Search

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.

Answer. If the test of a good or bad form is whether it works, I would say there was nothing wrong with the old form. To my knowledge, we heard of no complaints or claims arising due to problems with the form. However, over time, we hear of more and more issues concerning the use - and abuse - of the service animal designation. In an effort to better assist members, we thought it would be a good idea to review this form, the current rules and regulations, and make changes where appropriate.

As I explained in last week's article, there are several designations that first need to be clarified. A "service animal" under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") is limited solely to dogs that have been individually trained to work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, e.g. guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, or protecting a person who is having a seizure. The ADA does require that landlords make reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities requesting to have a service animal. Note that the term "disability" under the ADA is very, very, broad.[1]

Although service animals must be on leash or harness, they may also be controlled through voice commands or hand signals. Service animals are not "pets." This means, among other things, that certain park rules for pets, such as requiring residents sign a Pet Agreement, cannot be required if it is a service animal. Dogs whose only purpose is to provide comfort or emotional support to a resident do not qualify under the ADA.

Under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, housing providers, including manufactured housing communities, must make also "reasonable accommodations" for persons with disabilities requesting to have an assistance animal for emotional support, or to provide other forms of help.

Similar to service animals, assistance animals are not regarded as "pets," and residents cannot be required to sign a Pet Agreement for them. However, assistance animals are not limited to dogs that have been specially trained. They can include any animal that assists and performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, including emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability.

Lastly, the label "companion animal" is more of a generic term, and the role it serves is what determines which laws will apply.

What follows is a summary of the main issues addressed in MHCO's new Assistance Animal Agreement. Without implying that the Fair Housing Council of Oregon has "endorsed" or "approved" the form, I did consult with them, and their suggestions were very helpful and insightful in developing what you see today.[2]

1. We note in the form that the landlord reserves the right to refuse to permit an animal becoming an assistance animal if:
   1. It has previously caused verifiable and significant damage or injury to persons or property in the Community;
   2. The landlord's insurance carrier would cancel, substantially increase premiums, or adversely change policy terms because of the presence of a certain breed of dog or a certain animal and it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden for Landlord to secure a substitute carrier which would provide coverage for the Animal.[3]
   3. Note, however, that prior to such refusal, a Landlord should secure written verification substantiating the undue financial and administrative burden.

1. The resident with the assistance animal is responsible to see that it conforms to all of the community's rules and regulations, such as being on leash; responsibility for removal of all feces, droppings, etc.; being left unattended outside the home or space.
   1. Consistent with the conduct of all animals and pets in the Community, the assistance animal may not cause any substantial damage (to persons or property), engage in threating behavior, or cause any disturbance to other residents, their guests, or any other third parties in the community.
   2. We confirm in the form that by signing below, the resident confirms that he/she has reviewed the community rules and regulations as they apply to all other animals and pets in the Community. If the resident believes that one or more of the community rules and regulations should not be applied to their assistance animal, the resident is instructed to immediately notify the landlord.

1. Consistent with the community's policy regarding all animals and pets, the resident shall be liable for any losses, damages, claims, and expenses, including attorney fees, directly or indirectly caused by their assistance animal while in the community.

1. In the event of breach of the assistance animal agreement, the landlord reserves the right to terminate it and demand removal within ten days of written notice. A "breach" is defined in the form to mean the occurrence of any event that would constitute a material violation of the agreement or ORS 90.396, as it pertains to their assistance animal. The resident's failure to remove the animal upon demand entitles Landlord to issue a curable Notice of Termination to Resident under ORS 90.630.

1. Given the fact that one never knows for sure if some court might, in the future strike down a provision in our form, we have inserted what is known as a "savings clause." It reads:

"If any portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to be in violation of Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws, it shall be deemed null and void, and the balance thereof shall remain in full force and effect."

1. The form advises residents that if they believe they have a disability that requires their use of an assistance animal, they may request that an accommodation be made. This is MHCO's Reasonable Accommodation Request Form No. 15. A landlord is entitled to obtain reasonable information in order to assist in determining whether the requested accommodation is reasonably necessary because of the disability. However, if a person's disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the landlord, and if the need for the requested accommodation is readily apparent or known, then the landlord may not seek any additional information about that disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation.

1. Lastly, the form reminds the parties that the Assistance Animal Agreement must be signed before the animal will be permitted to occupy the Home/Space as an assistance animal.

[1] An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

See, http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

[2] This is to say that their suggestions pointed out to me where the mines in the minefield were located.

[3] Note that this "burden" must be both "financial" and "administrative." These are legal terms of art, and before getting into a battle you can't win, I suggest you consult with your attorney to understand the application of these two terms as they relate to your particular situation.

In its Charge of Discrimination HUD alleges that the property manager and owner of a 10-unit apartment complex retaliated against the tenant after the tenant informed the property manager that his unwanted conduct toward her daughter was inappropriate given the property manager’s position as landlord. After the tenant confronted the property manager, the property manager took several retaliatory actions, including sending multiple threats of eviction, revoking tenancy privileges, and sending harassing text messages, culminating in seeking to evict the complainant. The tenant felt compelled to leave the unit and seek out alternative, less desirable housing because of the retaliation.

“The deplorable conduct alleged in this case constitutes retaliation that violates the Fair Housing Act,” said Damon Smith, HUD’s General Counsel. “HUD is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of tenants to be free from such retaliation by landlords.”

A United States Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s charge unless any party elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If the Administrative Law Judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the tenant. The judge may also order injunctive relief and other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, as well as payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the resident.

Answer. This issue is not dissimilar to one asked recently where the hospitalized resident's sister came as a concerned family member and, bringing her small child, wanted to stay at the home which was located in a 55+ community.

My response then, s here, is that ORS Chapter 90, like most laws, is enacted to address essentially 80% of the most commonly observed landlord-tenant issues. That leaves the other 20% to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, i.e. as they arise. This situation raises issues that do not have a direct answer under the law.

Here, the issue deals, perhaps more directly, with what authority management has to permit friends and family to reside in the home of the comatose resident? Without some assurance that any of these folks would be permitted to stay in the home, the answer is a bit easier than whether a visiting sister with a small child is in violation of the 55+ park rules (she was not).

The most conservative answer is, to me, the best one; unless there is some basis for granting consent, I would not permit anyone to occupy the home, other than the resident. You have no knowledge of the visitor's backgrounds, and permitting them to encamp in the resident's home could pose problems to other residents.

The Oregon landlord-tenant law contains nothing one could point to that would authorize management to turn over possession to friends and family. Even family alone, should not be permitted access. There are simply too many things that could go wrong, and families can do strange things when a member passes away.[1]

• Like taking items from the home that now belong to the estate;
• Like moving in and claiming the home was "inherited";
• Like selling the home and retaining the proceeds, etc.

And what if the resident recovers? Will there be issues when he/she wants to return home, and one or more persons are staying there? What if valuables are missing?

The take-away is this: Absent some fairly clear instructions from the resident, or the attorney-in- fact under a durable power of attorney, the downside in permitting occupancy far outweighs any upside. Your explanation should be simple and straight forward: Oregon law does not authorize you to turn over possession of a resident's home to any unauthorized third parties. Under no circumstances should you accept any rent payments from them.

Lastly, if the friends and family are already staying in the home, you have a different set of problems. These folks are squatters, in that they did not enter into possession under any legal claim of right. ORS 90.100(43) defines a "Squatter" as:

... a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit. "Squatter" does not include a tenant who holds over as described in ORS 90.427 (7).

Accordingly, you should first try to get them to vacate immediately and peaceably. If they refuse, your only alternative is to file for eviction against them. You do not need a written notice, since this case does not arise under the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. You should contact an attorney familiar with eviction law, who can assist you in using the proper summons and complaint. (See, ORS 105.126) Once filed, the case will proceed in much the same fashion as all other evictions.

[1] Remember that the abandonment law has a specific protocol upon death of a resident living alone. Management is required to secure the home, issue a 45-day letter, and give the estate the same rights as a lienholder, with the obligation to pay storage fees and maintain the home until removal or resale. And no one may occupy the home. See, ORS 90.675(21).

Answer: Making an accommodation like this without a writing is an invitation to problems. You can easily enter into an addendum to the Rental Agreement saying that "Rent will be paid by the 11thof the month, and late after the 15th"(i.e. 4 days per statute).

Under this scenario, a 72-hour Notice could issue no earlier than the 18th(seven days from first date rent is due, per statute). If the Rental Agreement provides that there will be a fine of $X for a bounced check and a late fee of $X, then you're OK to do so.

As to whether you created a problem for yourself by allowing the late payments, I would say "No" so long as you have it in writing. Without a writing there is too much chance for argument as to when rent is late and when a late fee can issue.

MHCO does not have a form for this, but could. I will check.

Lastly, to your question about insisting on a certified check or money order, I would like to see it in the Rules or Rental Agreement, so it is enforceable. If it is not in your rules, you can still tell the client that henceforth, he or she will have to pay the rent by certified check or money order, but you could not enforce it, if they refused.

The rule can simply say: "In the event a Resident's rent check bounces on more than one occasion within any twelve month period, all further payments for the following 12 months shall be paid by certified check or money order."

But this would have to be an amendment to your current rules, following ORS 90.610.

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

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

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

Answer: It means that for month-to-month tenancies, you may not convert from a base rent model to a straight pass-through within 12 months following the date you gave a 90-day rent increase notice under ORS 90.600.

The only exception to this rule is if the rent increase is a part of a formula provided in a fixed term rental agreement (i.e. a lease) that had been entered into one year or more before the conversion to a pass-through program.

Second Question: ORS 90.532(2)(a) (Billing methods for utility or service charges; system maintenance; restriction on charging for water) provides:

****

(2) A landlord may not use a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method as described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(ii) of this section:

(a) For garbage collection and disposal, unless the pro rata apportionment is based upon the number and size of the garbage receptacles used by the tenant.

When it states "number and size of garbage receptacles", is it referring only to bins located at each tenant's space, or can we pro-rata based on the larger trash dumpsters like the 4 yard trash dumpsters our community uses?

Answer: The term "garbage receptacles" is found at four places in ORS Chapter 90. In three of them the term stands alone, and arguably could be construed to refer to either cans or dumpsters. However, only in ORS 90.532(2)(a) does the text add, "used by the tenant." That suggests to me that the drafters intended to limit the term in Subsection (2)(a) to the tenant's garbage receptacles, rather than park-owned dumpsters and bins.

Answer. This sounds to me a problem that transcends the park rules. Based upon your description of these circumstances, you are certainly within your rights to issue a 30-day curable notice under ORS 90.630(1)(a) and (b) for violation of one or more of your park rules (I'd have to read them to say for certain), the rental agreement (same caveat), or ORS 90.740(4)(j) (Tenant Obligations)[1].

You have not mentioned whether the Temporary Occupants are staying there under a written Temporary Occupant Agreement. If so, it is far easier to terminate them, than terminating the tenancy of a tenant who is occupying the space under a signed Rental Agreement.[2]

But the larger problem, from a humanitarian point of view, is what happens after you have all of the offenders removed? The cycle will likely repeat itself somewhere else, and the situation could become even worse for the children. I suggest you have a discussion with the tenants and make it clear that (a) the extra occupants will have to leave, and that (b) some effort should be made to assist the mother and children transition into a stable living environment. Perhaps a little advance research is in order for you, since it sounds as if the children's best interests are not being properly addressed by anyone in the home. See, https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/Offices/Pages/Child-Welfare.aspx

[1] 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.

[2] You need "cause" to terminate both, but there is no 30-day cure period for the Temporary Occupant. See, ORS 90.275.