Search

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)

Answer: Disclaimer: Certain folks, especially those of the regulatory bent, will likely disagree with my answer. The reason stems, I believe, from one of four sources: (a) Rigid (some might say "stubborn" or "dogmatic") adherence to a law or regulation, regardless of how illogical and silly it may be; (b) A belief that everyone is a victim, and deserves to pampered and coddled even in the face of obvious evidence they are gaming the system; (c) Political correctness run amok; or (d) A combination of some or all of the preceding causes.

Whew! I feel better already!

I admit I am one of those folks who have watched in disbelief as some residents have taken the most outlandish positions in an effort to keep a pet they know full well violates the community rules. I recently saw a situation where a new tenant, knowing that the community did not permit pets, moved in and promptly moved her large dog in to live with her, having paid to get the necessary sham certifications and paperwork online, no questions asked.

Here are some general rules:

• The Americans with Disabilities Act, or "ADA" does not apply to private residential housing - only public accommodations.
• ORS 659A.143 governs the use of assistance animals in public accommodations. The rules seem rational and reasonable.
• The Fair Housing Act applies to the use of assistance animals in housing.
• HUD has set out the issues to be vetted for a landlord to make a determination whether to grant a resident the right to have an assistance animal.
• Assistance animals are not pets, and accordingly, pet rules do not strictly apply (such as requiring pet deposits).
• You do not have to accept just any animal as an assistance animal. If it requires some additional cost to the landlord, it is not required. (See, HUD article here.)

The Fair Housing law basically requires that if one has a disability, they may request that their landlord grant them a "reasonable accommodation" - that is, an exception to the community rules, allowing the resident permission to do that which is otherwise prohibited.

Thus, size limits don't strictly apply. And occasionally, residents attempt to have a second pet, claiming that it isn'ta "pet," but an assistance animal. However, here is where the line blurs. How far does the landlord have to bend to accommodate residents, especially in those situations where the resident is gaming the system?

MHCO has forms for dealing with requests for reasonable accommodations, whether they be a non-compliant animal, or some other issue, such as an additional parking space, etc. First and foremost, I suggest following the same protocols in all cases, from the legitimate to the illegitimate.

Secondly, I suggest following the 3-prong test (besides cost, which doesn'treally apply in most cases) as follows: Would granting of the request endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of other residents or guest in the community. If the resident, for example, asks to have a pit bull as an assistance animal, it is not altogether unreasonable, after vetting the dog's demeanor, socialization, etc., to propose another less aggressive animal as a "reasonable accommodation."

Third, for such breeds with known vicious propensities, you should check with your liability insurance carrier to see if they have a short list of animals they will not insure if there is an attack. If the carrier says the animal is on that short list, then you should propose another less aggressive animal.

Then there are cases in which the request is clearly a ruse to get a pet approved as an assistance animal, when and it is clear to any reasonable person, it is a ruse. You will have to decide on your own, or with the assistance of your attorney, how to proceed. If, after giving the resident the MHCO form to complete, you are satisfied that it is a ruse, you are going to have to decide whether to call their bluff, or relent. If you relent, you will have done so only after requiring them to complete the necessary paperwork. However, be prepared for more copycats - pardon the pun.

1. If the tenant, in violation of the rental agreement, keeps on the premises a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property, the landlord may deliver a written notice specifying the violation and stating that the tenancy will terminate upon a date not less than 10 days after the delivery of the notice unless the tenant removes the pet from the premises prior to the termination date specified in the notice. If the pet is not removed by the date specified, the tenancy shall terminate and the landlord may take possession in the manner provided in ORS 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) to 105.168 (Minor as party in proceedings pertaining to residential dwellings).

1. For purposes of this section, a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property means an animal that, because of the nature, size or behavioral characteristics of that particular animal or of that breed or type of animal generally, a reasonable person might consider to be capable of causing personal injury or property damage, including but not limited to, water damage from medium or larger sized fish tanks or other personal injury or property damage arising from the environment in which the animal is kept.

1. If substantially the same act that constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given under subsection (1) of this section recurs within six months, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement upon at least 10 days written notice specifying the breach and the date of termination of the rental agreement.

1. This section shall not apply to any tenancy governed by ORS 90.505 (Definition for ORS 90.505 to 90.840) to 90.840 (Park purchase funds, loans). [Formerly 91.822; 1995 c.559 _28; 1999 c.603 _25]

While I suppose there is an argument that this statute doesn'tapply, since it pertains to "pets," I believe that argument begs the question, since it is your position that these are pets disguised as "assistance animals." If the resident believes you're prepared to commence an eviction proceeding, perhaps they will relent. If not, the judge can decide. Of course, be prepared for the resident to bring in some doctor, chiropractor, or therapist, to claim the resident needs the animal for some protected purpose.

If the animal is dangerous, I strongly believe you are correct to take the issue to the mat, since doing nothing could result in injury to a resident or guest, and you can be sure you will then be accused of permitting the animal to remain when you should not have. Unfortunately, these issues can become expensive, and there is no assurance of victory in court.

It is possible for you and your attorney to develop some type of agreement which closes the loophole that is occurring at your community. I can envisage language that with the proper recitals and provisions, would give you more protection than you now have. However, as we know, until the matter is litigated, you'll never know if the form is bullet-proof. But having it in place is probably better than where you are now, and would likely make a resident think twice about trying to play the "support animal" card, if the agreement expressly says the animal is a pet and that was the sole reason for their wanting it.

Answer: Here is a quick primer on ORS 90.727, the hazard tree statute, which was enacted in the 2013 Legislative Session:

Oregon Law.

1. Definitions.

• "DBH" means the diameter at breast height, which is measured as the width of a standing tree at four and one-half feet above the ground on the uphill side.

• "Hazard tree" means a tree that:
  • Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;
  • Measures at least eight inches DBH; and
  • Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, to pose an unreasonable risk of causing serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property in the near future.

1. Habitability. A rented space is considered uninhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree required by the 2013 Act.

1. Resident Duties re Trees Located on Space. A resident shall maintain and water trees, including cleanup and removal of fallen branches and leaves, on the rented space for a manufactured dwelling except for hazard trees.

• "Maintaining a tree" means removing or trimming a tree for the purpose of eliminating features of the tree that cause the tree to be hazardous, or that may cause the tree to become hazardous in the near future.
• "Removing a tree" includes:
  • Felling and removing the tree; and
  • Grinding or removing the stump of the tree.

4. Landlord Duties re Hazard Trees.

• Landlord shall maintain a hazard tree that was not planted by the current resident if the landlord knows or should know that the tree is a hazard tree;
• Landlord may maintain a tree on the rented space to prevent the tree from becoming a hazard tree;
  • Must provide residents with reasonable written notice and reasonable opportunity to maintain the tree themselves.
• Landlord has discretion to decide whether the appropriate maintenance of a hazard tree is removal or trimming.
• Landlord is not responsible for:
  • Maintaining a tree that is not a hazard tree; or
  • Maintaining any tree for aesthetic purposes.
• A landlord must comply with the access provisions of ORS 90.725 before entering a resident's space to inspect or maintain a tree. [Generally, 24-hour notice. - PCQ]
• Subject to the preceding, a resident is responsible for maintaining the non-hazard trees on the resident's space at the resident's expense.
  • The resident may retain an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture to inspect a tree on the resident's space at the resident's expense;
  • If the arborist determines that the tree is a hazard, the resident may:
    • Require the landlord to maintain the tree as a hazard tree; or
    • Maintain the tree at the resident's expense, after providing the landlord with reasonable written notice of the proposed maintenance and a copy of the arborist's report.

1. Tree Obstructing Removal of Home From Space. If a manufactured home cannot be removed from a space without first removing or trimming a tree on the space, the owner of the home may remove or trim the tree at the owner's expense, after giving reasonable written notice to the landlord, for the purpose of removing the home.

1. Use of Landscape Professional. The landlord or resident that is responsible for maintaining a tree must engage a landscape construction professional with a valid landscape license issued pursuant to ORS 671.560 to maintain any tree with a DBH of eight inches or more.

1. Access to Resident's Space [ORS 90.725].

• An "emergency" includes but is not limited to:
  • A repair problem that, unless remedied immediately, is likely to cause serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property;
  • The presence of a hazard tree on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park.
• An "unreasonable time" refers to a time of day, day of the week or particular time that conflicts with the resident's reasonable and specific plans to use the space.
• "Yard maintenance, equipment servicing or grounds keeping" includes, but is not limited to, servicing individual septic tank systems or water pumps, weeding, mowing grass and pruning trees and shrubs.
• A landlord or a landlord's agent may enter onto a rented space to:
  • Inspect or maintain trees;
  • A landlord or the landlord's agent may enter a rented space solely to inspect a tree despite a denial of consent by the resident if the landlord or the landlord's agent has given at least 24 hours' actual notice of the intent to enter to inspect the tree and the entry occurs at a reasonable time.
  • If a landlord has a report from an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture that a tree on the rented space is a hazard tree that must be maintained by the landlord under this Act, the landlord is not liable for any damage or injury as a result of the hazard tree if the landlord is unable to gain entry after making a good faith effort to do so.
• If the resident refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access or may terminate the rental agreement pursuant to ORS 90.630 (1) and take possession in accordance with the Oregon eviction statutes. In addition, the landlord may recover actual damages.

1. Statement of Policy. It shall include the facility policy regarding the planting of trees on the resident's rented space. [See ORS 90.510]

Discussion. It is not clear to me whether your arborist knows what a "hazard tree" is under ORS 90. 727. Cutting the roots may make the tree more dangerous, but under the statutory definition, to be a "hazard tree" it must measure at least eight inches in diameter at breast height ("DBH")[1]. If it does, then you have the primary responsibility. If it does not then your rules would appear to apply.

However, even though the tree is not of sufficient size to be a hazard tree under the statute, I think the discussion merits a closer look. Assuming it was in existence at the time the resident rented the space, what the rule seems to say is that even though the landlord owns the ground and the tree, it becomes the tenant's responsibility once leased. As to small trees and normal vegetation, I can understand this rule. But the larger the tree, the more the argument becomes one of "cost shifting" i.e. requiring a resident to undertake possibly expensive measures (e.g. removing the tree) for the benefit of the landlord's property. This issue, in fact, was the rationale behind the hazard tree legislation.

Oregon law provides that park landlord have certain habitability obligations to residents. ORS 90.730(3)(g) provides:

Excluding the normal settling of land, a surface or ground capable of supporting a manufactured dwelling approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained to support a dwelling in a safe manner so that it is suitable for occupancy. A landlord's duty to maintain the surface or ground arises when the landlord knows or should know of a condition regarding the surface or ground that makes the dwelling unsafe to occupy; (Italics mine.)

Although the statute does not refer to driveways and other amenities on the space, it does refer to the "dwelling", which includes the skirting. Does the tree root make it "unsafe". Probably not, if safety refers just to personal safety and not safety of the property.

However, ORS 90.135 (Unconscionability) provides that a resident may argue that shifting the responsibility for maintenance of landlord-owned property - in this case - a non-hazard tree not planted by the resident that is causing damage to residents' property, is "unconscionable". The statute provides:

If the court, as a matter of law, finds: (a) A rental agreement or any provision thereof was unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision, or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result; ***

Conclusion. I am not saying management is, per se' responsible. But what I am saying is that this is a risk that is better shouldered by a landlord, than a tenant, especially here, where the tree existed before the tenancy, and it ultimately belongs to the landlord.

Note, this may be an insurance issue. Can the residents file a claim with their carriers for the tree damage? This depends on their coverage. In the final analysis, the tree should be removed, since it will continue to damage the tenants' property. At some point they could file a claim against you for the cost of that damage. Why not remove the tree now and avoid any further issues?

[1] Technically, it is measured at four and one-half feet above the ground on the uphill side.