Search

Answer: Yes, you can close the restroom and the laundry facility, but you will need to jump through a few legal hoops to do it.

Under Oregon law, a landlord cannot unilaterally make a change if it "works a substantial modification of the bargain" unless the RV tenant consents in writing. (Note: This differs from the rule change notice and voting procedure for mobile home tenants. That procedure does not apply to RV tenants.)

While you could try getting the written consent of all of your RV tenants, I doubt very much that they would agree to it. Most tenants are not willing to voluntarily give up services provided as part of their rent.

My recommendation has always been to issue either 30-day or 60-day no-cause tenancy termination notices to all RV tenants, coupled with an offer to sign a new rental agreement. The new rental agreement would include a provision specifying that the park will no longer provide a public restroom or laundry. If tenants choose to stay, they would need to sign the new agreement agreeing to the change. If not, they would need to vacate the park or face an eviction action.
Assuming your RV tenants are on a month-to-month rental agreement, a 30-day notice could be issued to any RV tenant who has been a tenant for less than a year. If the tenant has been in the park for a year or longer, it would require a 60-day notice. (Although I would recommend the same 60-day timeline for all RV tenants to avoid any claims of unfairness.)

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

Form 1099 and Protecting Your Investment Article provided by Kathleen Landau, Accounting Manager for Commonwealth Real Estate Services since 2009. Kathleen brings over 20 years of accounting experience and knowledge to the Commonwealth team, and as a multi-site property owner herself, understands the unique needs facing property investors and small business owners. ### So before I give you another accounting rule we are enforcing, let me say the goal is to protect your investment! We live in a very litigious society and need to be aware of potential risks and ways to protect our assets. Commonwealth employees are insured through workers' compensation policies and also provided regular training regarding workplace safety. Another area we are striving to improve risk management and compliance is in the area of hiring contractors. When a contractor is hired, the onsite manager must obtain verification that the contractor is licensed, bonded, and insured. In addition, a Form W-9 must be provided for purposes of reporting non-employee compensation on a Form 1099-Misc at the end of the year. The downturn in the economy resulted in many contractors allowing their insurance and licensing to lapse. We are currently working on two projects to confirm all contractors are still in compliance. The first will be a "preferred vendor" list by location. Commonwealth is compiling lists by geographic areas of approved vendors so in an emergency situation your onsite manager or regional manager knows what vendors have up-to-date information on file. Secondly, we will be combining this vendor list with our accounting program to alert us when we need to update the insurance information. The reason to remind our customers of this policy is that some may have "tried and true" contractors that would not be eligible to work at the communities unless they can provide the necessary information requested OR become an employee to complete the task you wish to hire them for. I mention the latter as it is a legal remedy to tackling some of the small jobs that may be better served by hiring specialized temporary employees through agencies. Another option is hiring an individual on a task by task basis for their special skill. Commonwealth wants to be sure we are doing our best to protect your investment by limiting your risk exposure, both legal and financial, associated with contractors working at your communities. Another reminder is that we do send 1099-Misc forms to all contractors annually. The form 1099-Misc reports all non-employee compensation. Amounts paid for employee compensation are reported on a Form W-2. Employees cannot receive a 1099-Misc and Form W-2 from the same employer for similar work. In order to keep away from any proof of control issues, our company policy is to send a W-2 to all employees and make sure all compensation for that individual runs through payroll. All independent contractor payments are reported on a 1099-Misc.

Answer: The tenant application process is one of the least understood by landlords and managers. This lack of familiarity can result in significant liability to park owners. Here is a short primer:

Screening Criteria. The manufactured housing section of Oregon's landlord-tenant law provides that any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser who will live in the community should be disclosed in the existing resident's rental or lease agreement.(1) Although those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal laws, there are no limitations or restrictions as to what criteria may be placed in the rental or lease agreement.

If you are changing your screening criteria for existing residents, you may be in violation of Oregon law, since those criteria are supposed to already be in the rental agreement, which, as you know, cannot be unilaterally amended by a landlord - subject only to specific exceptions.

MHCO's rental (Form 5A) and lease agreement (Form 5B) forms contain a number of criteria that landlords may impose, such as: (a) prior rental references; (b) unsatisfactory credit history or no credit history; (c) character references; (d) criminal history; (e) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly space rent and other expense obligations imposed by the rental or lease agreement; (f) the presence, number and size of pets; (g) age verification criteria if the park is a 55+ facility; (h) evidence of falsified or misleading material information; (i) refusal to sign a written lease or rental agreement; (j) additional occupants; and (k) adverse public record information.

Note that in 2013, the Oregon Legislature changed the law as it relates to "criminal history." Now, landlords and managers may not summarily reject a prospective tenant for "any" criminal history. Today, it is limited to:

- Pending criminal charges, or
- Prior criminal convictions, if they resulted from crimes that are:
o Drug-related;
o Against persons;
o Sexual in nature;
o Fraudulent in nature; or
o That could adversely affect the property, health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of the landlord, landlord's agents, or tenants.

To remind landlords and managers, MHCO will be adding these clarifications to its rental and lease agreement forms. In the meantime, landlords and managers should adhere to the new limitations described above.

Although there may be other criteria that landlords and managers may wish to use when deciding whether to accept an applicant, the above list in the MHCO form is very comprehensive, and should be sufficient in imposing adequate guidelines when a resident wishes to sell their home on site. If you want to make a change by adding additional screening criteria, you may only do so for new residents coming into the community - not retroactively for existing residents.

Landlords and managers should become familiar with the criteria imposed in their rental agreements and rental application forms. Additionally, they should not rely upon the application information submitted to them without a thorough background check providing necessary verification. Although Oregon law imposes a 7-day or 10-day period (2) within which landlords have to respond to a submitted application, it does not prohibit landlords from imposing a longer period so long as the applicant agrees. Additionally, Oregon law expressly states that the 7-day or 10-day period does not commence if the application is incomplete or inaccurate. Accordingly, landlords and managers would be wise to immediately return any submitted application if it is incomplete - and upon discovering that the prospective tenant/purchaser provided inaccurate information, the application should also be returned. Accepting an incomplete application or continuing with the process after discovering that the applicant has provided incorrect information can result in an argument by the existing tenant or the new applicant that the landlord is intentionally delaying the process.

Conclusion. Landlords would have fewer tenant problems if they took more time during the screening process. This means resisting the temptation to fill a space quicker than the approval process actually takes. Unfortunately, the desire to have the rental flow commence quickly can result in the process becoming rushed. Landlords and managers should never allow the applicant to rush them. Nor should they ever permit an applicant to move into a home before the process has been completed and a new rental agreement signed. Lastly, fairness and uniformity in screening will help to avoid the ever-present liability that can occur under the federal and state Fair Housing laws when one applicant claims they were treated differently than another.

1 Although the law provides that the screening criteria must be in the rental or lease agreement, they may also be found in the rules and regulations. While there is no problem with this, other than redundancy, landlords should be careful to make sure that the criteria are the same. Similarly, the criteria may also be put in the Statement of Policy, but similar caution should be exercised to make them consistent. My approach is however, to avoid the risk of inconsistency by not repeating the same requirements in multiple documents. If one document gets changed and the others don't there will be an inconsistency.

2 The longer period exists if the tenant failed to give the landlord at least 10-days advance notice of intent to sell his/her home.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

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

There are two ways to prove a fair housing violation, Williams explained. The first and most common is to show intentional discrimination-what's known as disparate treatment. In these cases, the issue is whether people in similar situations were treated differently, and if so, whether that different treatment was due to that person's protected category.

The second is what's known as disparate impact. It's used to challenge a housing policy that on its face is neutral-that is, it doesn'tappear to favor one protected category over another-but when the policy is applied, it has a significantly negative impact or effect on one protected category. These cases are always based on statistical analyses using either national or local data, Williams said. It's this second category that was the focus of HUD's new guidelines on criminal background checks.

To illustrate why the use of criminal screening policies have been causing such concern, Williams cited a recent study showing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. According to the study, one in every three black males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in their lives; this compares with one in every six Latino males, and one in every 17 white males. "Racial minorities are more likely than white Americans to be arrested," according to the report. "Once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences." The conclusions of this and other similar studies have resulted in a bipartisan effort to improve the criminal justice system to remove this apparent racial bias.

Overview: HUD General Counsel Announcement

In a nutshell, HUD's new guidelines explain how the agency will evaluate fair housing claims based on the disparate impact that criminal background screening policies may have on racial and ethnic minorities. Williams explained the three-step process:

Step 1: The plaintiff must prove that a community's neutral criminal history screening process has a significant disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics. The plaintiff could be an individual, an advocacy agency, a testing agency, or an enforcement agency like HUD or the Justice Department. To satisfy this step, the plaintiff needs statistics showing that African Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at a significantly higher rate than whites using local or national statistics. In most cases, it's not difficult to provide these statistics. If the evidence ends, the plaintiff wins.

Step 2: Then it's up to the housing provider to identify a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory business interest accomplished by the policy. One obvious reason is to improve safety and security, but HUD warns that bald assertions based on generalizations and stereotypes aren'tenough. It takes more than a personal preference to screen out all ex-offenders to justify a criminal screening policy-you'll need some statistical support for your policy. If the evidence ends, the housing provider wins.

Step 3: In the final step, the plaintiff gets another chance to win the case with proof that a different policy would meet the interests of the housing provider but do so with a much less discriminatory impact. This is where the content of your criminal history screening policy can be challenged unless the policy is narrowly tailored to meet the ultimate purpose of the policy-to protect safety, for example-without denying housing to many applicants with a criminal record who may not actually pose a risk to your property.

The bottom line: To defend your policy, you'll need to show that it accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to residents' safety-and conduct that does not. For that, you'll need to consider statistics about recidivism-that is, the likelihood that a person convicted of a particular crime in the past is likely to be re-arrested for another crime in the future.

As an example, Williams cited a study showing that the likelihood of re-arrest following release from prison goes down over time. Although nearly half of the subjects were rearrested, it was much more likely to happen during the first few years after release. By the end of the eight-year study, arrest incidents dropped down to the point where the percentage of those re-arrested was close to anyone else-including those without a past criminal record.

Another example was a report on the kinds of crimes most often committed after release from prison. In that study, the most common felony resulting in a re-arrest was assault-at 24 percent-and the least were rape and homicide, at less than 2 percent each.

You don't have to become a criminal justice expert as long as you understand that disparate impact cases rise and fall on statistics, Williams said. These and many more studies are available to plaintiffs when challenging criminal history policies, so you should take them into account when reviewing your own policies.

TIME OUT!

Statutory Exemptions from Fair Housing Liability

When evaluating your criminal background screening criteria, consider the "statutory exemptions" from fair housing liability:

Manufacturing and distribution of drugs: Applicants with criminal convictions related to manufacturing and distribution of controlled substances as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act can be excluded. Keep in mind, however, that a large percentage (30 percent of the entire U.S. prison population, according to FBI reports) has some type of criminal history based on drug offenses, so you should be careful when it comes to convictions for less serious offenses, such as drug possession.

Sex offender registries-lifetime registrants: Rejecting a registered sex offender (especially those who are required to register for life) is stated as a statutory exemption under the HUD tenant selection plan, Richer said. Many market-rate communities also accept this practice since there is a significant financial, safety, and reputational risk.

But beware: Sex offender registry websites in California, Nevada, and New Jersey have clauses prohibiting use of the sex offender registry information for housing eligibility. Even in those states, Richer believes that federally funded housing under HUD programs would probably still be eligible to use state registry information, but you should check with your attorney to confirm your company's position.

This is the first of four articles. Look for 'part 2' next week on MHCO.ORG.

Senate Bill 586 becomes law on January 1, 2020. It amends several landlord-tenant laws, but for purpose of this article, we will focus on the new mediation laws it enacted.

Participation. If any landlord or tenant initiate a request for mediation, participation is mandatory. 

Types of Disputes Subject to Mediation. Generally, they relate to landlord or tenant compliance with the rental agreement or with the provisions of  ORS Chapter 90 (Oregon’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Laws). Specifically, they may include the following: 

• Landlord or tenant conduct within the facility; and
• The modification of a rule or regulation under ORS90.610.

Types of Disputes Excluded From Mediation.Unless all parties agree otherwise, nopartymayinitiatemediationfor:

• Facility closures consistent with ORS90.645 or 90.671;
• Facility sales consistent with ORS 90.842 to 90.850;
• Rent increases consistent with ORS 90.600;
• Rent payments or amounts owed;
• Tenant violations alleged in termination notices given under ORS 90.394 (Nonpayment of Rent), and non-curable notices under 90.396 (24-Hour Notices) or 90.630(8) (3-Strike Notices);
• Unauthorized person in possession under ORS 90.403;
• Unless initiated by the victim, dispute involving allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking or a dispute between the victim and the alleged perpetrator; and
• Disputes arising after the termination of the tenancy, including under ORS 90.425 (Personal Property Abandonment), 90.675 (Manufactured Home Abandonment) or 105.161 (Writs of Execution).

Parks Required to Have a Mediation Policy.It must include the following:  

• The process and format to initiate mediation;
• The names and contact information, including thephone number and website address, for mediation services available through the referral program provided by the Housing and Community Services Department established under ORS 446.543 (2) and any other no-cost mediation service acceptable to thelandlord;
• Information explaining the following requirements:
  • It may be initiated by the landlord or tenant contacting the Housing and Community Services Department in their required format;
  • It may not resolve any matters except by the agreement of all parties; [Note: we interpret this to mean that neither party can be compelled to reach agreement on any matter against their consent. However, we do not interpret this to mean that both parties must agree in advance as to which topics will go to mediation (assuming they are not otherwise beyond the scope of the law)].
  • All communications from all parties are held strictly confidential and may not be used in any legal proceedings. 
  • Mediation may be used toresolve:
    • Disputes between the landlord and one or more tenants,initiated by any party; and 
    • Disputes between any two or more tenants, initiated only by the landlord.
  • A party may designate any person, including a non-attorney, to represent their interests, provided that the designee must have the authority to bind that party to any resolution of thedispute;
  • Must comply with any other provisions as the Housing and Community Services Department may require byrule; and
  • Parties must participate in mediation (a) by making a good faith effort to schedule mediation within 30 days after it is initiated, (b) attending and participating in mediation and (c) cooperating with reasonable requests of the mediator.

MHCO Form No. 4 (Mediation Policy).  This form summarizes Senate Bill 586, and should be given to all new residents after January 1, 2020.  A landlord may unilaterally amend a rental agreement or facility rules and regulationstoSB 586.  PCQ Comment: MHCO has a form (No. 4) available to its members to make the unilateral amendment for existing residents. If your current policy conflicts with the new law, or you simply want to update it, we suggest sending the unilateral amendment to current residents. For new residents, Form 4 should become a part of their rental agreement, rules, and statement of policy.

Pending Claims.After mediation has been initiated and while it is on going,any statute of limitations related to the dispute is suspended (aka “tolled”). Additionally, after the mediation has been initiated, a party may not file a legal action related to the dispute, including an action for possession under ORS105.110 (“FED”).

Continuing Duties During Mediation. The tenant must continue paying their rent. However, receipt of such payment is not subject to landlord waiver under ORS 90.412(2) so long as it is refunded (if appropriate) within 10 days following the conclusion ofmediation.

Miscellaneous.  SB 586 does not require any party to:

• Reachanagreementonanyof the issues submitted to mediation;
• Participate in more than one mediation session or participate for an unreasonable lengthoftimeinasession;or
• Waive or forgo any rights or remedies or the use of any other available informal dispute resolutionprocess.
• A mediator in the mandatory mediation must notify the Housing and Community Services Department as to whether the dispute was resolved - but may not provide the department with the contents of any resolution;
• If a party refuses to participate in good faith in a requested mediation or uses mediation to harass another party, the other party:
  • Has a defense to a claim related to the subject of the dispute for which mediation was sought;and
  • Is entitled to damages of one month’s rent against that party.

PCQ Note:Although unrelated to mediation, SB 586 also provides that the Housing and Community Services Department shall award grants to persons to provide legal representation to low-income facility tenants in addressing disputes involving legal matters arising under ORS Chapter 90;

Failure to make reasonable accommodations for a rental applicant or tenant with a disability is, perennially, the most common type of fair housing complaint, accounting for nearly 60 percent of all cases, according to HUD. Many, if not most of these complaints, involve assistance animals. So, that’s where we’ll start our analysis.

Spot the Discrimination Mistake

A landlord threatens to evict a tenant with disabilities for keeping a stray cat in her apartment in violation of the community’s no-pets policy. The tenant says the cat helps her cope with mental anxieties and asks for an exemption. The landlord says no because the cat has no special training or certification in assisting the disabled.

Pitfall: HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) interpret the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) duty to make reasonable accommodations as requiring exemptions to no-pet policies necessary to enable individuals with disabilities to keep “assistance animals” that directly assist with a disability-related need. “Assistance animals” include dogs or other common domestic household animals that do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for individuals with disabilities. Significantly, assistance animals need not have any specific certification or training. By contrast, under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) duty to accommodate applies onlyto “service animals” trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.

Thus, while the refusal of the landlord in our scenario to accommodate the stray cat might have been okay under the ADA, it violated the FHA.

Example: A Pennsylvania federal court ruled that the DOJ had a legally valid claim against a landlord that took the same position as the landlord in our scenario, and allowed the case to go to trial [United States v. Perry Homes, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87064, 2022 WL 3021040].

Solution: Keep in mind that neither assistance animals nor service animals count as pets and that, unless the ADA applies, you must accommodate both to the point of undue hardship. You may, however, ask for information about the relationship or connection between the disability and need for the assistance animal to the extent the disability is non-observable and/or the animal provides therapeutic emotional support. In addition, you don’t have to accept an assistance or service animal that would create an unreasonable risk of harm, injury, or damage to property.

You Make the Call: Did the tenant have a valid claim for refusing to make reasonable accommodations?

Answer: Yes

Ruling: The Pennsylvania federal court denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment. To qualify for punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that a landlord’s denial of a reasonable accommodation “involves malicious intent or reckless or callous indifference” to the rights of others. The court concluded that the facts the tenant alleged were enough to allow a court to reach that conclusion and gave her the green light to try to prove those claims at trial [United States v. Dorchester Owners Ass’n, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432].

Takeaway: HUD Guidelines expressly state that you can’t make individuals with disabilities pay extra fees or deposits as a condition for receiving a requested accommodation. That includes charges for an assistance animal necessary to assist a person with a disability. In other words, if it’s reasonable for the applicant or tenant to have the animal, you must allow it without any additional charges. However, what you can do is hold the tenant responsible for any actual damage the animal does to the apartment after the lease ends. You can also hold the tenant accountable if the animal violates building rules, such as by creating a danger or nuisance to others in the building.

Answer: Your question does not mention any activity by this visitor that could be considered disruptive to current residents (e.g. under the peaceful enjoyment statute, ORS 90.740(4)(j)), threatening, or a violation of any laws, rules, or ordinances. As you know, most park rules, as well as Oregon's landlord-tenant laws, make residents responsible for the conduct of their guests. Thus, if the guest is doing something disruptive, threatening, or illegal, your first step should be to notify the resident and ask that the visitor not engage in the bad behavior. If it continues, a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1)may be in order.

From time-to-time, I have seen situations where the person coming into the community has not been invited, and the resident tolerates their presence, but does not - or cannot - control their activities while there. Oftentimes, the visitor is a younger family member, and the resident is an elderly parent.

Under these circumstances (including those in which you simply do not want to issue the resident a 30-day notice), where the activities are disruptive, threatening, or illegal, a trespass notice may be in order. However, before doing so, you should contact your local law enforcement jurisdiction for directions. This is because they may have their own rules on how they will respond and under what circumstances. For example, they may say that the notice has to be served on the visitor, i.e. it isn'tenough to give it to the resident to give to the visitor. They may want the notice to contain specific language, and certainly be clear enough that the officer believes they have authority to remove the visitor.

The form of the notice must be clear and unequivocal. For example[1]:

"NO TRESPASSING NOTICE

TO: ___________________________

You are not a current resident at ______________________ (the "Community"). On ______, _____, and ______, you have visited _____________________, at Space __________. In each instance you became engaged in a verbal altercation with _______ and ___________, both of whom are residents. In each instance, police were called to quiet things down, and remove you from the Community.

Accordingly, this is to notify you that inasmuch as you are not an approved resident in the Community, and your presence has been consistently disruptive to other residents while here, you will no longer be permitted to enter any portion of the Community under any circumstances. This shall apply to you, your friends and family. This Notice is effective immediately. If you fail to observe this Notice, and you are discovered in the Park, Management will immediately contact the local police to request that you be removed as a trespasser.

If you have any questions, please contact your own attorney. You are not to make contact with Management or the undersigned. PLEASE GIVE THIS NOTICE YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION."

Lastly, to clear, your reasons for issuing a Trespass Notice must include something more than just a general dislike of the visitor - even if he was a problem while he was a resident in the community. If he has not caused any disruption, etc., while there, I question the advisability of issuing a Trespass Notice.

The only exceptions I can think of is where the visitor poses a clear and present danger to others, e.g. a sexual predator (even if charged but not convicted); someone charged with a crime of violence, even if not convicted; a visitor who has engaged in prior disruptive, dangerous, or illegal conduct while visiting the Community.

Of course, you should contact your own attorney, as well.

[1]This is not intended to constitute legal advice as to the form of the Notice - it is just an example for illustrative purposes. Contact your own attorney first.

Answer.  Senate Bill 608 applies to this situation. You have not indicated whether the resident’s period of occupancy exceeded one year.[1]For purposes of the answer below, I will assume it is. I will also assume the resident owns their own home, in not in violation of the rules or rental agreement, and is current on rent, i.e. you are not seeking to terminate the tenancy based upon nonpayment, which, as you know, has been prohibited pursuant to HB 4213 which was passed in the Special Session and became immediately effective on June 26, 2020. 

Based upon the above assumptions, here are the rules for what is to happen at the end of a lease term:

The fixed term lease becomes a month-to-month tenancy upon the expiration,unless: 

(a) You and the tenant agreetoanewfixedtermtenancy;

(b) The tenant gives you notice of terminationin writing not less than 30 days prior to the ending date of the lease (or the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later);or 

(c) You give written notice to the tenant under the Qualified Landlord rules.[2]

I suggest you try to find out what the tenant wants to do. Reach out and ask. It may be he or she is just being coy, knowing that the right of occupancy cannot terminate at the end of the lease term, i.e. under SB 608 it automatically becomes a month-to-month tenancy. 

Note that if the tenant remains in occupancy over one year, he or she automatically becomes a month-to-month tenant. If that is the case, you may not reject the tender of rent. However, with 90 days’ notice, you are entitled to increase the rent, so long as it is no greater than 7% plus the change in CPI.

If the tenant plans on withholding rent, that is another issue, since the Special Session rules have imposed limitations on a landlord’s ability to terminate a tenancy for non-payment of rent. This is why you need to contact your tenant to see what’s going on.  Oregon’s laws today do not give residential landlords many options - at least until some of these regulations disappear.[3]  

The Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit alleging that the owners and managers of residential rental housing in Honolulu, Hawaii, refused to rent to families with children, in violation of federal fair housing law. The lawsuit alleges that the three properties are operated as student housing for post-secondary students.

Specifically, the complaint claims that at least since 2015, the defendants discriminated against families with children by: (1) refusing to rent or to negotiate for the rental of the three properties on the basis of familial status; (2) steering prospective renters with children who inquired about housing away from the properties to a separate property management company; and (3) making discouraging and other discriminatory statements to potential renters with children who inquired about housing, including that the housing wasn’t “suitable” or the right “fit” for families with children.

The Legal Aid Society of Hawaii brought this matter to HUD’s attention after conducting testing that, as the complaint alleges, showed discrimination against families with children in connection with the defendants’ properties. The complaint contains allegations of unlawful conduct; the allegations must be proven in federal court.

“Owners and managers of rental housing must ensure their housing is open to families with children,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Fair Housing Act requires it, and the Justice Department will continue both to enforce the Act vigorously and to seek relief for families victimized by unlawful discrimination.”