Search

Situation: A Michigan landlord rejected an otherwise qualified African-American applicant after an online check revealed that he had been convicted of a felony in connection with a domestic disturbance four years earlier. While acknowledging the conviction, the applicant insisted that he was fully rehabilitated. But the landlord stubbornly refused to budge from the community’s policy of not accepting anyone with a criminal conviction while stressing that it doesn’t “consider cases individually.” The applicant and a local fair housing group sued for racial discrimination. The landlord moved for summary judgment, claiming that the statistics about arrest and incarceration rates of African Americans nationwide were too general to prove disparate impact in a particular community.   

You Make the Call: Did the applicant have a valid claim for racial discrimination under the FHA?

Answer: Yes

Ruling: The Michigan federal court rejected the motion and allowed the applicant to take his claims to trial. “Even countrywide statistics may be sufficient to plead a disparate impact claim where a challenged policy has a clearly disproportional effect on a protected class,” the court reasoned. Besides, the applicant also cited state and county statistics showing the same disproportionate rates of minority arrests and incarceration [Lyman v. Montclair at Partridge Creek, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166464].

Takeaway: As a landlord, you have a responsibility to ensure your community is safe and secure. But while a blanket exclusion based on criminal history might look like a legitimate, nondiscriminatory safety policy, in the view of HUD and many courts, it has a discriminatory impact based on race. By the same token, HUD and DOJ guidelines also say that landlords can reject or evict a person that poses a “direct threat” to the health and safety of other tenants. Rule: Having a criminal record isn’t automatic proof that a person is a direct threat. You must do an individualized assessment of each case based on:

• How long ago the conviction occurred;
• The nature of the crime for which the person was convicted—arrests without a conviction don’t count;
• Evidence of rehabilitation; and
• Other evidence related to whether the person poses a threat to safety.

Answer: I doubt the park rules contain anything about privacy rights or the use of video cameras. As to laws being broken by the use of the camera, I don't believe there are any. Thus, I don't seen any management responsibility at this point. In other words, if the rental agreement, rules, or laws are not being broken, there would be no basis for management to treat the use of the camera as something for which the tenancy can be terminated, say, under a 30-day notice pursuant to ORS 90.630.

ORS 90.740 enumerates several duties of residents in manufactured housing communities. Subsection (4)(j) provides they must: "Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors." Video taping from a stationary location, does not, in my opinion, appear to violate this law. If one resident followed the other around with a camera throughout the park, that would be another issue.

Let's call the resident with the camera, "Resident A", and the one with the late-night visitors, "Resident B". Your question did not say whether Resident B was aware of the video camera or that it was trained at his front door. Nor did you indicate whether the video camera also had audio capability, such that it could pick up Resident B's outdoor conversations with his late night guests.

In Oregon, ORS 165.540(1)(c) forbids a person from obtaining or attempting to obtain "the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine, or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." Note that informing the participants is required, but consent from them is not. Subsection (3) of the statute provides that the above prohibitions do not apply to conversations that occur inside a homeowner's residence, - even though the guests and visitors are not informed.

Although audio recordings are addressed by the above Oregon statute, video recordings are not. Nonetheless, the general rule, at least from a civil law standpoint, is whether the (e.g. Resident B) has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Doing drug deals outside is most likely an activity Resident B and his guests have no reasonable basis to expect privacy.

Certainly, Resident A can use the cameras on his own property and the streets, sidewalks, and any other public and quasi-public areas. Can the camera be trained on the front door of Resident B, as he admits his late night visitors? I cannot render a legal opinion on this, but would speculate that since it is outdoors, albeit on Tenant A's own property, video recording should be OK (not audio recording, however). But even if it's not OK, is this a fight management wants to take up? This is not as if Resident A is screaming at Resident B's late night guests, or is otherwise causing any disruption in the park. If Resident B knows of the video surveillance, consent would seem to be a moot issue. It would be prudent for Resident A to let Resident B know he has installed a security system that includes video surveillance. The manager should encourage Resident A to do so, or authorize him (the manager) to do so. Once informed, the entire expectation of privacy analysis becomes moot.

Lastly, I'm curious is Resident B's activity is bothering anyone else? If so, it may be time to take action. I have always maintained that with residents whose late night activities smack of drug dealing, with all the typical indicators such as multiple visitors, noise, and short-term visits, etc., a 30-day curable notice under ORS 90.630 is a much easier tool to use as the basis of an eviction, than to try to "prove" a violation of ORS 90.396 (1)(f)(B), which allows the issuance of a non-curable 24-hour notice for the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance as defined by various Oregon statutes.

Answer. This can be a complicated issue. First, there are a series of state statutes governing the towing of vehicles from private property (here). They should be carefully reviewed before undertaking this process.

Here is a relevant portion of the law:

98.810 Unauthorized parking of vehicle on proscribed property prohibited. A person may not, without the permission of:

(1) The owner of a parking facility, leave or park any vehicle on the parking facility if there is a sign displayed in plain view at the parking facility prohibiting or restricting public parking on the parking facility.

(2) The owner of proscribed property, leave or park any vehicle on the proscribed property whether or not there is a sign prohibiting or restricting parking on the proscribed property.

Also, some cities and counties may have their own ordinances. The City of Portland, for example, has very specific rules (here). Gresham and Tualatin do as well. Plus, the Oregon Department of Justice has various consumer protection rules against "predatory towing". (here).

For manufactured housing communities, I suggest going much farther than relying on state or local laws. If your community decides to do this, it should be clearly disclosed in the rules and regulations. Of utmost importance is proper visible signage, which can either be created by management, or provided by the towing company you decide to use. Make sure the company has a good reputation in all respects, and no records of consumer complaints.

If the violator is a resident, I suggest one or more warnings (following a protocol in your rules) before having the vehicle towed. Once towed, the car is impounded, and the cost of getting it released is not insubstantial, and the towing company has storage lien rights. If the process is not strictly followed, the owner could have a claim against management for conversion, i.e. the civil side of theft.

Fining is a much safer alternative, but must also follow community rules. The worst that can happen if the fine is levied in error is to rescind it. Making an error in the lead-up or during a tow, can be much more costly to management.

Fines can be enforced with a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630, so long as it is found in the rules. I suggest a warning notice first. Take a picture of it on the car, with the plate visible. Include the date and time. Mail a copy of the notice and the picture to the resident within 7 - 10 days. Use a certificate of mailing.

Make sure there is proper visible signage describing the proscribed area, the times, if applicable, and the amount of the fine.

If the fine increases on multiple violations, describe that, or reference the park rule. Do not make the fine punitive. If other communities have such violations, find out what their fines are. Always use the rule of reason; don't impose a fine that most residents could not afford.

The issue of visitors is somewhat different, but rules may be enforced against the resident whose guest they are. That is why a warning notice should first be given. The notice and picture would go to the resident, who will, hopefully, warn their visitor about obeying marked No Parking signs.

Introduction. Effective July 6, 2023 Oregon Senate Bill 611 amended Oregon’s landlord-tenant Rent Cap law. Section 5 of the Bill applies to manufactured housing tenancies and essentially mirrors the non-manufactured home tenancy section. SB 611 was substantially similar to its predecessor law capped the maximum rent increase at 10%.  For the period October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025, the maximum rent increase is capped at 10%.  This is the same as last year for the same period.

The Rent Cap does not apply if the certificate of occupancy of the dwelling is less than 15 years, or the property is on a state/local/federal affordable housing program.

The Calculation. Unless exempted (discussed below), a rent increase for any calendar year may notexceed the lesser of: (a) ten percent (10%) or (b) the sum of seven percent (7.00%) times the Current Rent(7% X Current Rent) plus the percentage change in the consumer price index (“CPI”) times the CurrentRent (the % of CPI Change X Current Rent), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Rent Cap”).

Publication of Consumer Price Index (“CPI”): This is the annual 12-month average change in theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items). It is published by the Bureauof Labor Statistics (“BLS”) at the end of September of each year. Landlords are to use the CPI numbers that are operational on the date when the rent increase notice is sent.

If a rent increase notice is sent out before the September 30, 2024 CPI numbers are out, landlords must use the current (pre-9/30/2024 CPI calculation). The maximum rent increase will always be between 7.00% and 10%.

Caveat:  Landlords in the City of Portland should note that the SB 611 statewide 10% rental cap does not appear to override the City of Portland’s Relocation Assistance Program requirements under  Portland City Code 30.01.085(c). Any rent increase of 10% or above, even if allowed under SB 611, will trigger a requirement that the landlord pay relocation assistance if their affected tenants request it. There are limited exemptions to Portland’s 10% increase rule. Landlords should consult with an attorney to inquire about exemptions before increasing City of Portland rents more than 9.9%.

MHCO Form 49 (90 Day Rent Increase Notice). We amended the form last year, so no new change is required.[1]  The 2023-2024 rent cap will be operational until Sept 30, 2024.[2]  However, the 2024-2025 Rent Cap of 10% is the same as 2023-2024 after SB 611 became effective.

Form 49 is the 90-day rent increase notice. If landlords wait until the new CPI numbers come out in late September 2024, the earliest the rent increase would go into effect 90 days hence, so essentially January, 2025.

Example. Assuming I issue a 90-day notice on October 1, 2024 using MHCO Form 49,  the Rent Cap would be 10% because the post-Sept. 30, 2024 CPI number is 3.2%, and 10% is less than 10.2% (7% + 3.2%). The earliest my rent increase would go into effect is December 30 (assuming manual delivery or attached and mail – if regular mail, add at least 3 calendar days).

Refresher on Oregon Rent Increases.

Here are points to remember on the entire rent increase issue for park owners:

1. No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Serviceswill calculate and publish in a press release the maximum annual rent increase percentage for thefollowing calendar year as the lesser of:

1. Ten percent; or
2. Seven percent plus the September annual 12-month average change in the Consumer PriceIndex for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as most recently published bythe Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

2. If a tenancy is a week-to-week tenancy, the landlord may not increase the rent withoutgiving the tenant written notice at least seven days prior to the effective date of the rent increase.

3. During any tenancy other than week-to-week, the landlord may not increase the rent:
   1. Without giving the tenant written notice at least 90 days prior to the effective date of therent increase.
   2. More than once in any 12-month period.
   3. By a percentage greater than the Cap.

4. The rent increase notice must specify:
   1. The amount of the rent increase;
   2. The amount of the new rent;
   3. Facts supporting the exemption, and
   4. The date on which the increase becomes effective.

5. A landlord terminating a tenancy with a 30-day notice without cause as authorized by ORS 90.427 (3) or (4) during the first year of a tenancy may not charge rent for the next tenancyin an amount greater than the maximum amount the landlord could have charged the terminated tenancy under this section.

6. A landlord is not subject to the above rent cap rules if:
   1. The first certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit was issued less than 15 yearsfrom the date of the notice of the rent increase; or
   2. The dwelling unit is regulated or certified as affordable housing by a federal, state orlocal government and the change in rent:
   3. Does not increase the tenant’s portion of the rent; or
   4. The increase is required by program eligibility requirements or by a change in the tenant’sincome.

7. A landlord that increases rent in violation of is liable to the tenant in an amount equal tothree months’ rent plus actual damages suffered by the tenant.

8. Tenant Committees. Tenants who reside in a manufactured community may elect one committee of seven or fewer members in a facility-wide election to represent the tenants. One tenant of record for each rented space may vote in the election. Upon written request from thetenants’ committee, the landlord or a representative of the landlord shall meet with the committeewithin 10 to 30 days of the request to discuss the tenants’ non-rent concerns regarding the facility.Unless the parties agree otherwise, upon a request from the tenants’ committee, a landlord orrepresentative of the landlord shall meet with the tenants’ committee at least once, but not morethan twice, each calendar year. The meeting shall be held on the premises if the facility has suitable meeting space for that purpose, or at a location reasonably convenient to the tenants. After themeeting, the tenants’ committee shall send a written summary of the issues and concerns addressedat the meeting to the landlord. The landlord or the landlord’s representative shall make a good faith response in writing to the committee’s summary within 60 days. The tenants’ committee may be entitled to informal dispute resolution under ORS 90.769 if the landlord or landlord’s representative fails to meet with the tenants’ committee or fails to respond in a good faith to the written summary from the committee

[1] Note: Form 49 does not contain a place to insert the facts  supporting the  exemption if the certificate of occupancy is more than 15 years, or the property is on a state/local/federal affordable housing program. Neither does it require landlords to do the calculations under SB 611. It just contains a place to insert the new rent amount.

[2] Note: Form 49 (and the ORLTA) specify a 90-day minimum notice, not a maximum. You can give as much additional notice as you want. You can issue a notice now that increases rent on Jan 1, or you can wait until the new CPI numbers come out and issue a notice 90-day notice for January 2025. Just don’t forget maximum increase is 10% unless subject to an exemption.

Answer. Based upon recent news reports, it appears that, subject to certain exceptions,[1] there will be no effort by the federal Department of Justice to seek out and charge violators of the Controlled Substances Act in those states where the medical or recreational use of marijuana is legal.

Thus, it appears that when it comes to enforcement of park rules and regulations, Oregon landlords are on their own; neither the feds, nor the state, will go after persons with lawfully issued medical marijuana cards. Furthermore, if a tenant has a valid card, then arguably he or she has some medical condition that has authorized its issuance. Is the landlord obligated under the Fair Housing laws to make a "reasonable accommodation" for their medical condition, and permit the tenant to continue their use or grow operation? If properly done, the answer is likely "No." Here's why:[2]

In January 20, 2011, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") issued a Memorandum, the subject of which was "Medical Use of Marijuana and Reasonable Accommodation in Federal Public and Assisted Housing." While the Memo was limited to federal public and assisted housing, it can be regarded as a helpful - though perhaps not a "final" resource - on the issue.[3] It is very complete and helpful for all landlords. It can be found at this link. Here is what the Memo directs:

Public housing agencies '_in states that have enacted laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana must therefore establish a standard and adopt written policy regarding whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance for residents who are medical marijuana users. The decision of whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance to medical marijuana users is the responsibility of PHAs, not of the Department."

Thus, HUD appears to be leaving it up to the state public housing authorities to decide whether the refusal to permit on-premises use of medical marijuana constitutes a fair housing violation. Between the lines, it appears that HUD will not directly investigate such claims, leaving it up to public housing agencies on the state level.

While HUD's pronouncement is directed toward "public housing" is would be hard to believe private housing would be treated any differently. Oregon fair housing law is "substantially equivalent" to federal fair housing law. So, generally speaking, on the issue of medical marijuana, as goes the federal law, so goes state law.

However, in the 2010 case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court held that employers do not have a legal duty to allow employees to use medical marijuana on the job. This case addressed many unanswered questions on the use of medical marijuana in Oregon from an employment perspective. In a subsequent article [found here] by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon it appears that the rationale of the Emerald Steel Fabricators case is helpful for landlords declining to admit new residents with medical marijuana cards - so long as they have an existing policy against the use and cultivation of marijuana in the community.

Thus, it appears that in Oregon, on both the federal and state levels, enforcement agencies are taking a laissez-faire approach to the medical marijuana issue. This means that landlords have it within their control, with little fear of fair housing/reasonable accommodation claims, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises medical or recreational use of marijuana.

However, I do not believe the proscription should be retroactive to tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards who have already signed their rental agreements or leases. Like you, I believe that a court would not be favorable to your situation.

It appears that your resident's medical marijuana card is in order. It must valid and current for Oregon. A California card, for example, would not suffice. [See, State v. Berrenger, 2010].

Conclusion. Yours is a difficult situation. For existing tenants I believe you can legally institute a "no marijuana" policy against recreational and medical use. However, making it retroactive as to persons already holding medical marijuana cards, would be a difficult proposition, since they did not bargain for that when they became residents or when they received their card.

In some instances, and this may not be one, I have seen situations where the resident, under the guise of holding a medical marijuana card, is also selling the drug illegally to others. This situation is most apparent when there are late night visits by unknown persons for short periods of time. If this situation presents itself, and neighbors complain, you may have recourse by issuing a 30-day curable notice of termination for violating ORS 90.740(4)(j) for disturbing the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment. You do not have to raise the marijuana use, just the noise and disruption. Upon a second similar violation within six months of the date of issuance of the first notice, you can issue a 20-day noncurable notice.

[1] The exceptions are: The distribution of marijuana to minors; Directing revenue from marijuana sales to gangs and cartels; Diverting marijuana from states where it is legal to other states where there are no laws allowing for marijuana use; Using legal sales as cover for trafficking operations; Using violence and or firearms in marijuana cultivation and distribution; Driving under the influence of marijuana; Growing marijuana on public lands; Possessing marijuana or using on federal property.

[2]Note: This answer is not intended to constitute legal advice. Readers should consult their own legal counsel to determine how to proceed in these cases, as the correct outcome depends upon the specific facts of each situation.

[3] Note that Oregon has its own set of fair housing laws.

Beginning, then developing the process

In promoting positive, ongoing relationships with residents, we must remember to treat each of them as a valued customer. Expressing interest in their concerns and meeting their needs when problems arise can accomplish this. Contented residents create fewer problems than unhappy individuals, which in the long run affect the owner's bottom line. Rent control is often a result of poor resident relations. Additionally, loss of your valuable time and expensive legal cost can be saved through positive resident relations.

Development of good resident relationships does not just happen, as it is an ongoing process that you have to continually work at. Sound communication skills are a necessity in dealing with residents.

The development of resident relations begins during your first meeting with the resident. We have all heard how important first impressions can be and in this case it is definitely true. It is important to start off courteous and have a positive attitude at all times. Residents want to be treated fairly and with respect. Positive first impressions also include how you are dressed and the professionalism displayed in your mannerisms.

There are three key aspects of communication to consider when dealing with your residents than can lead to positive relationships: verbal communication, nonverbal communications, and written communications.

Verbal Communication

Verbal communication comes down to controlling the tone of your voice and being a good listener. Often the most important factor is not what you say, but how you say it. For example, if you remain calm, with no anger in your voice, you probably can defuse an agitated resident. To help eliminate misunderstandings you must respect the compliant or the message given to you, then clarify it so that both sides understand what is being said. Let the resident know you are listening to them and make them aware that they are being heard.

Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal communication can sometimes reveal more about what you are saying than words you actually speak. Gestures, postures, appearance and facial expressions are examples of nonverbal communication that you should be aware of. Also, it is important that you maintain eye contact with the resident while he or she is speaking. This indicates to them that you are paying attention to what they are saying and that you are interested.

Written Communication

Written communication will play an important role in developing good resident relations. This is an effective way to get across a message or make a point. Your correspondence should be in a short, concise manor and preferably no longer than one page. You should be direct and courteous; avoid being rude, negative or accusatory. Whenever possible, start and end your correspondence with a neutral or positive statement.

While written communication is necessary, it should be not substituted for face-to-face contact. We often see owners and managers try to avoid speaking directly with residents by sending them a written notice or violation letter. The problem with written communication like this is you cannot get all the facts and there may be a reasonable explanation of a violation of which you were unaware. This makes you look uninformed and leaves a negative impression on the resident. Giving residents positive feedback can also help in developing better relationships. If a resident maintains a nice clean space, you should tell them. This lets them know you care and encourages them to continue the positive behavior. After a resident complies with a request to clean up their space, let them know how great it looks and how much you appreciate their cooperation.

In Conclusion

Good resident relations require a well thought-out plan and a commitment on your part to make it work. If you understand your residents and always show a caring, positive attitude when dealing with their concerns, you will see favorable results. Development, and use of good communication skills will make the process much easier and lead to a smoother running community with fewer problem.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) went into effect on March 12, 1989.  That Act amended Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the sale, rental, or financing of residential housing.  The FHAA added two additional protected classes; (1) persons with disabilities and (2) families with children.  Children include persons under the age of 18 years.

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.
2. Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.  Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 
3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 
4. Comply with HUD age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that 80% of the facility be intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older. 

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

The above article is a discussion of the federal Fair Housing law governing 55+ communities.  The contents are not intended to constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon by the reader as such.  All legal questions regarding this complicated and important law should be directed to legal counsel familiar with the area.

© Copyright 2006.  Phillip C. Querin.  No portion may be reproduced without the express written consent of the author.

1. Manufactured Home Set-Up

1. Include provisions limiting owner's responsibility for such conditions as soils, site preparation, foundation stability, final grading, and settling.
2. Include provision that homeowner has examined the home site and accepts the condition, "as-is."

1. Manufactured Home Removal

Include a provision notifying resident that they will be held liable for any damage to the home site or manufactured community in the event there is any damage during removal of the home.

1. Manufactured Home Standards

Include provisions addressing the following items pertaining to the manufactured home itself:

1. Description of the home and all other structures and accessories that will be sited on the home site.
2. Age, make and model of home.
3. Installation of skirting, gutters and downspouts (within prescribed period of time).
4. Awnings, decks and patios (within prescribed period of time).
5. Above ground piping.
6. Landscaping (Within prescribed period of time).
7. Will fences be allowed, and if so, what height, material and color? Who's responsibility will it be to maintain?

1. Maintenance of Home and Home Site.

1. Add provision making resident responsible for maintaining and keeping the exterior of the home clean and in good repair. Require painting or staining of all wooden structures such as decks, hand railings, storage buildings etc. to prevent their visual and/or physical deterioration.
2. Make resident responsible for maintaining all lawn areas, flowers and shrubbery within their space (e.g. regular mowing and weeding of lawns).

1. Can/should owner reserve the right to perform or have performed landscape maintenance which resident fails to perform?

1. Who owns the landscaping improvements upon termination of tenancy? Address exceptions. Have in writing.
2. Storage of personal property (e.g. firewood, toys, tools, patio furniture, garbage cans, etc.)
3. Clothes lines or clothes line poles.
4. Play equipment, its location and visibility.

1. Homeowners and Guests

1. Limit amount of rent to the persons identified in the rental agreement. Require that any additional residents must be approved by the owner prior to move-in, and an additional monthly amount paid as rent.
2. Limit the total number of permanent residents in any home (rule of thumb 2 persons/bedroom plus one).
3. Make resident responsible for the actions of other occupants of the home, its guests, licensees and invitees.
4. Will there be a limitation on conducting business out of the home?
5. Limitations on "obnoxious or offensive activities which owner believes are an annoyance or nuisance to the community."
6. How long may guests remain in community? Consider placing limit (e'g' 14 days consecutively or cumulatively) after which time they must be qualified as a resident.
7. Have prohibitions against unreasonably loud or disturbing noise through parties, radios, televisions, stereo equipment, etc. and include a time. (e.g. 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m.

1. Subletting

1. Will subletting of a home be permitted or must they be owner occupied?
2. Require approval of house sitters for any extended period of time (e.g. in excess of 30 days) prior to occupancy.

1. Sale of Manufactured Home

1. Require that prospective resident-purchasers submit an application for residency and be approved by owner prior to occupancy. See ORS 90.680.
2. Size and location of "For Sale" signs.

1. Utilities

1. How are electrical, garbage, sewer and water services going to be paid?

1. ORS 90.510 permits direct pass through, but only if the rental agreement specifically provides the right to do so.
2. Problem: How do you "convert" from including utilities in base rent to direct pass-throughs?
3. Who pays for T.V. cable service? Can owner contract with provider, and add on an extra charge?

1. Pets

1. Place limits on control, sanitation, number, type and size of pets. Note ORS 90.530
2. May require that pet agreement be signed and proof of liability insurance making landlord co-insured.

1. Common Areas

1. Limit use and address owner's liability (e.g. streets shall not be used as playgrounds by resident or guests. Sidewalks are not meant for use by bicycles, skateboards, tricycles, etc.)
2. Require resident to assume liability for their guests and invitees.
3. If there are recreation facilities, describe them and place limitations on their use.

1. If there is a clubhouse, describe how it may be used. Consider requiring pre-registration for use; strictly limit or prohibit the use of alcohol; limit use of guests without resident present.
2. Note: can require reasonable cleaning deposit; cannot require bond or insurance; cannot prohibit tenant association meetings there.

1. Automobiles and Motorized Vehicles

1. Strictly limit the dumping of motor oils and other caustic or non-biodegradable substance in street drains, sewer systems or the grounds within the community.
2. Place limitations on car repair and storage of inoperable cars.
3. Limit the number of vehicles and location of parking. Be careful about towing violators.
4. Place limits on the parking of commercial vehicles in the community.
5. Limit overnight parking on streets by guests or homeowners
6. Limit speed and vehicle noise within the community.
7. Limit storage of motor homes, campers, trailers, boats, snowmobiles, etc. on residents' space.
8. Limit use of motorcycles and ATV's within the community.

1. Occupancy Guidelines (ORS 90.510(7))

1. Statute provides that "if adopted, an occupancy guideline in a facility shall be based upon reasonable factors and shall not be more restrictive than limiting occupancy to two people per bedroom.
2. Reasonable factors are defined to include (but not necessarily be limited to):

1. The size of the dwelling.
2. The size of the rented space.
3. Any discriminatory impact for reasons identified.
4. Limitation placed on water or sewage disposal.

1. Dispute resolution (ORS 90.610)

1. What is dispute resolution?

It is an alternative to court litigation and most frequently includes mediation and arbitration.

1. Mediation - non binding dispute resolution
2. Arbitration - binding dispute resolution
3. ORS 90.610(1) states that resident and owner '_shall provide for a process establishing informal dispute resolution of disputes that may arise concerning the rental agreement for a manufactured dwelling."
4. Parties to dispute resolution - Resident vs. owner disputes (not resident vs. resident disputes).
5. Types of disputes:

1. Should be limited to rules violations (as opposed to rental agreement issues such as rent).
2. Exceptions:

1. Statutory (Facility closure, facility sale, rent including but not limited to amount, increase and nonpayment) ORS 90.610(7).
2. Charges and fees due under the rental agreement.
3. Matters for which a non-curable notice could be issued (e.g. 24-hour notice; 3-strikes notice; 20-day repeat violation notice).
4. Approval of new residents purchasing home in park.
5. Lease renewal.

1. Query: What about claims (generally arising against the landlord) such as tort claims (e.g. personal injury, trespass, fraud, misrepresentation, Unlawful Trade Practice claims, Fair Housing claims, etc.)? Any such clause must be in writing and signed.

1. Miscellaneous

1. Address the services and facilities you do not provide.

1. For example, security patrol or security systems - encourage residents to exercise reasonable diligence and caution in securing their homes. Ask that if they observe any suspicious or illegal acts to notify the manager and/or the police department.
2. If there are dimly lighted and/or dark areas within the community, say so, and ask that the resident agree to carry a portable light source when walking at night.

1. Include a non discrimination provision.

1. For example, a recital that the owner will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, marital status, familial status, religion, national origin, or handicap, etc.

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.

2.  Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.   Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy

by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 

3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community.This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 

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

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

MHCO Editor's Note:  This summary is extensive with a lot of information.  A PDF copy of the same summary as below is attached above (the attached pdf version may be a more appropriate format) along with five new or revised MHCO forms that will be necessary for your to use for non payment of rent evictions.  These forms are not 'fillable' and can only be found on this web site attached to this article.  As we move through the COVID-19 crisis MHCO will likely be updating and revising these forms - please use the forms on the MHCO web site for the most current.  Thank you for your patience.

By Phillip C. Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

Background. HB 4401 was signed by the Governor on December 23, 2020. It was the product of the Oregon Legislatures Third Special Session. 

Ostensibly, this was to be an extension of the current eviction moratorium that was scheduled to expire on Jan. 1. The new moratorium will now expire on July 1, 2021. However, if an extension was all the legislators sought to accomplish, they exceeded their own stated expectations. Actually, they had to deal also with HB 4213, which was the product of 2020’s First Special Session. 

In response to Covid-19 related financial hardships, the Oregon government passed HB 4213 in mid-2020. The bill prohibited evictions for nonpayment of rents, charges, and fees and no-cause evictions throughout a defined “Emergency Period.” The Emergency Period originally ran from April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020. 

HB 4213 further established an additional six-month elective “Grace Period” during which the tenant could arrange to pay back their accrued rent arrearages. The tenant was required to pay back their outstanding rents, charges, and fees at the end of the Emergency Period unlessthey notified their landlord that they intended to use the additional six months.  The Grace Period originally began at the end of the Emergency Period and ran until March 31, 2020. Landlords were prohibited from filing nonpayment and no-cause evictions based on unpaid rent accrued during the Emergency Period. 

All rents, charges, and fees accruing outside of the Emergency Period still must be paid as agreed under the rental or lease agreements. For-cause evictions were always still available to landlords.

On September 28, 2020, in recognition that Covid-19 hardships were still continuing, Governor Brown issued Executive Order 20-56 which extended the Emergency Period and corresponding prohibition on no-cause and nonpayment residential evictions to December 31, 2020. The executive order did notextend the Grace Period – all back rents, charges and fees accrued between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were still due on or before March 31, 2020.

Unfortunately, what occurs when (a) drafters are rushed, and (b) their work product is not subject to any review or amendment, as was the case with HB 4401, the result is a bill that creates more questions than answers. While it purports to provide funding for landlords who have suffered as a result of the many Executive Orders and makeshift legislation such as HB 4312, the reality is not promising. Why? Because the success of the bill still requires the Oregon Legislature to put some money where its mouthlegislation is – the program must still be funded, and HB 4401 did nothing to address that issue.  

Oregon House Bill 4401.This bill was passed December 21, 2020, and signed by the Governor on December 23, 2020. It accomplished two major objectives[1]:

1) Directing the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department to implement a program for direct aid to landlords reimbursing a percentage of outstanding rents; and 

2) Modifying the Emergency Period and Grace Period created under HB 4213 for tenants who claim financial hardship. 

The Program.  HB 4401 authorizes the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (“OHCS”) to pay residential landlords 80% of unpaid rents due after April 1, 2020 and up to the date of the application, for certain qualified tenants. 

Landlords,[2]or their designees, must apply to OHCS to qualify for distributions for tenants who: 

1. Have not paid rent, and
2. Have submitted a signed Hardship Declaration Form. (OHCS is directed to expedite implementation of the landlord compensation fund but the exact look and function of the program is unknown as of the writing of this summary.)

OHCS will develop an online application system to handle reimbursement requests. The application and related forms will be available in English, and translated for non-English speakers as well.[3]The program will also have more than one application period to assure broader reach and eligibility. It is unclear at this time how many application periods will be available. Landlords should be eligible to apply more than once, state funds allowing, if unpaid rents and fees continue to accumulate after the first application and distribution. 

Landlord application. It will require, at a minimum:

1. A copy of the tenants’ Hardship Declaration Forms;
2. A description of the unpaid rent for all current tenants;
3. An agreement to forgive the remaining 20% of unpaid rent for  tenants accrued between April 1, 2020 and the date of the application;
4. An agreement that, should the landlord receive from the tenant, or on the tenant’s behalf, any portion of the unpaid rent (forgiven or paid through the distribution) within a certain window specified by OHCS, that they will repay OHCS;;
5. An agreement that the landlord is not seeking reimbursement for rents due from immediate family members;[4]
6. An agreement that while the application for reimbursement is pending, the Landlord will not terminate[5]a tenant without cause or for non-payment;[6]
7. Any other information or requested by OHCS in the application;

In order to reach landlords who are struggling the most (i.e. fewer rentable units or a higher percentage of outstanding rents) OHCS may establish qualifications, priorities, restrictions or limits on distributions, which may include:

1. Limits per tenant, per landlord, or per time period; 
2. The number of units a landlord must own; or 
3. The percentage of total rent unpaid.

OHCS may coordinate with the local housing authority to administer the rules and distribute the reimbursement funds. Either OHCS or the appropriate housing authority will notify tenants of the distribution to the landlord on their behalf and the agreed-upon amount of forgiveness to which they are entitled. OHCS may also conduct outreach to landlords and tenants, including non-English speaking parties.

Eviction Moratorium Extension. The Landlord distribution program provisions are set to automatically repeal on January 2, 2023. 

Forms.

Emergency Period and Grace Period Extensions.  For all renters, the Emergency Period (until December 31, 2020)[7]and Grace Period (through March 31, 2021) as defined in HB 4213 remain unchanged, unless:

1. The landlord fails to provide a Notice of Eviction Protection (see MHCO Form 111 below); and
2. The landlord fails to provide tenant with a Tenant’s Hardship Declaration Form (see  MHCO Form 110 below); together with
   1. AnynoticegivenunderSection3(5)(c),chapter13,OregonLaws2020(firstspecial session) (Enrolled House Bill4213);[8]and
   2. Everyterminationnoticefornonpayment of rentdeliveredbeforeJune30,2021;and

c. Anysummonsforevictionbasedonaterminationnoticefornonpayment  delivered before June 30, 2021;

---OR---

3. Tenant fills out and returns the Hardship Declaration Form asserting financial hardship.

Afteratenantdeliversacopyofthe Hardship Declarationto the Landlord,theEmergencyPeriodandendoftheGracePeriodareextendedtoJune 30,2021. During that time, the landlordmaynot takeorattempttotakeanyactiontointerferewithatenant’spossession.

The Hardship Declaration Form. It may be submitted to the landlord at any time, up to and including the first appearance in an action to recover possession. Delivery of the Hardship Declaration Form may result in dismissal of no-cause or nonpayment eviction proceedings during the Emergency Period and Grace Period.

Landlords may not: 

1. Challenge the accuracy of a tenant’s Hardship Declaration in an eviction proceeding;
2. Require additional information beyond what is required by the Hardship Declaration Form; 
3. Demand more than one copy of the Hardship Declaration per household or tenancy; 
4. Prohibit the tenant from submitting a Hardship Declaration in a language other than English if the tenant is using an approved translated form from the courts; 
5. Prohibit the tenant from submitting the Hardship Declaration to the landlord in any manner, format or means available, including but not limited to, a photograph of the document submitted by email or text message.

Evictions During the Emergency and Grace Periods.  Only the following landlord evictions are permitted during either of these two periods:

1. Evictions for violation of a rental agreement, other than non-payment may continue;
2. Evictions for nonpayment occurring before April 1, 2020 may also continue;
3.  “Landlord-cause” evictions[9]are allowed after the first year of occupancy. Landlord cause evictions include:

1. Demolition or converting dwelling unit to non-residential use;
2. Intent to make repairs/renovations to the dwelling unit within a reasonable time, and the building is unsafe/unfit or occupancy or will be unsafe/unfit for occupancy during the repair/renovation period; 
3. Landlord intends for immediate family member to occupy dwelling unit as a primary residence and no comparable units at the same location are available; or 
4. Landlord has accepted an offer to purchase the dwelling unit; purchaser will use unit as a primary residence.[10]

Important Changes to Landlord Nonpayment of Rent Notices.  The 72-hour nonpayment of rent notice under ORS 90.394 is now a 10-day notice ending at 11:59 pm. The 144-hour nonpayment of rent notice is now a 13-day notice ending at 11:59 pm. These changes expire July 1, 2021.[11]

Tenant Relief for Landlord Violations.  Any violation of the above rules may result in the tenant being granted an injunction to recover possession or address any other violations, and the award of the equivalent of three-months rent on top of any actual damages. Landlord’s violation of the above rules will also give the tenant a defense to an eviction. In addition, tenant will be entitled to prevailing party fees, attorney fees or costs and disbursements unlessthe landlord can demonstrate:

1. That they delivered the required Notice of Eviction Protection and Hardship Declaration Form;
2. That they did not know or have reason to know at the time they filed the action that the Hardship Declaration Form had been completed and returned; and
3. That they promptly dismissed the action upon learning of the existence of the completed forms.

Summons and Complaint Forms: Note: Changes resulting from the Eviction Moratorium laws, and HB 4401’s changes to Landlord-Tenant statutory language are reflected in the  Summons and Complaint forms for residential evictions.[12]Summons and Complaint revert to the standard language on July 1, 2021.

Expiration. Under the terms of HB 4401 the provisions related to the eviction moratorium will automatically repeal on July 1, 2021.

Miscellaneous Provisions and Changes to HB 4213. 

1. A landlord may apply a last month’s rent or security deposit to the Nonpayment Balance if a tenancy terminates prior to the end of the relevant Grace Period;
2. Tenants with a Nonpayment of Rent Balance who are still within their Grace Period are not considered to be in default;
3. A landlord may accept partial payment of rents, charges and fees during the Grace Period. It does not constitute a waiver of the landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy for cause; nor to terminate a tenancy for nonpayment after the expiration of the relevant Grace Period;
4. Amendments to HB 4213 expire on September 1, 2021;
5. For all  Nonpayment evictions, the statute of limitations is tolled and does not begin to run against the Nonpayment claim until July 1, 2021. 

Unanswered questions.  In no particular order, here are some questions about HB 4401 that are sure to arise:

• What happens if landlord sends the Hardship Declaration to a tenant, who does not respond?
• Since landlords need the tenant’s Hardship Declaration to complete their application for 80% of their unpaid rent, is the landlord stymied?
• While the landlord will be able to file for eviction after the Grace Period ends under the old law (March 31, 2021), HB 4401 is clear that the tenant can submit the Hardship Declaration as late as the first appearance at the FED, and bring the proceeding to a halt.
• So it’s a bit of a guessing game what tenants will do; ignore the landlord’s Notice of Eviction Protection until an FED is filed, or cooperate with the landlord and sign and return the Declaration? What incentive do tenants have to cooperate, if they can wait until the last minute to submit the Hardship Declaration?  
• In any event, no action can be taken against the tenant who does not cooperate until after March 31, 2021 at the earliest. 
• Since the Legislature has no landlord reimbursement program in place yet, one has to wonder when, and if, it will be of any help now.
• There is no question that the landlord funding will eventually be exhausted, and some will be left out. 
• So, the take-away right now is that landlords should immediatelyreach out to their tenants in arrears, get their Hardship Declarations signed, so the application for reimbursement can be processed as soon as possible. 80% of unpaid rent is better than nothing - which is what could occur if the application is delayed. 

Ø Tenants do benefit by their cooperation, since when the moratorium is extended, they are not at risk of any eviction action until after July 1, 2021.  This is the message landlords need to get out to their tenants.

• Otherwise, a landlord may bring an evictionfornonpaymentofrent,chargesandfeesaccruedfrom April1,2020,toDecember31,2020 immediately after March31,2021. Perhaps this also should be part of the landlord’s message.

[1]The bill also made a few additional changes to Oregon Landlord-Tenant statutes which will be addressed below

[2]“Landlord,” for the purposes HB 4401, includes a manufactured dwelling park nonprofit cooperative.

[3]The bill does not specify which non-English languages OHCS must provide, but specifies later that the Oregon Judicial Department provide translated forms (including the Hardship Declaration Form) in Spanish, Korean, Russian, Vietnamese, and Chinese.

[4]Landlord may not seek reimbursement for any tenants that are immediate family members. For the purposes of this law “immediate family” means: a) an adult person related to the landlord by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership; b)an unmarried parent of a joint child; c) a child, grandchild, foster child, ward or guardian of the landlord; or d) child, grandchild, foster child, ward or guardian of any person listed in (a) or (b). (“immediate family” definition from ORS 90.427)

[5]“Termination notice without cause” means a notice delivered by a landlord under ORS 90.427 (3)(b), (4)(b) or (c), (5)(a) to (c), or (8)(a)(B) or (b)(B) (HB 4213)

[6]“Nonpayment” means the nonpayment of a payment that becomes due during the Emergency Period to a landlord, including a payment of rent, late charges, utility or service charges or any other charge or fee as described in the rental agreement or ORS 90.140, 90.302, 90.315, 90.392, 90.394, 90.560, or 90.630. (HB 4213)

[7]Emergency Period Extended to December 31, 2020 by Executive Order 20-56; confirmed in HB 4401 Section 8 (Amendment to Section 3, Chapter 13, Oregon Laws 2020 (first special session )(Enrolled House Bill 4213))

[8]Under the original version of HB 4213, there is no Section3(5)(c). To find the required contents of the voluntary notice referred to in 2) a., one must look to the new HB 4401 Section 8 and follow the amended language. 

[9]See, ORS 90.427(5)(a)-(d).

[10]Note: This does not include listing or marketing the home for sale. Seller/landlord would have to have a pre-arranged buyer who was willing to buy without inspections, etc., or a tenant who was willing to permit the same with 24-hour notice. Of course, seller/landlord could always make financial arrangements with tenant for concessions.

[11]Amendments to 90.394 (2)(a) and (b). These changes from hour-notices to day-notices affect several other statutes that refer to 90.394. Changes revert to original language on July 1, 2021.

[12]For summons language: see ORS 105.113 (as amended by HB 4401 Section 13); for complaint form: ORS 105.124 (as amended by HB 4401 Section 15)