Send to the Department of State Police, by electronic or other means, the documents relied upon in determining that the person is a predatory sex offender and in establishing the person's level of supervision. (7) The agency supervising a person determined to be a predatory sex offender shall verify the residence address of the person every 90 days. [Formerly 181.508; 1997 c.538 _11; 1999 c.626 _10; 1999 c.843 _2; amendments by 1999 c.626 _33 and 1999 c.843 _3 repealed by 2001 c.884 _1; 2001 c.884 _11; 2005 c.671 _11] 181.587 Availability of information on supervised predatory sex offender. (1) Unless the agency determines that release of the information would substantially interfere with the treatment or rehabilitation of the supervised person, an agency that supervises a predatory sex offender shall make any information regarding the person that the agency determines is appropriate, including, but not limited to, the information listed in ORS 181.586 (3), available to any other person upon request. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall make the information listed in ORS 181.586 (3), or any other information regarding the supervised person that the agency determines is appropriate, available to any other person upon request if the person under supervision: (a) Is a predatory sex offender; and (b) Is neglecting to take treatment or participate in rehabilitation. [Formerly 181.509] MHCO Note: The law regarding the eviction of sexual predators was championed by MHCO several years ago. Through MHCO's efforts in the Landlord-Tenant Coalition, MHCO was able to change Oregon Statutes to give Landlords in manufactured home communities the right to evict an existing resident in a community who is discovered to be a predatory sex offender.

Meanwhile, veterans with disabilities are covered under current federal law. Among other things, fair housing law requires communities to respond properly to reasonable requests for accommodations or modifications that are necessary to meet the disability-related needs of veterans and returning servicemembers.

In this month’s lesson, we’ll explain how fair housing and other civil rights laws protect military servicemembers and returning veterans from discrimination and offer six rules to help you comply with your legal obligations. 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

Veterans with disabilities are covered under the FHA’s ban on disability discrimination. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to exclude or otherwise discriminate against prospects, applicants, and residents because they, or someone associated with them, has a disability.

The FHA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. According to HUD regulations, “physical or mental impairment” includes any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more specified body systems. So the definition covers both physical injuries—such as loss of a limb, traumatic brain injury (TBI), burns, and hearing loss—as well as mental or psychological disorders—such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.

The disability protections may apply even if the veteran doesn’t now have—or hasn’t ever had—a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a life activity. The FHA’s definition of disability protects individuals who are “regarded as” having such an impairment. So a community could trigger a fair housing complaint for denying housing to a veteran based on preconceived notions about emotional problems faced by some veterans transitioning from military service to civilian life.

The FHA goes further to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination by imposing affirmative duties to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications as necessary to allow veterans with disabilities to fully enjoy their dwellings. The law also includes accessibility requirements in the design and construction of covered multifamily communities.

Reasonable accommodations. The law requires communities to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. HUD defines “reasonable accommodation” as a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Common examples include a request to keep an assistance animal in a community with a no-pet policy or a request for a reserved parking space in a community that doesn’t have assigned parking.

Reasonable modifications. The law requires owners to permit applicants or residents with a disability, at their expense, to make reasonable modifications to the housing if necessary to afford them full enjoyment of the premises. Under the FHA, a “reasonable modification” is a structural change made to existing premises, occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability, to afford that person full enjoyment of the premises. Communities must consider requests for reasonable modification not only to the interior of a unit, but also to lobbies, main entrances, and other public and common use areas of buildings. Examples include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for people in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for people in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible, or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area.

6 RULES TO COMPLY WITH LAWS PROTECTING

VETERANS AND MILITARY SERVICEMEMBERS

Rule #1: Comply with Applicable State and Local Law

Check whether your community is subject to state and local laws that prohibit housing discrimination against military servicemembers or veterans.

Currently, eight states have adopted some form of fair housing protections based on military status, though the laws vary in the language used and whom they cover. In New York, the law prohibits discrimination based on military status, while in Massachusetts, the law prohibits housing discrimination against an individual because “such person is a veteran or member of the armed forces.” In general, these laws prohibit discrimination against active duty members and veterans of the armed forces, reserves, or state National Guard.

In some states, fair housing protections for veterans are tied to the nature of their discharge. In Illinois, the list of protected characteristics under the state’s human rights law includes military status as well as “unfavorable discharge from military service,” which generally applies to individuals who have been separated from the service with less than an honorable discharge, but it excludes those with a dishonorable discharge. In contrast, Washington’s fair housing law protects military status, but only honorably discharged veterans. The law in Rhode Island bans discrimination based on “military status as a veteran with an honorable discharge or an honorable or general administrative discharge,” or “servicemember in the armed forces.”

In the absence of statewide protections, there may be local laws protecting military status. Though Texas doesn’t list military status as a protected class, the law in San Antonio bans discrimination based an individual’s veteran’s status.

If subject to state or local laws banning discrimination based on military or veteran status, then you’ll need to review your policies and procedures to ensure compliance with legal requirements. It’s a good idea to ask your attorney about the specifics of the laws in your state and local area because of variations in the language used.

Coach’s Tip: Stay on top of proposed changes to antidiscrimination laws on the state and local level. In California, for example, the state legislators have approved a bill to ban housing discrimination based on veteran or military status; the measure was sent to the governor on Sept. 20, 2019. You should be able to get updates on what’s happening on the state and local level from your attorney or your local apartment association.

States with Laws Banning Discrimination Based on Military or Veteran Status

•      Connecticut
•      Illinois
•      Massachusetts
•      New Jersey
•      New York
•      Ohio
•      Rhode Island
•      Washington

Rule #2: Recognize Fair Housing Protections for Veterans with Disabilities

Regardless of whether military status is protected under applicable state or local law, federal fair housing law bans discrimination against veterans with disabilities. Under the FHA, disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In sum, the law protects anyone with a physical or mental impairment that’s serious enough to substantially affect activities of central importance to daily life—even if it isn’t obvious or apparent.

Recent veterans report high rates of service-connected disabilities (that is, disabilities that were incurred in, or aggravated during, military service), according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. About 29 percent of recent veterans report having a service-connected disability, as compared to about 13 percent of all veterans. Common injuries incurred by these veterans include missing limbs, burns, spinal cord injuries, PTSD, hearing loss, traumatic brain injuries, and other impairments. Other veterans leave service due to injuries or conditions that aren’t considered service connected.

Nevertheless, fair housing law doesn’t prevent communities from responding to actual incidents of dangerous or violent behavior by a resident, even if he has a disability. According to federal guidelines, the FHA doesn’t protect an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation.

TIME OUT!

What Is Traumatic Brain Injury?

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant health issue that affects servicemembers and veterans during times of both peace and war. The high rate of TBI and blast-related concussion events resulting from current combat operations directly affects the health and safety of individual servicemembers and subsequently the level of unit readiness and troop retention. The impacts of TBI are felt within each branch of the service and throughout both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems.

In the VA, TBI has become a major focus, second only to recognition of the need for increased resources to provide health care and vocational retraining for individuals with a diagnosis of TBI, as they transition to veteran status. Veterans may suffer TBIs throughout their lifespan, with the largest increase as the veterans enter into their 70s and 80s; these injuries are often caused by falls and result in high levels of disability.

Active duty and reserve servicemembers are at increased risk for suffering a TBI compared to their civilian peers. This is a result of several factors, including the specific demographics of the military; in general, young men between the ages of 18 to 24 are at greatest risk for TBI. Many operational and training activities, which are routine in the military, are physically demanding and even potentially dangerous. Military servicemembers are increasingly deployed to areas where they’re at risk for experiencing blast exposures from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombers, land mines, mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenades. These and other combat-related activities put our military servicemembers at increased risk for suffering a TBI.

Source: Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC)

Rule #3: Consider Reasonable Modification Requests by Veterans with Disabilities

Carefully consider requests by veterans with disabilities for reasonable modifications. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to permit, at the expense of a person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises as necessary to afford him or her full enjoyment of the premises.

The law requires you to consider modification requests by a current or prospective resident to make structural changes to the interior or exterior of units and to common and public use areas when there’s an identifiable relationship between the requested modification and the individual’s disability. For example, it would be unlawful to refuse to permit the installation of a ramp by a veteran who uses a wheelchair due to loss of a limb or other mobility impairment.

Before granting a request for a reasonable modification, you may require a description of the proposed modifications. You may also require the resident to obtain any building permits and that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. You may not insist that a particular contractor perform the work.

Rule #4: Consider Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Veterans with Disabilities

If a veteran qualifies as an individual with a disability, then you may be required to grant a request for a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as necessary to allow him an equal opportunity to fully enjoy his dwelling.

Requests for reasonable accommodations often involve assistance animals or parking, but communities may face a wide range of disability-related accommodation requests for exceptions to rules and policies. Examples include requests for live-in aides, transfers to different units, early lease termination, and allowing a cosigner on the lease. In general, communities are responsible for paying the costs associated with a reasonable accommodation as long as it doesn’t pose an undue financial and administrative burden.

It may be challenging to handle accommodation requests when the disability isn’t obvious. If the nature of the disability isn’t apparent, federal guidelines permit you to ask for reliable disability-related information to verify that the person meets the FHA’s definition of disability—that is, has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Likewise, you’re allowed to ask for more information if there’s no identifiable disability-related need for the requested accommodation.

You can’t reject an accommodation request simply because it imposes some financial costs on the community. Before rejecting a request because you think it’s too costly, you should compare the cost of the requested accommodation and your financial resources against the benefits to the disabled resident, and whether there are other, less expensive alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the resident’s disability-related needs.

Example: In 2015, a court ordered a California community to transfer a veteran with disabilities and his family to a more expensive unit—and to let them stay there until the end of the lease—as a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

The resident was an Army combat veteran who was diagnosed with PTSD. Due to ongoing construction near his unit, the veteran asked the community to transfer his family to another unit away from the noise as a reasonable accommodation due to his disability. According to the veteran, the construction noise triggered nightmares, anxiety, and other symptoms because it reminded him of gunfire, explosions, and screaming, making him feel as if he were in a war zone.

Allegedly, the community didn't dispute that he had a disability-related need to be relocated during the construction, but the parties disagreed whether he could pay his current rent to live in a more expensive available unit. The community offered to move the family to another unit at his current rent but wanted them to move back when the construction was completed.

The resident rejected the offer, asking for a court order to let them stay until their lease ended five months later. He argued that the construction noise had already caused significant distress, so letting them stay until their lease ended would offer a reprieve from his PTSD triggered by the construction.

The court granted his request, ruling that the cost of moving the family to the more expensive unit during the construction was a reasonable accommodation that wouldn’t cause an undue financial burden on the community. And the increased financial burden to let them stay there through the end of their lease was minimal [Holland v. The Related Companies, July 2015].

Rule #5: Don’t Reject Disability-Related Requests for Assistance Animals

Pay particular attention to reasonable accommodation requests for an exception to your pet policies to allow a veteran to keep an assistance animal because of a disability.

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from having a pet policy—as long as you don’t use it to keep out assistance animals. Some communities ban pets altogether, while others place limits on the number, type, size, or weight of pets and impose conditions such as extra fees, pet deposits, or additional rent charges. Whatever your policy on pets, it’s unlawful to deny an exception for an assistance animal needed by an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community.

Example: In July 2019, HUD charged a Maine community and one of its agents with discrimination for denying a veteran with disabilities the right to keep his assistance animal. In his HUD complaint, the veteran alleged that he called the community in response to an ad on Craigslist. When he told the agent that he had a disability-related need to live with his assistance dog, according to the veteran, the agent allegedly responded, “absolutely not,” and said she regretted allowing a prior tenant to live with his assistance dog because other tenants then wanted to get pet dogs.

“No person with a disability should be denied the accommodation they need, especially individuals who served in the Armed Forces to defend our freedom,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation to comply with this nation’s fair housing laws.”

Rule #6: Comply with Other Federal Laws Protecting Military Servicemembers and Veterans

Apart from your obligations under fair housing law, communities should know about—and comply with—two important federal laws protecting military servicemembers and returning veterans:

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), formerly known as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, is a federal law that provides protections for military members as they enter active duty. It covers issues such as rental agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, eviction, installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedings, automobile leases, life insurance, health insurance, and income tax payments.

Among other things, the SCRA allows servicemembers to terminate, without penalty, leases and rental agreements before or during active military service under certain circumstances. The SCRA also bars communities from evicting military members or their dependents from their principal residence during the period of their active military service without a court order. Complying with the SCRA should be at the top of community concerns when it comes to dealing with military servicemembers. Failure to do so can lead to civil penalties or damages—even criminal liability.

Example: In March 2019, a Virginia-based property management company and related entities agreed to pay up to $1.59 million to resolve allegations that they violated the SCRA by obtaining unlawful court judgments against military residents and by charging improper lease termination fees, according to the Justice Department. The settlement is the largest ever obtained by the department against a landlord or property management company for violations of the SCRA.

The complaint alleged that from 2006 to 2017, the company obtained at least 152 default judgments against 127 SCRA-protected servicemembers by failing to disclose their military service to the court or by falsely stating that they weren’t in the military.

Under the SCRA, if a landlord files a civil lawsuit against a tenant and the tenant doesn’t appear, the landlord must file an affidavit with the court stating whether the tenant is in the military before seeking a judgment. If the tenant is in military service, the court typically can’t enter judgment until it appoints an attorney to represent the tenant, and the court must postpone the proceedings for at least 90 days. Landlords and lenders can verify an individual’s military status by searching the Defense Manpower Data Center’s free publicly available website or by reviewing their files to see if there are applications, military leave and earnings statements, or military orders indicating military status.

The complaint also alleged that the company imposed unlawful charges against servicemembers who attempted to terminate their leases early in order to comply with military orders. The SCRA allows military tenants to terminate a residential lease early if the servicemember receives deployment or permanent change of station orders or enters military service during the term of the lease. If a tenant terminates a lease pursuant to the SCRA, the landlord may not impose any early termination fee.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. In their role as employers, communities must comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which prohibits employment practices that discriminate because of an individual's past, current, or future military status, service, or obligation.

In general, USERRA seeks to ensure that servicemembers are entitled to return to their civilian employment upon completion of their military service. Servicemembers should be reinstated with the seniority, status, and rate of pay that they would have obtained had they remained continuously employed by their civilian employer. In addition, USERRA provides protection for veterans with disabilities, requiring employers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability.

• Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.
• Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003: 50 USC App. §501 et seq.
• Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: 38 USC §4301 et seq.

Answer A : First, the MHCO Lease cited above addresses this. Not fixing the leaks, which are their responsibility to do, is a violation. Secondly, ORS 90.740(f) requires that tenants "(u)se electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems. The tenant is using the water system in an unreasonable manner when they refuse to fix the leaks.

ORS 90.630 (Termination by Landlord) provides, in relevant part, the following:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant:

(a) 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;

(b) Violates a rule or rental agreement provision related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with a rental agreement regarding a program of recovery in drug and alcohol free housing... .

ORS 90.630 goes on to explain that you may issue a 30-day written notice of termination, allowing the tenant to fix the leaks within 30 days and avoid termination. If they fail to do so, you may file for eviction. If they cure, but the problem occurs again within six months following the date of your earlier 30-day notice, you may terminate the tenancy within 20 days, and there is no opportunity to cure. MHCO has the necessary forms.

Be sure you have papered your file to support your contention that these are water leaks for which the tenant is responsible, and then specifically describe the violations (there are two of them, one under the Lease, and the other under the statute) in the Notice.

Answer B: This question is same as the prior one and the answer is the same (although the placement of the requirement may not be in the same location, depending on the date of your lease or rental agreement). Just make sure you have the evidence (e.g. plumber statement) before acting, and that you adequately identify the problem and solution in the Notice.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. Fair housing law bans communities from denying housing to anyone—or discriminating against them in the terms, conditions, or privileges of residency—based on any of these protected characteristics.

The law doesn’t stop you from holding residents accountable for their own bad behavior, but they may accuse you of discrimination when taken to task for breaking the rules. They may claim that you’re falsely accusing them of breaking the rules—or treating them more harshly than other residents for similar infractions—because they’re members of a protected class.

Sometimes the rules themselves come under attack. Communities may enforce rules to ensure safety, prevent property damage, and protect the quiet enjoyment of the property by other residents, but it’s unlawful to do so in a way that unreasonably interferes with the right of families with children to use and enjoy the community’s common areas and amenities.

Moreover, fair housing law may exempt some residents from following the rules under certain circumstances. As part of the law’s ban on disability discrimination, it’s unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. Because a community’s policies may have a different effect on people with disabilities than on others, HUD says that treating residents with disabilities exactly the same as others will sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the premises. So you may be required to make exceptions to your rules—such as no-pet policies or parking restrictions—as a reasonable accommodation for a resident with a disability.

Fair housing law doesn’t require communities to approve all accommodation requests. For example, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable—that is, if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the community or result in a fundamental alteration of its operations. In such cases, federal guidelines say that communities should engage in an “interactive process” with the person making the request to discuss whether there’s an alternative accommodation that would effectively address his disability-related needs.

8 DOS & DON’TS FOR DEALING WITH RESIDENTS WHO BREAK THE RULES

RULE #1: 

DO Hold Residents Accountable for Rules Violations 

DON’T Be Afraid to Take Action When Necessary

You may expect all residents to abide by the lease and community rules, and you may take action against anyone who fails to do so. Fair housing law bans discrimination against members of protected classes, but it doesn’t excuse residents from following the rules, regardless of their race or any other protected characteristic.

Don’t let your fear of a fair housing claim prevent you from applying your policies fairly and consistently. If action is required, don’t fail to act because you’re afraid the resident will file a fair housing complaint against you. Just talk to your attorney first to make sure that all of your community’s actions are documented and justified.

Example: In 2013, a Washington public housing community fought off a fair housing complaint filed by a resident who was threatened with eviction for feeding pigeons and allowing them to nest on his deck. The community’s rules prohibited the feeding of stray animals and wildlife, so he received several warnings that he’d be evicted if he didn’t stop. He eventually complied and no further action was taken against him, but the resident sued the community for discriminating against him because of his race. He failed to prove that he was being falsely accused since he admitted that he allowed the pigeons to nest on his deck. And the court rejected his claim that nonminority residents fed the pigeons and were not disciplined, noting that other residents viewed the pigeons as a nuisance and were trying to get rid of them in various ways, including poison [Bahati v. Seattle Housing Authority, September 2013].

To ward off fair housing trouble, it’s a good idea to have a written policy detailing your standards of conduct so all prospects, residents, and staff members understand what behaviors constitute lease violations. Putting it down on paper heads off claims that the resident didn’t know about the rules or understand the consequences of breaking them.

Make sure that your rules conform to state and local requirements by asking your attorney for help in drafting a policy that defines what conduct is considered a lease violation. Make the rules as specific as possible—for example, by quantifying how many times an act must be committed before it’s considered a lease violation, how much time you’ll give a resident to correct his behavior, and so on. Your policy should also detail the procedures for investigating, resolving, and documenting complaints against residents for violating the lease and community rules.

Over the next couple weeks, MHCO will be posting articles that go into detail on the remaining 7 rules for dealing with residents who break the rules.

RULE #2: 

DO Apply Community Rules Fairly and Consistently

DON’T Make Exceptions for Residents Simply Because You Like Them

RULE #3:

DO Be Prepared for Reasonable Accommodation Requests

DON’T Ignore Disability-Related Requests for Exceptions to the Rules

RULE #4:

DO Consider Accommodation Requests for Assistance Animals

DON’T Refuse to Make Any Exception to Pet Policies

RULE #5: 

DO Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment, Maintain Safety 

DON’T Ignore Accommodation Requests Related to Disruptive Conduct 

RULE #6: 

DO Enforce Rules Governing Common Areas

DON’T Unreasonably Limit Children’s Activities

RULE #7:

DO Be Prepared for Potential Retaliation Claims

DON’T Crack Down Because of a Prior Fair Housing Complaint 

RULE #8: 

DO Keep Good Records to Counter Discrimination, Retaliation Claims 

DON’T Neglect Your Paperwork 

Introduction.  As most MHCO members may remember, ORS 90.630 had a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tenant violations. There was a 30-day cure period for all violations of the law, rules or rental/lease agreement, and if not cured by the 30thday following delivery of the notice, the tenancy was terminated.

The problem with that approach was that some violations consisted of isolated single acts, such as speeding through the park in violation of the community rules. This raised the question, what to do about repeat violations withinthe 30-day period? As long as the conduct ceased before last day of the 30-day cure period, was a tenant in compliance with the termination notice? Without getting into the reasons why I believe such an approach was incorrect, the issue is now moot.

Revisions to ORS 90.630. Pursuant to the new Landlord-Tenant Coalition Bill, SB 586, ORS 90.630 has been amended to specifically deal with single, isolated violations that are notof a continuing nature (such as, for example, the failure to maintain the space, or exterior of the home).

Although MHCO has made the appropriate changes to its forms, members are encouraged to review them in advance of using them. The protocols are different and may take some getting used to. We now have two forms, (a) one for “continuing” violations, and (b) another for those that consist of a single, non-repetitive act. There are also some changes to the statute that apply to both types of violations. Here is a summary:

1. All violations for which a notice is issued must be “material”. Although this term is not defined in the legislation, suffice it to say, you (should) know it when you see it. An isolated failure to mow the front yard one week is not a “material” violation that should trigger a 30-day notice of termination. That is what clean-up notices are for. 

2. The 30-day notice now must separately designate a “termination date”. It is not sufficient to say that the tenancy will terminate if the violation continues past the last day of the 30-day cure period. The MHCO form has been appropriately revised.

3. Conduct is “ongoing” if:

1. 1. It is “constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing”; and
   2. The violation does not involve a pet or assistance animal;
   3. If it is ongoing, the same rules apply as previously, i.e. there is a 30-day cure period (however now a separate “termination date” must be identified, which can simply be the date following the last day of the cure period – as long as it is specifically identified).

4. A critical difference with the separate conduct 30-day notice is that there are now two time periods.

1. 1. The resident has a cure period of “…at least three days after delivery of the notice.” If not so cured within that time (e.g. tenant continues to speed through park) the tenancy will terminate on a date at least 30 days following delivery of the notice. 
   2. Note: it will be important for management to specifically identify the date three or more days hence. Otherwise, the cure period would end on the designated termination date not less than 30 after the delivery of the notice (or 33 if sent by regular mail).

5. Similar to the ongoing violation, for the separate conduct violation, at least one possible method for correction must be identified.

6. The six-month period for the repeat violation (which, if it occurs, entitles management to issue a 20-day non-curable notice) has been corrected. 

1. 1. Previously, the 6-month period commenced from the date of delivery of the violation notice, which was effectively only a 5-month period. 
   2. The new law, and the new MHCO violation form, now begin 6-month period from the termination date designated in the notice. 

7. There were no other material changes to ORS 90.630, including the 3-strikes law.

Conclusion. On its face, the changes appear to address the isolated violation issue with a shortened cure period, and automatically terminating the tenancy within 30-days if not so cured. 

Since I was not present during the discussion of these changes at the Coalition, I cannot comment on the rationale that resulted in this approach. But I cannot help but feel that a resident who fails to cure within the 3-day period – and now has 30 days hang around the park before vacating – has little incentive to be on his/her best behavior. What more can management do to protect the safety and welfare of the other residents while the terminated resident remains in the community?  Perhaps the 24-hour notice provisions of ORS 90.396could be amended to address this issue.

Below is a short summary of the ordinance. It should not be relied upon to the exclusion of consulting legal counsel or reading the ordinance yourself.

Termination of Tenancy in Park-Owned Homes.A Landlord may terminate a Rental Agreement without cause orfor a “qualifying landlord reason”[1]only by delivering a written notice of termination (the “Termination Notice”) to the tenant of:

• Not less than 90 days before the termination date designated in that notice as calculated under the Act; or
• The time period designated in the rental agreement, whichever is longer. 
• Not less than 45 days prior to the termination date provided in the Termination Notice, the landlord shall pay to the tenant, as “Relocation Assistance” a payment as follows: 
  • $2,900 for a studio or single room occupancy (“SRO”) Dwelling unit;
  • $3,300 for a one-bedroom dwelling unit;
  • $4,200 for a two-bedroom dwelling unit; and
  • $4,500 for a three-bedroom or larger dwelling unit. 
• (A landlord that declines to renew or replace an expiring lease or rental agreement is subject to the above provisions. These payments are intended to apply per dwelling unit, not per individual tenant.) 

Rent Increase Limitations For Park-Owned Homes. A landlord may not increase a tenant's rent or “Associated Housing Costs”[2]by 5 percent or more over a rolling 12-month period unless the landlord gives notice in writing to each affected tenant: 

• At least 90 days prior to the effective date of the Rent increase; or 
• The time period designated in the rental agreement, whichever is longer. 

The Increase Notice must specify:

• The amount of the increase;
• The amount of the new rent or Associated Housing Costs; and
• The date when the increase becomes effective.  

If, within 45 calendar days after a tenant receives an Increase Notice indicating a rent increase of 10 percent or more within a rolling 12-month period anda tenant provides written notice to the landlord of the tenant’s request for Relocation Assistance (the “Tenant’s Notice”), then:

• Within 31 calendar days of receiving the Tenant’s Notice, the Landlord shall pay to Relocation Assistance to the tenant in the amount that follows: 
• $2,900 for a studio or SRO Dwelling unit;
• $3,300 for a one-bedroom Dwelling unit;
• $4,200 for a two-bedroom Dwelling unit; and
• $4,500 for a three-bedroom or larger Dwelling unit.  

After the tenant receives the Relocation Assistance from the landlord, the tenant shall have 6 months from the effective date of the rent increase (the “Relocation Period”) to either:

• Pay back the Relocation Assistance and remain in the dwelling unit and shall be obligated to pay the increased Rent in accordance with the Increase Notice for the duration of the tenant’s occupancy; or
• Provide the landlord with a notice to terminate the rental agreement in accordance with ORS Chapter 90 (the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Act).  
• In the event that the tenant has not repaid the Relocation Assistance or provided the landlord with the tenant’s Termination Notice on or before the expiration of the Relocation Period, the tenant shall be in violation of this ordinance. 
• A landlord that conditions the renewal or replacement of an expiring lease or rental agreement on the tenant’s agreement to pay a rent increase of 10 percent or more within a rolling 12-month period is subject to the above provisions.  
• A landlord that declines to renew or replace an expiring lease or rental agreement on substantially the same terms except for the amount of rent or Associated Housing Costs is also subject to the above provisions. 
• (The above requirements are intended to apply per dwelling unit, not per individual tenant, and a tenant may only receive and retain Relocation Assistance once per tenancy per dwelling unit.)

MHCO Form 5E. For all park owners who are renting or leasing park-owned homes to tenants, the Portland ordinance requires that they include a description of a tenant’s rights and obligations and the eligible amount of Relocation Assistance for any of the following events:

• Issuance of a Termination Notice;
• Issuance of a Rent Increase Notice; and
• Payment of Relocation Assistance.

A copy of Form 5E on line at MHCO.ORG. It summarizes the litany or rights and duties imposed by the ordinance and should be delivered to the tenant in any of the above three events.

Exceptions. The Portland Ordinance 30.10.085 provides that Relocation Assistance does not apply to the following:

1.  Rental agreements for week-to-week tenancies;

2.  Tenants that occupy the same dwelling unit as the Landlord;

3.  Tenants that occupy one dwelling unit in a duplex where the landlord’s principal residence is the second Dwelling unit in the same Duplex;

4.  Tenants that occupy an Accessory Dwelling unit that is subject to the Oregon landlord-tenant law in the City of Portland so long as the owner of the Accessory Dwelling unit lives on the site;

5.  A landlord that temporarily rents out the Landlord's principal residence during the landlord's absence of not more than 3 years;

6.  A landlord that temporarily rents out the landlord’s principal residence during the landlord’s absence due to active duty military service;

7.  A dwelling unit where the landlord is terminating the rental agreement in order for an immediate family member to occupy the dwelling unit;

8.  A dwelling unit regulated as affordable housing by a federal, state or local government for a period of at least 60 years;

9.  A dwelling unit that is subject to and in compliance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;

10. A dwelling unit rendered uninhabitable not due to the action or inaction of a landlord or tenant;

11.  A dwelling unit rented for less than 6 months with appropriate verification of the submission of a demolition permit prior to the tenant renting the dwelling unit.

12.  A dwelling unit where the landlord has provided a fixed term tenancy and notified the tenant prior to occupancy, of the landlord’s intent to sell or permanently convert the dwelling unit to another use.

A landlord that fails to comply with any of the above requirements may be liable to the tenant for an amount up to 3 times the monthly rent as well as actual damages, Relocation Assistance, reasonable attorney fees and costs.

An Idle Thought For Park-Owned Homes. Why not sell them to a deserving, but cash-poor tenant? I’ll discuss issues with park owners doing exactly that and carrying back the security documents in a later article.

Once sold, many of these byzantine landlord-tenant ordinances and laws disappear, and the landlord is still protected in the event of the tenant’s default in space rent by using a cross-default provision in the security documents

Mobile and manufactured homes are personal property. They are only treated as a part of the land (i.e., as “real property”) when properly sited on a lot or parcel owned by the owner of the home and approved by the local authorities. Then, a deed to the land conveys the manufactured home as well, since they are combined under a single ownership.

Since the land in a manufactured housing community is owned by the landlord, and the spaces are rented to tenants, all manufactured structures on the spaces are personal property. They are either own by the tenant occupying the space, or by the park, or other third party.

The Conundrum. If all manufactured homes in a community are personal property, when abandonment occurs, why are there two forms? The answer is basic – at least to start. It depends on who owns the home.

• Using Form No. 30. If the home is tenant-owned and the tenant abandons it, park owners and managers should use MHCO Form No. 30.[1]

• Using Form No. 30A. If the home is not tenant owned, e.g., park-owned, management only needs to declare an abandonment of the other personal property on the space, such as the contents of the home, cars, RVs, and other personal property on the space itself.[2]

• The RV exception. Since RVs are personal property, which form should be used when the tenant owns it but later abandons it on the space? The answer is to use MHCO Form No. 30A.

FAQs for Personal Property Abandonments under Form 30A.[3]

How long does the tenant have to respond to the notice of abandonment? 5 days if served personally, or 8 days if served by mail. This applies to all abandoned personal property except recreational vehicles. For an RV, the tenant has 45 days to respond.

How long after responding does the tenant have to make arrangements for removal of the personal property? 15 days. If it is a recreational vehicle, 30 days.

What must I do with personal property during the abandonment process? Abandoned personal property should be kept in a place of safekeeping, and management should exercise reasonable care in protecting it. Food or perishables may be disposed of, and any abandoned animals or livestock should be turned over to the proper authorities. Landlords are entitled to reasonable or actual storage costs, costs related to moving the items, and potentially, costs related to disposal.  Abandoned personal property may be stored as management sees fit, whether that is at the dwelling, at another location on the premises, or in an off-site storage unit.

What if the owner does not claim their personal property within the required time? If an owner or interested party does not respond to MHCO Form 30A within the appropriate window (5-8 days for personal property/45 days for recreational vehicles) the landlord is free to sell or dispose of it in accordance with the directions in Form 30A or ORS 90.425.

[1] Note: ORS 90.675 deals with abandonment of manufactured homes owned by the tenant. ORS 90.425 deals with automobiles, RVs, and all other tenant owned personal property. However, ORS 90.675(1)(e) provides that “personal property” does not include goods left inside a manufactured dwelling or floating home or left upon a rented space and subject to disposition under ORS 90.425.” The problem is that oftentimes, when a home is abandoned, other things may be abandoned as well, such as the contents of a home and personal property on the space. Thus, where the contents of the home have value over $1000, it may become necessary to use both forms. Where autos and RVs are left on the space members should definitely use both forms. MHCO is considering adding an addendum to Form 30 to combine these issues into a single form. Until then, using both forms is appropriate where the tenant abandoned both the home and significant items of personal property such as autos, motorcycles, and RVs.

[2] If the home is owned by a third party who is renting the home to a tenant who abandons it, management should immediately notify the owner-landlord. Space rent must be paid regardless of the tenant’s abandonment. If the owner-landlord does not respond after giving proper notice, file an eviction for nonpayment of rent. If the owner does not show up for court, get a judgment of restitution and then file an abandonment of the home, which is permitted under ORS 90.675. Death of a tenant owner of the home also triggers the abandonment process under that statute.

[3] Caveat: This is a summary only and does not address rights of lienholders,  tax collectors, assessors, or third-party owners. Before using this form, competent legal counsel should be consulted if questions.

The Justice Department announced that the owners and property managers of a 15-unit apartment community have agreed to pay $40,000 to settle allegations that they failed to stop disability-related harassment of a resident’s daughter by neighbors and then refused to renew their lease because of her disability and that of her daughter.

The Backstory: The case involved a mother and daughter who moved into the community in 2013. Both allegedly had disabilities: The mother had cerebral palsy and a vision impairment, and her 21-year-old daughter was born with Down Syndrome. A family friend helped the family by arranging their housing, taking care of their finances, communicating with others on their behalf, and running errands for them.

While moving in, the mother said they were subjected to offensive comments and gestures by at least three other residents. Among other things, the neighbors allegedly called the daughter “mentally retarded,” and said, “You don’t belong here…you belong in an institution.” Allegedly, the neighbors said much the same thing in complaints to the owner.  

A few days later, the friend said she emailed the owner, explaining that the daughter had a few rough evenings, crying loudly, but that the mother had calmed her down; she also defended the girl against the neighbors’ accusations by saying that she was a great kid and an honor student. Soon after, the friend said that the owner called her; allegedly, he said his policy was not to get involved in neighbor disputes and told them to develop a “plan” to deal with noise complaints about the daughter.

In the months that followed, the friend said she repeatedly complained to the owner and the building manager about continued harassment by the neighbors, one of whom allegedly followed them around making offensive comments and and telling them that they couldn’t use common areas. Allegedly, the mother called police, who warned the neighbor to stop the harassment, but it continued throughout their tenancy, making the daughter afraid to leave the unit.

Eventually, the residents said that their lease wasn’t renewed, so they moved out at the end of the term.

The mother filed a HUD complaint, which triggered the Justice Department to file suit against the owner and manager for fair housing violations. The complaint accused them of disability discrimination by refusing to renew the lease because of the disabilities of the mother and daughter; demanding that they develop a “plan” to deal with the daughter’s disability-related behavior; and pressuring them to move. The complaint also accused them of failure to take prompt action to correct and end the neighbors’ disability-related harassment of the residents.

Though the owner and manager denied the allegations, the parties reached a settlement to resolve the matter. In addition to paying the $40,000 settlement, the community agreed to maintain nondiscrimination housing policies, advertise that they are equal opportunity housing providers, and provide fair housing training.

“No family should have to endure degrading insults and comments in the place they call home,” Gustavo Velasquez, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Today’s settlement reflects HUD and the Justice Department’s ongoing commitment to taking appropriate action against individuals who violate the housing rights of persons with disabilities.”

Lessons Learned:

1.   Rethink “Don’t Get Involved” Policy: It would be exhausting to get involved in every dispute between neighbors, but you should pay close attention to any complaints involving offensive comments or harassment by or against anyone based on race, color, or any other characteristic protected under federal, state, and local law. Depending on the nature and severity of the complaint, you could face liability for harassment under fair housing law if you knew about the offensive conduct but failed to do anything to stop it.

2.   Make a Plan to Address Residents’ Harassment Complaints: Promptly address any complaints of discrimination or harassment based on a protected characteristic—regardless of whether it’s against an employee, an outside contractor, another resident, or other third party. Conduct an investigation and, if warranted, take adequate steps to stop the offending conduct. Get legal advice if necessary, and document what you’ve done to resolve the matter.

3.   Stay Tuned for Upcoming Regulations: HUD is currently in the process of finalizing proposed regulations on liability for harassment under fair housing law. Under the proposed regulations, a person may be directly liable for failure to fulfill a duty to take prompt action and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct.