Search

30-day and 60 Repair Periods. If the disrepair or deterioration to the exterior of the home or related structures creates a risk of imminent and serious harm to dwellings, homes, or persons in the Community (e.g. dangerously unstable steps, decking or handrails), there is a 30-day period to repair.

For all other (i.e. non-dangerous) conditions, the minimum period to cure is now 60 days. As before, the new Form 55 provides a place for landlords and managers to specifically describe the item(s) in need of repair.

Trap: If there is imminent risk of harm, and the landlord/manager intends to give the tenant 30 days rather than 60 days, SB 277A requires that they not only describe the item(s) in disrepair, but also describe the potential risk of harm. There is little question but that the failure to do so would invalidate the notice. The new Form 55 prompts users to describe both the violation and the potential risk of harm.

Tip: The new Form 55 contains a prompt at several places to attach additional pages, documents or photos, if doing so would be helpful in identifying the disrepair or deterioration, and the necessary repair. Remember, you cannot expect the tenant to be a mind reader - just because you know the nature of the problem and the appropriate repair, does not mean the tenant is on the same page. If there is any ambiguity in the notice, a court would likely rule in favor of the tenant. Why? Because the landlord/manager filled out the Notice and had the ability at that time to draft it with sufficient clarity.

Service of the Notice. Most landlords and managers are familiar with the various methods of effecting service of notices. However, if in doubt, check the statutes. They are contained at ORS 90.155 (Service or delivery of written notice) and ORS 90.160 (Calculation of notice periods). You can never be too careful; a notice giving a single day less than legally required, can result in the case being thrown out.

Statutory Definitions. The new ORS 90.632 defines "disrepair" and "deterioration", and for the most part, they are quoted in MHCO's new Form No. 55:

• Additional 60 days. If the necessary repairs involve exterior painting, roof repair, concrete pouring or similar work, and the weather prevents that work during a substantial portion of the existing 60-day period to cure;
• Additional 60 days. If the nature or extent of the correction work is such that it cannot reasonably be completed within the 60-day cure period due to the type and complexity of the work and the availability of necessary repair persons;
• Additional 180 Days (Six Months). If the disrepair or deterioration existed for more than the preceding 12 months with the landlord's or manager's knowledge, or rent had been accepted over that time.

Tip: The law requires the tenant to make a written request for an extension of time if it is sought in a reasonable amount of time prior to the last day of the 60-day compliance period. There are two issues, however: (a) How long an extension is the tenant asking for - 30 days, 40, 50, or 60? (b) Obtaining an extension also extends the deadline for compliance. An oral extension does not nail down the additional time in writing and may not identify the new deadline. Accordingly, landlords and managers should insist on a written request from their tenants and should consider putting in writing: (a) The amount of time granted; and, (b) The new deadline. That way there can be no confusion about the length of the extension and the outside date that compliance must be completed.

Issue: Does SB277A contemplate that following the request for a 60-day extension, management may agree to less? Possibly, since new law provides that the need for the extra time must be due to certain conditions that prevent that work from occurring during a substantial portion of the existing 60-day period. If confronted with this situation, management should consult with legal counsel.

Notice of Correction. If the tenant performs the necessary repairs before the end of the compliance date, or extended compliance date, they have the right to give the landlord/manager a written notice that the issues have been corrected. There is no fixed time for management's response as to whether the repairs have been satisfactorily and timely performed; it is sufficient if it is within a reasonable time following the tenant's written notice. However, if a tenant gives this notice to management at least 14 days prior to the end of the completion deadline, or extended deadline, their failure to promptly respond is a defense to a landlord's termination of tenancy.

Sale of Home; Prospective Purchasers. Prior to enactment of SB 277A, Oregon law permitted a tenant to sell their home while the disrepair/deterioration notice was outstanding, permitting the landlord/manager to give a copy of it to the new perspective purchaser, and providing that the sale would not automatically extend the compliance period. Essentially, the new tenant stepped into the shoes of their seller, and became subject to the same notice and time periods.

The practical result of this protocol was that as between the tenant and the prospective purchaser, they could negotiate any price reductions for the necessary work, and the new rental agreement would contain a provision requiring that it be completed within the time prescribed in the original notice, or a permitted extension. That is no longer the case under the new law.

SB 277A now provides that at the time of giving a prospective purchaser the application and other park documents, the landlord/manager must also give them the following:

• Copies of any outstanding notices of repair or deterioration issued under ORS 90.632;
• A list of any disrepair or deterioration of the home;
• A list of any failures to maintain the Space or to comply with any other provisions of the Rental/Lease Agreement, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements; and
• A statement that the landlord/manager may require a prospective purchaser to complete the repairs, maintenance and improvements described in the notices and lists provided.

Tip: Note that the new law combines not only ORS 90.632 notices relating to damage and deterioration of the home or structures, but also a list of failures to maintain the space and other defaults, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements. This may or may not include 30-day curable notices under ORS 90.630 for failure to maintain the space. But in both cases (i.e. defaults relating to structures, and those relating to the space), the new tenant appears to get the six-month period to comply.

This represents and interesting shift in Oregon law, and possibly for the better. Many parks historically gave "resale compliance notices" to tenants who were placing their homes up for sale. However, until now, there was some question whether a landlord could "require" as a condition of resale, that the existing tenant make certain repairs - absent having first sent a 30-day notice.[1] Now, under the new version of ORS 90.632, it appears landlords may make that list, and let the tenant/seller know that unless the work is completed before sale, it will be given to the tenant's purchaser upon application for tenancy.

So, if the landlord/manager accepts a prospective purchaser as a new tenant, and notwithstanding any prior landlord waivers of the same issue(s), the new tenant will be required to complete the repairs, maintenance and improvements described in the notices and lists.

Under Section (10) of the revised statute, if the new tenant fails to complete the repairs described in the notices within six months from commencement of the tenancy, the landlord "may terminate the tenancy by giving the new tenant the notice required under ORS 90.630 or ORS 90.632." This appears to say that a new tenant who fails to complete the items addressed in the notices and lists within the first six months, will thereafter be subject to issuance of a curable 30-day or 60-day notice to complete the required repairs. Accordingly, this is how the new MHCO Form 55 will read.

What if the landlord had already given the seller a written notice under one of these two statutes, but the compliance period had not yet run at the time of sale? The new statute does not carry over the unused time to the new tenant/purchaser, since under the new law, they will have received essentially the same information upon application, and will now have six months to complete.

Tip: Nonetheless, it is still a good idea to give a detailed 90.632 notice to a tenant before sale. That way, the very same repair issues will be in front of the landlord, existing tenant and prospective purchaser at the same time. It will now become a matter of negotiation between tenant/seller and tenant/buyer as to who will perform the repairs, and when.

Repeat Violations. If one or more of the items that caused issuance of a 30-day or 60-day notice under ORS 90.630 or 90.632 recurs within 12 months after the date of issuance of that notice, the tenancy may be terminated upon at least 30 days' written notice specifying the violation(s) and the date of termination of tenancy. In such case, correction of the disrepair or deterioration will not prevent a termination of the tenancy.

• As under the prior law, a copy of the disrepair and deterioration notice may be given by the landlord/manager to any lienholder of the tenant's home.

And darestillrequiredtopayrentuptothe

• : If the rent tendered by the tenant covers days that extend beyond the deadline for compliance, or any permitted extension thereof, it should be returned to them within ten (10) days after receipt, pursuant to ORS 90.412(3). This will avoid a waiver of termination of the tenancy described in the notice, should the tenant fail to timely perform the required work.

Conclusion. Members will see that due to the added complexities of ORS 90.632 (e.g. risk of harm vs. non-risk of harm violations, added detail for explanations, prospective tenant disclosures with application, etc.) the new Form 55 is longer than before. However, despite the added length, we believe it remains user-friendly.

[1] This is because ORS 90.510(5)(i) provides that the rental or lease agreement for new tenants must disclose "(a)ny conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser of a manufactured dwelling or floating home as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home. Those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal law and may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to pets, number of occupants and screening or admission criteria;

Answer. ORS 90.545(Fixed Term Tenancies) provides that unless you take action not less than 60 days prior to the end of the term, the lease becomes a month-to-month tenancy on the same conditions as the original lease. 

The only exception to this is for the landlord to submit a proposed new lease to the tenant at least 60 days prior to the ending date of the term. Any provisions that are new, i.e. not in the prior lease, are to be summarized in a written statement; the same applies if the landlord is going to create new community rules. Remember, however, that if there are substantive changes to either or both of these two sets of park documents, you may also have to issue a new Statement of Policy under ORS 90.510,[1]which is a summary explanation of certain park policies provided to new and existing residents.

If you introduce new lease terms or new rules, they must “(f)airly implement a statute or ordinance adopted after the creation of the existing agreement; or are the same as those offered to new or prospective tenants in the community.”

Note, however, that the new lease terms or rules cannot relate to the “…age, size, style, construction material or year of construction of the manufactured dwelling” *** and cannot “…require an alteration of the manufactured dwelling *** or new construction of an accessory building or structure.

The tenant must accept or reject the proposed new lease at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.

So, your choice on expiring leases under ORS 90.545 is: (a) To do nothing, in which case the lease morphs into a month-to-month tenancy on the same terms as the earlier lease, or (b) Introduce a new lease and/or rules that “(f)airly implement a statute or ordinance adopted after the creation of the existing agreement; or are the same as those offered to new or prospective tenants in the community.”

You do not have an option to notnon-renew the tenant at the end of a lease term.  This is not to say that you are limited in termination  for cause under: ORS 86.782(6)(c) (foreclosure trustee sale),90.380(5) (dwelling posted asunsafe by gov’t),90.392 (termination for cause),90.394 (termination forfailure to pay rent),90.396 (termination on 24-hour notice),90.398(termination drugs, alcohol),90.405 (termination, unpermitted pet),90.440(termination in group recovery facility)or90.445 (termination for criminalact).  

As to the summary, the statute simply says that “(t)he landlord shall include with the proposed agreement a written statement that summarizesany new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations.” (Emphasis added.)

However, since you will have many changes to the new lease, you ask about two possible alternatives: Either to send the new lease to the tenant: (a) and inform him/her it has numerous updates and they should read it as if it were a completely new edition; or (b) “…offer a redline version which they wouldn’t be able to read.”

ORS 90.130 provides:

Every duty under this chapter and every act which must be performed as a condition precedent to the exercise of a right or remedy under this chapter imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.”

I read that to mean that good faith compliance is satisfactory in this case. Since ORS 90.545 does not elaborate about the written summary, I would opt for an approach that gives you more coverage rather than less. Both of your alternatives, especially (a) standing alone, could be attacked by residents as insufficient since it really doesn’t comply – if the goal is to inform and educate residents about the new changes. Alternative (a) is too little, and (b) is too much.

My view is that you don’t have to detail every single change, just the material ones that aid in understanding the nature and scope of the new provisions. Stylistic changes that do not alter the substance of the new text don’t need to be addressed. As to material changes, they should be summarized.

I would give the new lease to the residents together with a marked redline showing the material changes.[2]I would then include a distillation of the material changes in the new lease into categories and short summaries.

For example:

• Rule No. ___, Late Fees: they are going to increase from X$ to $Y;
• Rule No. ___, Pets: There will be a fine for pet violations;
• Rule No. ___, Mediation: Adds mediation rules under the recently enacted SB 586 Sec. 7 et seq. (2019) and provides that Landlord has the duty to mediate if requested by Tenant. See,https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/SB586;
• Rule No. ___, Occupants: Tenants must now notify manager within X days of the person coming into the park and obtain a Temporary Occupancy Agreement.

Be sure the notice invites residents to contact the park manager if they have any questions. I believe this approach meets the spirit and intent of ORS 90.545, and is in good faith compliance with the law.  

Lastly, before sending out the notice, enlist the help of someone who is not privy to the changes, and ask them to read your summary. If they understand it (without your coaching), then send. If not, I would re-work the language until it is clear. The goal is to avoid ambiguity in the summary; but if reasonable minds can differ as to the meaning of the new summary, it is, per se’ambiguous, and needs to be clarified before sending.

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn'tmake it clear whether the estate was formally filed for probate in court, in which case this "Administrator" would be subject to court supervision and would have to have a bond. I'm suspecting that is not the case - but if it is, you may want to secure legal counsel to notify the court of what's happening and perhaps get him removed.

Assuming that the person is just a designee for the un-probated estate (I will call him the "representative"), I would suggest that you look to ORS 90.675(20), which applies when a resident living alone passes away. Subsection (20) is summarized below, but should not be used as a substitute for reading ORS 90.675 (linked here) in its entirety:

• This subsection (20) applies the same duties as those of a resident who abandoned the property.
• It also applies to any personal representative named in a will or appointed by a court, or any person designated in writing by the decedent to be contacted by the landlord in the event of the tenant's death;
• The 45-day abandonment notice required in ORS 90.675(3) (go to above link) is to be sent by first class mail to this representative at the premises, and also personally delivered or sent by first class mail to them if actually known to the landlord.
• If the representative responds by actual notice to a landlord within the 45-day period provided in the letter and so requests, the landlord shall enter into a written storage agreement with the representative or person providing that the personal property may not be sold or disposed of by the landlord for up to 90 days or until conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
• Note: Entering into the storage agreement includes the duty to pay a "storage fee" which can be no higher than the space rent. This duty is not triggered until the 45-day letter is sent. Presumably you will use a good storage agreement that requires, among other things, compliance with all applicable park rules and state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including a duty to maintain the space. On- site destruction of the home is NOT maintaining the space. Depending upon the home's age, on site destruction could be a violation of certain environmental laws, due to potentially hazardous material used in construction. In fact, since there is a risk that the representative will not comply with the storage agreement - based on his threat of destruction - you may want to consider - only upon the advice of your attorney - to restrict his unsupervised access to the home. Destruction of the home would not only take it off the tax rolls in violation of Oregon property tax law, but it would prevent you, as the landlord, from selling the home upon failure of the representative to meet his obligations. Remember, in addition to the tax collector, you have a vested interest in seeing the home sold for recoupment any sums due (arguably including attorney fees) incurred during the abandonment process.
• Since the abandonment law requires that the landlord has a duty of safe keeping pending completion of the abandonment process, it is my belief[1] that this entitles the landlord to secure the home (e.g. with a new lock) so that heirs and others cannot enter and remove personal property.
• A storage agreement entitles the representative to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the personal property.
• If such an agreement is entered into, the landlord may not enter a similar agreement with a lienholder (if any) until the agreement with the representative ends.
• If the representative requests that a landlord enter into a storage agreement and there is a lienholder, also, you should review subsections (19)(c) to (e) and (g)(C) of ORS 90.675, which describes the rights and responsibilities of a lienholder with regard to the storage agreement.
• During the term of the Storage Agreement, the representative has the right to remove or sell the property, including a sale to a purchaser or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave the property on the space and become a tenant. However, this prospective tenant is subject to the same statutory requirement, including landlord qualification and approval, as found in ORS 90.680 (linked here). The landlord also may condition approval for occupancy upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
• If the representative violates the storage agreement, the landlord may terminate it by giving at least 30 days' written notice to them stating facts sufficient to notify them of the reason for the termination. Unless the representative or person corrects the violation within the notice period, the Storage Agreement terminates as provided and the landlord may sell or dispose of the property without further notice to the representative.

• Upon the failure of a representative to enter into a storage agreement or upon termination of an agreement, unless the parties otherwise agree or the representative has sold or removed the home, the landlord may sell or dispose of it pursuant to sale provisions of ORS 90.675 without further notice to the representative.

So, in summary, the abandonment statute - which is quite lengthy and somewhat difficult to follow - applies in this case, and with proper guidance, you should be able to successfully deal with the representative.

[1] I'm not rendering a "legal opinion" in this Answer - PCQ

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn'tmake it clear whether the estate was formally filed for probate in court, in which case this "Administrator" would be subject to court supervision and would have to have a bond. I'm suspecting that is not the case - but if it is, you may want to secure legal counsel to notify the court of what's happening and perhaps get him removed.

Assuming that the person is just a designee for the un-probated estate (I will call him the "representative"), I would suggest that you look to ORS 90.675(20), which applies when a resident living alone passes away. Subsection (20) is summarized below, but should not be used as a substitute for reading ORS 90.675 (linked here) in its entirety:

• This subsection (20) applies the same duties as those of a resident who abandoned the property.
• It also applies to any personal representative named in a will or appointed by a court, or any person designated in writing by the decedent to be contacted by the landlord in the event of the tenant's death;
• The 45-day abandonment notice required in ORS 90.675(3) (go to above link) is to be sent by first class mail to this representative at the premises, and also personally delivered or sent by first class mail to them if actually known to the landlord.
• If the representative responds by actual notice to a landlord within the 45-day period provided in the letter and so requests, the landlord shall enter into a written storage agreement with the representative or person providing that the personal property may not be sold or disposed of by the landlord for up to 90 days or until conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
• Note: Entering into the storage agreement includes the duty to pay a "storage fee" which can be no higher than the space rent. This duty is not triggered until the 45-day letter is sent. Presumably you will use a good storage agreement that requires, among other things, compliance with all applicable park rules and state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including a duty to maintain the space. On- site destruction of the home is NOT maintaining the space. Depending upon the home's age, on site destruction could be a violation of certain environmental laws, due to potentially hazardous material used in construction. In fact, since there is a risk that the representative will not comply with the storage agreement - based on his threat of destruction - you may want to consider - only upon the advice of your attorney - to restrict his unsupervised access to the home. Destruction of the home would not only take it off the tax rolls in violation of Oregon property tax law, but it would prevent you, as the landlord, from selling the home upon failure of the representative to meet his obligations. Remember, in addition to the tax collector, you have a vested interest in seeing the home sold for recoupment any sums due (arguably including attorney fees) incurred during the abandonment process.
• Since the abandonment law requires that the landlord has a duty of safe keeping pending completion of the abandonment process, it is my belief[1] that this entitles the landlord to secure the home (e.g. with a new lock) so that heirs and others cannot enter and remove personal property.
• A storage agreement entitles the representative to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the personal property.
• If such an agreement is entered into, the landlord may not enter a similar agreement with a lienholder (if any) until the agreement with the representative ends.
• If the representative requests that a landlord enter into a storage agreement and there is a lienholder, also, you should review subsections (19)(c) to (e) and (g)(C) of ORS 90.675, which describes the rights and responsibilities of a lienholder with regard to the storage agreement.
• During the term of the Storage Agreement, the representative has the right to remove or sell the property, including a sale to a purchaser or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave the property on the space and become a tenant. However, this prospective tenant is subject to the same statutory requirement, including landlord qualification and approval, as found in ORS 90.680 (linked here). The landlord also may condition approval for occupancy upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
• If the representative violates the storage agreement, the landlord may terminate it by giving at least 30 days' written notice to them stating facts sufficient to notify them of the reason for the termination. Unless the representative or person corrects the violation within the notice period, the Storage Agreement terminates as provided and the landlord may sell or dispose of the property without further notice to the representative.

• Upon the failure of a representative to enter into a storage agreement or upon termination of an agreement, unless the parties otherwise agree or the representative has sold or removed the home, the landlord may sell or dispose of it pursuant to sale provisions of ORS 90.675 without further notice to the representative.

So, in summary, the abandonment statute - which is quite lengthy and somewhat difficult to follow - applies in this case, and with proper guidance, you should be able to successfully deal with the representative.

[1] I'm not rendering a "legal opinion" in this Answer - PCQ

Solution: There are five steps you can take to minimize discrimination risks when dealing with undocumented aliens: 

1. Don’t make U.S. citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion for renting unless you have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and documented business justification for doing so—for example, because state or municipal law requires it;
2. Be consistent in applying whatever screening policy you do adopt;
3. Ask for the right form of verification of citizenship and/or immigration status (discussed below);
4. Apply your normal screening standards to immigrants; and
5. Don’t use an applicant or tenant’s immigration status as a bargaining chip.

How to Verify Immigration/Citizenship Status. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status, i.e., noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94, a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay. They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

You Make the Call

Which of the following would be a legitimate reason to reject applicants who aren’t U.S. citizens?

a.         Being a U.S. citizen is required for leasing property under HUD program rules and/or state or local law 

b.         A non-U.S. citizen is generally less likely to pay rent on time each month

c.          Non-U.S. citizens are totally judgment proof

Answer:

a. The fact that HUD program rules and/or state or local laws require landlords to verify that applicants are U.S. citizens before accepting them is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.

Wrong answers explained:

b.         The assumption that noncitizens are less likely to pay rent is just that—an assumption, and one based on stereotypes. Consequently, it’s not justification for requiring applicants to be U.S. citizens.

c.          The reason c. is wrong is that it’s overstated. While evicting or suing a noncitizen for lease violations poses challenges, it’s not accurate to characterize immigrants as “judgment-proof.” In fact, persons in the U.S. illegally are likely to be far more amenable to threats of litigation.

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.

The short answer to your first question is "no," you do not have to give the long-time tenant the same 30-day notice as required for mobile home tenants. That notice under ORS 90.632 is only for mobile home tenants, not RVs. Since RVs are not "manufactured dwellings," you have some better options available.

Normally, I would recommend a 30-day, for-cause notice under ORS 90.392 requiring the tenant to repair his RV. Presumably your park has a rule requiring homes and RVs to be kept in good repair, which you would use as the basis for the notice. The 30-day notice would give the tenant 14 days to repair the RV or face termination of his tenancy at the end of the 30 days.

However, in this particular case it sounds like the travel trailer has been dilapidated for quite some time. Under ORS 90.412, you waived the right to evict the long-time tenant based on the condition of his RV by accepting rent for 3 or more months with knowledge of the condition of the RV. That is why I always recommend addressing problems with a notice as soon as the condition arises. (The rule is different for mobile homes - parks don't waive the right to evict even if the condition of the home has been longstanding).

Under the circumstances, your best option is to simply issue a 60-day, no-cause notice terminating the long-time tenancy. Presumably the tenant has been there for more than one year as a month to month tenant, which requires a 60-day notice.

The newer RV tenant with the messy space is a different story. If the condition of his space only became an issue recently, you could go with the 30-day, for-cause notice mentioned above. The basis of the notice would be your park rules requiring tenants to maintain their spaces, along with ORS 90.325 (1)(b) which requires tenants to keep their spaces "clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations" of debris and rubbish.

If the messy conditions have existed for 3 or more months, then you're only left with the no-cause eviction notice option. However, if the newer RV tenant has been there less than a year as a month to month tenant, the notice can be a 30-day, no-cause notice instead of a 60-day notice.

Answer. I'm confused. May I assume the grandmother or her sister are at least 55 years old? If so, they qualify both as to the requirement that there be at least one occupant 55+, and as to the second person requirement. That should be the end of the age issue.

As for the babysitting, this is not a for-profit enterprise, so presumably does not violate any rules you might have for such situations. So all it is is family visiting, which is permissible under the rules. So long as the children are not staying overnight, I do not understand there to be a 30-day limit on this. If they do stay overnight, it appears there is a 30-day cap. But you don't say whether the 30-days is consecutive or cumulative. Unless there is some reason to believe the grandmother is lying about the children staying overnight (and even then, there is the 30-day rule) I don't see anything that suggests a violation. I know of nothing under the 55+ housing law that places restrictions on family visitors under age 55. In fact, as you may know, 55+ parks are permitted to have up to 20% of their spaces rented to families (which is not something should consider for a variety of reasons). However, the point is that the presence of children in a 55+ park does not, per se' cause the park to lose its 55+ designation.

I believe this situation demands a practical approach. Is the babysitting situation causing a problem, e.g. noise, disruption, children in street, lack of supervision, etc? Are other residents complaining? If none of these consequences are occurring, I don't see a concern, or a need to start counting days, etc. If the situation is not being abused, I'd leave it alone. You may want to privately discuss this with the grandmother, just to make sure she understands that it is important that she monitor her grandchildrens' activity at all times, just to make sure other (less child-friendly) residents don't complain.

The take-away here is that while rules are important, so long as they are not being abused, the need to be concerned primarily arises when there are complaints from other residents. If no one is complaining and the rules are not being blatantly abused, it does not seem necessary to become concerned.

• The landlord accepts:
  • A last month's rent deposit collected at the beginning of the tenancy, regardless of whether the deposit covers a period beyond a termination date;
  • Rent distributed pursuant to a court order releasing money paid into court; or
  • Rent paid for a rent obligation not yet due and paid more than one rental period in advance.

• For a continuous or ongoing violation, the landlord's written warning notice remains effective for 12 months and may be renewed with a new warning notice before the end of the 12 months.
• For a violation concerning the tenant's failure to pay money owed to the landlord, the landlord's written warning notice under subsection ORS 90.412(4)(c) remains effective for 12 months from the date of the tenant's failure to pay the money owed.
• A landlord that must refund rent shall make the refund to the tenant or other payer by personal delivery or first class mail. The refund may be in the form of the tenant's or other payer's check or in any other form of check or money.

Acts not constituting waiver of termination of tenancy. If a notice of termination has been given by the landlord or the tenant, the following acts do not waive the landlord's right to terminate on the notice and do not reinstate the tenancy:

• Except in the case of issuance of a nonpayment of rent notice under ORS 90.394, the acceptance of rent if:
  • The rent is prorated to the termination date specified in the notice; or
  • The landlord refunds at least the unused balance of the rent prorated for the period beyond the termination date within 10 days after receiving the rent payment.
• Except in the case of termination for cause under ORS 90.392 (termination for cause), 90.398 (termination for drug/alcohol violations), 90.405 (unpermitted pets), 90.630 (termination of MHP tenancy by landlord) or 90.632 (termination for physical condition of home in MHP), the acceptance of rent for a rental period that extends beyond the termination date set forth in the notice, if the landlord refunds at least the unused balance of the rent for the period beyond the termination date within 10 days after the end of the remedy or correction period described in the applicable notice.
• If the termination is for cause under ORS 90.392 (termination for cause), 90.398 (termination for drug/alcohol violations), 90.405 (unpermitted pets), 90.630 (termination of MHP tenancy by landlord) or 90.632 (termination for physical condition of home in MHP) and eviction proceedings have commenced to recover possession of the premises based on the termination:
  • The acceptance of rent for a period beyond the expiration of the notice of termination during which the tenant remains in possession if:
    • The landlord notifies the tenant in writing in (or after the service of) the notice of termination for cause that the acceptance of rent while an action for possession is pending will not waive the right to terminate under the notice; and
    • The rent does not cover a period that extends beyond the date the rent payment is accepted.
  • Service of a nonpayment of rent termination notice under ORS 90.394.
• The following acts do not waive the right of the landlord to terminate on a notice of termination given by the landlord or the tenant and do not reinstate a tenancy:
  • Acceptance of a last month's rent deposit collected at the beginning of the tenancy, whether or not the deposit covers a period beyond a termination date.
  • Acceptance of rent distributed under a court order releasing money that was paid into the court as provided under ORS 90.370 (1) (Rent tender provisions when tenant files a counterclaim)
  • Acceptance of rent paid for a rent obligation not yet due and paid more than one rental period in advance.
• When a landlord must refund rent, it shall be made to the tenant or other payer by personal delivery or first class mail and may be in the form of the tenant's or other payer's check or in any other form of check or money.

Effect of acceptance of partial rent. A tenant's duty regarding rent payments is to tender to the landlord an offer of the full amount of rent owed within the time allowed by law and by the terms of the rental agreement. A landlord may refuse to accept a rent tender that is for less than the full amount of rent owed or that is untimely.

• A landlord may accept a partial payment of rent.
  • The acceptance of a partial payment does not constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy under ORS 90.394 (Termination of Rental Agreement for Failure to pay Rent) of the balance of the rent owed if the following rules below for partial payments are followed.
• A landlord and tenant may by written agreement provide that monthly rent shall be paid in regular installments of less than a month pursuant to a schedule specified in the agreement. Such agreed-upon installment rent payments are not "partial payment of rent"
• Acceptance of a partial payment of rent waives the right of the landlord to terminate the tenant's rental agreement for nonpayment of rent unless:
  • The landlord accepted the partial payment of rent before the landlord gave a nonpayment of rent termination notice based on the tenant's agreement to pay the balance by a time certain and the tenant does not pay the balance of the rent as agreed;
  • The landlord's notice of termination is served no earlier than it would have been permitted under ORS 90.394 (Termination of Rental Agreement for Failure to pay Rent) had no rent been accepted; and
  • The notice permits the tenant to avoid termination of the tenancy for nonpayment of rent by paying the balance within 72 hours (or 144 hours) or by any date to which the parties agreed, whichever is later; or
  • The landlord accepted a partial payment of rent after giving a nonpayment of rent termination notice and entered into a written agreement with the tenant that the acceptance does not constitute waiver. This agreement may provide that the landlord may terminate the rental agreement and thereafter file for eviction without serving a new non-payment of rent notice if the tenant fails to pay the balance of the rent by a time certain.
• Application of a tenant's security deposit or prepaid rent to an obligation owed to a landlord in foreclosure under ORS 90.367 does not constitute a partial payment of rent.
• Notwithstanding any acceptance of a partial payment of rent pursuant to the above rules, the tenant continues to owe the landlord the unpaid balance of the rent.