Search

City of Portland Rental Housing Hoops - What Applies to Parks in the City of Portland

City of Portland Rental Housing Hoops

 

In 2018, the City of Portland enacted a Residential Rental Registration Program, Ordinance No. 189086. Its goal was to create an inventory of rental housing in a single location. Manufactured housing communities paid little attention, since it applied to “rental housing units”. At the time there were no specifics about funding the Program.

 

In 2019, the City implemented a $60 annual fee per rental unit to fund the Program. In December I contacted the Portland Housing Bureau to see if somehow it would be interpreted as applying to manufactured housing communities inside the City of Portland.[1]

 

On February 4, 2020 I had a conversation with two representatives of the Bureau. The agreed that the $60 fee would not apply to manufactured housing spaces in the City of Portland. However, they did say that it would apply to community owned homes – which does make sense, since they are also subject to the non-manufactured housing section of the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, ORS Chapter 90.

 

Although most park owners are aware of the hoops, following are links to the applicable requirements when located within the City of Portland:

 

 

 

 

  • And with the new $60 fee, landlords will have to complete Form R (here), to include with their business tax filing.

 

The 2019 tax is due on April 15, 2020for calendar year taxpayers. For further information, owners should check with their own legal counsel and/or CPA.

 

 

 

[1]I stated: “My reading of the ordinance, which was passed almost 1 ½ years ago, is that it does not apply to rental spaces in mobile home parks. Section 7.02.890 A provides: “For purposes of this section, except where defined by administrative rule in accordance with Section 7.02.210, "residentialrentalunit"meansanyresidentialpropertyrented or offered for rent for a period of more than 30 consecutive days. If a property contains more than one residential living quarter, the term residential rental unit refers to each separate livingquarter.”  (Italics mine.) Mobile home spaces do not contain “more than one residential living quarter” so it seems fairly clear that the drafters did not intend (or believe) that mobile home park spaces constituted ‘residential living units.’”

How to Fulfill Your Duty to Prevent Race Discrimination (First of Six Articles)

MHCO

 

This month MHCO focuses on fulfilling your obligation to comply with fair housing rules banning discrimination based on race and color with a six part series – with six rules community owners and managers need to follow.

 

Spurred by the death of George Floyd, protests across the country have rekindled attention on the Black Lives Matter movement and racial inequities involving policing practices and the criminal justice system. Against the backdrop of the coronavirus crisis, the movement has also drawn attention to broader issues of systemic racism in healthcare, employment, and housing.

The fight against racial discrimination and segregation was one of the main reasons that the federal Fair Housing Act was passed more than 50 years ago. When the landmark legislation was passed in 1968, Congress declared that ensuring fair housing throughout the United States was a national policy of the “highest priority.” The goal of the new law was to replace racially segregated neighborhoods with “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” 

In the years that have passed since then, the number of complaints of race discrimination, which once held the top spot, have steadily decreased. In the meantime, the number of disability discrimination complaints have steadily increased, now accounting for more than half of all formal fair housing complaints.  

Some see the decreasing number of race discrimination complaints as a sign of progress to achieve equal housing opportunities regardless of race. But others say the country still has far to go to eliminate racial discrimination in housing. Though it’s rare to hear reports of blatantly racist practices, fair housing advocates believe racial discrimination has simply gone underground, replaced by more subtle forms of discrimination that are more difficult to detect.

Example: A June 2020 study by a research team from Suffolk University Law School found that Greater Boston landlords and agents discriminate against Black renters and those with Section 8 housing vouchers, illegally shutting out qualified renters. 

According to researchers, the study revealed that housing providers, mostly real estate brokers, showed Black testers about half the number of apartments they showed to white testers. They told white testers that more units were available, showed them more units, offered them more incentives to rent, and made more positive comments about the units.

Overall, the study showed that Black testers faced discrimination in 71 percent of the tests (for example: not being able to make an appointment, not being offered an application, not being offered financial incentives, like a free parking space or rental discount, that were offered to white testers). When agents dealt with Black testers, the incidence of “ghosting”—cutting off communication—was much higher. White testers continued to hear back from agents 92 percent of the time. Black testers heard back only 62 percent of the time.

The testing also uncovered high levels of discrimination against people with Section 8 housing vouchers, regardless of race. Ninety percent of the testers who indicated they were using a voucher faced discriminatory behavior from a rental agent (such as cutting off communication with the tester, not offering a rental application, not setting up an appointment to visit properties).

“The COVID-19 crisis and killing of George Floyd and so many other unarmed Black people has shone a bright light on the negative effects of the structural racism that has always existed in our country. This is a problem right here in our own community,” said Law Professor William Berman, director of Suffolk Law’s testing program.

Whatever your views in this volatile political climate, it’s essential to remember that multifamily housing communities and other housing providers have a duty to comply with longstanding fair housing laws banning discrimination based on race and color.

In this lesson, we’ll review fair housing requirements and offer six rules to help you fulfill your obligation to prevent race discrimination at your community. Then you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) forbids housing discrimination because of race or color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, and familial status (having children under age 18). The law applies to rental, sales, lending, and other housing transactions.

With respect to rental housing, the FHA declares certain practices to be unlawful when based on race and color-and any other protected characteristic. Among the prohibited practices are:

  • Making housing unavailable by excluding or otherwise denying housing;
  • Imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges for rental, such as higher rental payments or fees, more stringent screening criteria, or different housing services;
  • Making discriminatory statements, including advertising;
  • Misrepresenting the availability of rental units;
  • Threatening, harassing, or retaliating against anyone for exercising their rights under fair housing law.

Tip: Anyone who experiences discrimination because of race or color may pursue a fair housing claim—whether or not she’s a member of a minority group. Early court cases established that white residents may make claims of racial discrimination based on a denial of their right to associate with African Americans. Allegations of fair housing violations have been brought by interracial couples and the parents of biracial children, as well as white residents who were subjected to discrimination because of the race of their family members, friends, or guests.

SIX RULES TO FOLLOW FOR PREVENTING RACE DISCRIMINATION

Rule #1: Keep Race Out of the Leasing Process

Don’t allow race to play any part in decisions about who may live in your community. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to deny housing or treat people differently based on their race or color. Discriminatory conduct can be overt or subtle—it’s just as unlawful to blatantly refuse to rent to African-American prospects as it is to treat them differently than whites by misrepresenting availability, quoting higher rent requirements, or applying more stringent screening criteria.

Example: In June 2020, HUD announced that it approved a $35,000 settlement resolving claims of racial discrimination at a multifamily community on Long Island, N.Y. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the employees treated white testers posing as prospective residents who were inquiring about apartments more favorably than Black testers posing as prospective residents.

A fair housing organization filed the HUD complaint after several African Americans reported that they believed they were denied the opportunity to rent apartments at the community because of their race. As a result, the organization conducted fair housing testing using white and Black testers who posed as prospective renters. According to the complaint, the organization’s investigation showed that white testers received more favorable treatment, including being told about the upcoming availability of units, while Black testers were told that there was a long waiting list and that no units were available. The owners denied the allegations but agreed to settle the complaint.

“The color of a person’s skin shouldn’t determine whether they have the opportunity to obtain a place to live,” Anna María Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said. “That type of discriminatory treatment is unacceptable, and today’s settlement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to taking appropriate action when housing providers violate the law.”

Example: In March 2020, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced a $300,000 settlement to resolve a fair housing case against the owners, broker, and building superintendent of a 48-unit community in a predominantly white neighborhood in Brooklyn. The lawsuit, filed by the FHJC and five African-American testers, alleged that the community racially discriminated against African-American prospects in violation of federal, state, and local fair housing laws. According to the FHJC, its investigation found that African-American and white testers were treated very differently based on race. The FHJC alleged that for years, white testers were repeatedly shown available apartments at the building while no African-American testers ever saw an apartment. The defendants denied liability but agreed to the settlement.

FHJC Executive Director Fred Freiburg,  “African-American renters and home buyers continue to face persistent and pervasive racial discrimination in housing fifty-two years after the passage of the federal Fair Housing Act. Over the next few years, the FHJC will focus more of its investigative and enforcement resources on ferreting out racially discriminatory housing practices throughout the New York City region.”

Example: In December 2019, the South Suburban Housing Center (SSHC), a regional fair housing agency serving the south metropolitan Chicago area, announced that it filed a lawsuit accusing the owners and managing broker of a community in the metropolitan Chicago area of race discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants refused to make appointments to show available apartments to African-American prospects and misrepresented the availability of housing to an African-American prospects.

According to SSHC, its fair housing investigation showed that white prospects responding to the community’s online apartment availability ads were able to call and schedule appointments, see the available apartment, and were encouraged to submit applications. When equally qualified African-American prospects responded to the online ads, SSHC said, they were not able to obtain the address of the unit, confirm or set up times to view, and in one instance were falsely told the unit was no longer available.

“Defendants’ actions in not allowing qualified African-American renters to literally get inside the door to apply for their advertised apartment, is the dramatic evidence that compelled SSHC to file this complaint,” SSHC Executive Director John Petruszak said.

A Refresher on the Housing for Older Persons Act (55 and Older Communities)

MHCO

Answer: That is a good question. First, to be clear for our readers, a "security agreement" is any agreement that serves as "security" on the property. For example, a trust deed is recorded on real property, and secures the promissory note. If the note is not paid, the holder can turn to the security, and sell it to satisfy the unpaid indebtedness.

Since manufactured homes are not real property, the document is different, but the concept is the same. A Retail Installment Contract is defined in ORS 83.510(12). Its purpose is to retain a lien upon the manufactured home to secure a buyer's obligations under the contract. Form 2A informs the buyer that the seller/dealer is claiming a security interest in the home for the duration of the contract, and that in the event of default the seller/dealer will have certain remedies to foreclose and/or repossess the home. Upon a buyer's full payment and performance under the Retail Installment Contract, the seller/dealer is required to mail to the buyer good and sufficient instruments to indicate payment in full and to release all security rights in the home.

If the sale transaction is closed in escrow, there is nothing more for the seller to do to secure his/her security interest in the home, as escrow will submit the necessary documents to the Oregon Department of Business and Consumer Services.

However, if the seller/dealer does not close the transaction through escrow, they will have to perform the following steps themselves:

  1. Submit to the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) an application for an ownership document on behalf of the purchaser.
  2. The application must be on a DCBS-approved form, and include the following:
    1. The year, manufacturer's name, model if available, and identification number for the home;
    2. Any existing ownership document for the home or, if none, the homes certificate of origin or other document evidencing its ownership;
    3. The legal description or street address for site where the home is or will be placed;
    4. If the home is sited in a manufactured housing community, the name of the community;
    5. The name and mailing address of each person acquiring an interest in the home;
    6. The name and mailing address of each person acquiring a security interest in the home; and
    7. Any other information required by the DCBS by administrative rule.
  3. If the seller/dealer is unable to comply with Sec. 2, above, within 25 business days of the sale/closing of the home, he/she must provide a notice of delay to the purchaser. The notice must contain:
    1. The reason for the delay;
    2. The anticipated extent of the delay; and
    3. A statement of the rights and remedies available to the purchaser if the delay becomes "unreasonably extended."[1]
  4. Fail to comply with the above could result in the seller/dealer becoming subject to revocation or suspension of their license or being placed on probation by the DCBS pursuant to ORS 446.741.
  5. If they fail to comply with Sec. 2, above within 90 days of the sale/closing, they could become subject to criminal penalties under ORS 446.746 (1)(h).
  6. However, if the home buyer is not in compliance with the payment terms of their purchase or security agreement with you by the 20th calendar day after the sale/closing, the seller/dealer is not required to perform the steps in Sec. 2 until 25 calendar days after the home purchaser is in compliance with the payment terms. [Note: This does not excuse a seller/dealer from complying with Sec. 3, above, even though the purchaser is late on his/her payments.]

[1] Note: The statute does not define "unreasonably extended," nor does it identify any particular remedies you might suggest. If such a delay occurs, you should contact your own legal counsel, since you do not want to write such a letter to the purchaser identifying their "legal remedies" - that would be up to the purchaser's attorney.

Phil Querin Q&A: Use of the MHCO Retail Installment Contract for the Sale of Pre-Owned Homes

Phil Querin

Answer: That is a good question. First, to be clear for our readers, a "security agreement" is any agreement that serves as "security" on the property. For example, a trust deed is recorded on real property, and secures the promissory note. If the note is not paid, the holder can turn to the security, and sell it to satisfy the unpaid indebtedness.

 

Since manufactured homes are not real property, the document is different, but the concept is the same. A Retail Installment Contract is defined in ORS 83.510(11).[1] Its purpose is to retain a lien upon the manufactured home to secure a buyer's obligations under the contract. Form 2A informs the buyer that the seller/dealer is claiming a security interest in the home for the duration of the contract, and that in the event of default the seller/dealer will have certain remedies to foreclose and/or repossess the home. Upon a buyer's full payment and performance under the Retail Installment Contract, the seller/dealer is required to mail to the buyer good and sufficient instruments to indicate payment in full and to release all security rights in the home.

 

 

If the sale transaction is closed in escrow, there is nothing more for the seller to do to secure his/her security interest in the home, as escrow will submit the necessary documents to the Oregon Department of Business and Consumer Services.

 

 

However, if the seller/dealer does not close the transaction through escrow, they will have to perform the following steps themselves:

 

 

  1. Submit to the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) an application for an ownership document on behalf of the purchaser.

 

 

  1. The application must be on a DCBS-approved form, and include the following:
    1. The year, manufacturer's name, model if available, and identification number for the home;
    2. Any existing ownership document for the home or, if none, the homes certificate of origin or other document evidencing its ownership;
    3. The legal description or street address for site where the home is or will be placed;
    4. If the home is sited in a manufactured housing community, the name of the community;
    5. The name and mailing address of each person acquiring an interest in the home;
    6. The name and mailing address of each person acquiring a security interest in the home; and
    7. Any other information required by the DCBS by administrative rule.

 

  1. If the seller/dealer is unable to comply with Sec. 2, above, within 25 business days of the sale/closing of the home, he/she must provide a notice of delay to the purchaser. The notice must contain:
    1. The reason for the delay;
    2. The anticipated extent of the delay; and
    3. A statement of the rights and remedies available to the purchaser if the delay becomes "unreasonably extended."[2]
  2. Fail to comply with the above could result in the seller/dealer becoming subject to revocation or suspension of their license or being placed on probation by the DCBS pursuant to ORS 446.741.
  3. If they fail to comply with Sec. 2, above within 90 days of the sale/closing, they could become subject to criminal penalties under ORS 446.746 (1)(h).
  4. However, if the home buyer is not in compliance with the payment terms of their purchase or security agreement with you by the 20th calendar day after the sale/closing, the seller/dealer is not required to perform the steps in Sec. 2 until 25 calendar days after the home purchaser is in compliance with the payment terms. [Note: This does not excuse a seller/dealer from complying with Sec. 3, above, even though the purchaser is late on his/her payments.]

 

 

[1] Retail installment contract" or "contract" means an agreement, entered into in this state, pursuant to which the title to, the property in or a lien upon a motor vehicle, which is the subject matter of a retail installment sale, is retained or taken by a motor vehicle dealer from a retail buyer as security, in whole or in part, for the buyer's obligation. "Retail installment contract" or "contract" includes a chattel mortgage, a conditional sales contract and a contract for the bailment or leasing of a motor vehicle by which the bailee or lessee contracts to pay as compensation for its use a sum substantially equivalent to or in excess of its value and by which it is agreed that the bailee or lessee is bound to become, or for no other or for a merely nominal consideration has the option of becoming, the owner of the motor vehicle upon full compliance with the terms of the contract. (Note, this statute defines a "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" to include mobile homes.)

[2] Note: The statute does not define "unreasonably extended," nor does it identify any particular remedies you might suggest. If such a delay occurs, you should contact your own legal counsel, since you do not want to write such a letter to the purchaser identifying their "legal remedies" - that would be up to the purchaser's attorney.

Phil Querin Q&A: Resident Deliberately Wasting Water - What Can I Do?

Phil Querin

Answer: First, there is nothing in the Oregon Residential landlord-tenant law directly on point. Nor would I expected there to be, any more than a law prohibiting residents from intentionally defacing community property. It just goes without saying.

Looking for a remedial statute for recourse, however, is not difficult.

Check your community rules to see what they say. While I would not expect there to be a direct prohibition against wasting water, there very well be something that comes close to the point.[1] If there is some provision in your rules that you can point to, then you could use a 30-day notice of termination under ORS 90.630.

However, I'm not sure you want to permit the resident 30 days to cure. Under these circumstances, you might want to resort to the non-curable 24-hour notice statute, ORS 90.396(1)(f), for outrageous conduct. While it is true that landlords and managers should not use the 24-hour notice if a 30-day curable notice would suffice. Accordingly, I would suggest that before resorting to the 24-hour statute, you "paper your file" by giving him a written warning notice, say seven days in advance, telling him what you will do if he does not stop. If he continues to flagrantly waste the community water, then file the 24 hour notice and let the judge decide. I suspect he or she will come down on your side of the issue.

Also, keep in mind that if you are forced to issue the 24-hour notice and go to court, at the first appearance, the court will encourage both parties to resolve the matter. In this situation, if the resident agrees to stop wasting water, then have him enter into a Stipulated Judgment of Restitution (which is prepared by the judge at the time of the first appearance), which would give you the ability to go back to court quickly (without having to file again), to evict should he violate the agreement.

There are other statutes that come into play here, although their violation would only give you a right to issue a 30-day curable notice of termination:

  • ORS 90.740(3) (Tenant Obligations) provides that a tenant shall: "Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in compliance with the rental agreement and with any laws or ordinances that relate to the tenant's behavior as a tenant."

While this provision requires you to look elsewhere (e.g. the rental agreement, laws, rules and ordinances), I suspect checking with your local water bureau, you will find certain water conservation rules and regulations that prohibit intentional waste of public water.


  • ORS 90.740(4)(a) (Tenant obligations) also provides that a tenant shall: "Use the rented space and the facility common areas in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended;"

Again, this provision is not directly on point, I think we can agree that that intentional waste of water is not a "reasonable" use of the rented space. Moreover, ORS 90.130 (Obligation of good faith) helps out here, since it clarifies that "Every duty under this chapter and every act which must be performed as a condition precedent to the exercise of a right or remedy under this chapter imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement."

[1] In briefly looking over the MHCO agreement I do not see language directly on point.


Phil Querin Q&A: When Can You Deny Based on Criminal Background

Phil Querin

Answer. Your confusion is understandable, because there are no black and white guidelines.  However, attached to this short article is a copy of a publication recently posted on the National Association of Realtors® website. It comes up at the top of the list on a Google search for “NAR disparate impact”, here.  It is simple, straightforward, and something you may wish to use.

If I were to list my rules of thumb[1] that I would follow if I were a manager or park owner, I’d distill them down to the following:

  1. Subject to Nos. 8 and 9 below, don’t screen out persons solely for arrests;
  2. You may distinguish between non-violent vs. violent convictions;
  3. You may distinguish between misdemeanor, driving, and felony convictions;
  4. You may distinguish between a single conviction vs. multiple convictions;
  5. You may distinguish between a recent conviction and one long ago;
  6. You may distinguish between persons who have a verifiable history of rehabilitation following a conviction (You should check personal references for this), vs. those with no such verifiable history;
  7. Related to No. 6, you want to find out where the applicant has lived and worked during the years since the conviction.
  8. Absent compelling mitigating circumstances, I would be very hesitant to admit into a community anyone with a conviction for a violent crime (i.e. any crime against the person, such as assault, etc.) within the last seven years; ditto for arson.
  9. I would automatically reject anyone either under arrest, pending trial or plea, or a conviction anytime, based upon a sexual assault, sexual abuse, or any other sex related crime – regardless of whether they are on any public lists. The reason for this hardline position (as well as No. 8, above) is that as a part of your screening process, the law permits you to consider the safety of others in the community – that should always be your Number One rule of thumb.
  10. You have the absolute right to automatically reject an applicant who has had a conviction for the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance.
     

 

In conclusion, always remember that if the applicant does not pass screening based upon any other valid criteria, then you do not have to go through the criminal background analysis at all. For example, if a person does not meet the financial requirements, or has a poor rental history, that is sufficient to reject them. Only if they qualify in the other screening areas, but have one or more criminal convictions, should you even need to make the above analysis.

[1] This is to say that I’m not “legally advising” you to follow my list. You may develop your own.

Phil Querin Article: New Rent Control Laws

On July 6, 2023 the Oregon Legislature passed SB 611 which lowered the existing cap on annual rent increases for residential tenancies.  With the Governor's signature the bill is now the law.

 

Every year in late September, the state of Oregon calculates a maximum rent increase for residential tenancies based on the preceding year’s September Consumer Price Index for the West Region (CPI). The formula is a base of 7% plus the CPI. Typically, this results in a maximum rent increase of around 9%. Last year, due to pandemic-related inflation the CPI shot up to 7.6%, resulting in a maximum allowable residential rent increase for 2023 of 14.6%.

 

A new 10% cap has gone into effect as of July 6, 2023. Any rent increases going into effect from this date until December 31, 2023 may not be more than 10% [see note about rent increases in the City of Portland, below]. The new rental cap for 2024 will be calculated and published by the State of Oregon in the fall.

 

New Cap: SB 611 retains ORS 90.600’s the statutory formula of 7% plus the CPI, however residential rent increases will now be capped at 10%, regardless of whether the CPI exceeds 3%. All tenancies subject to ORS 90.600, except week-to-week tenancies, are subject to the following rules:

  1. A landlord may only increase rent with written notice to the tenant at least 90-days prior to the rent increase; and
  2. A landlord may not increase the rent more than once in any 12-month period.

 

Exemptions: Landlords are exempt from the rent cap under two circumstances:

  1. The first certificate occupancy for the unit was issued less than 15 years from the date of the notice of rent increase; or
  2. The unit is affordable housing under a federal, state or local program and the increase in rent:
    1. Does not increase the tenant’s portion of subsidized rent; or
    2. Is required by the federal, state, or local program or because of a change in the tenant’s income.

 

If a landlord is claiming exemption from the cap on the grounds mentioned above, the exemption must be noted in the 90-day rent increase notice.

 

City of Portland: Landlords in the City of Portland should note that the new statewide 10% rental cap does not 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%.

 

Phil Querin Q&A: Resident Retaliation by Deliberately Running Water

Phil Querin

Question: What can a landlord do about resident’s who deliberately leave water running  to get back at the landlord?

 

Answer:   First, there is nothing in the Oregon Residential landlord-tenant law directly on point. Nor would I expected there to be, any more than a law prohibiting residents from intentionally defacing community property. It just goes without saying.

Looking for a remedial statute for recourse, however, is not difficult.  

Check your community rules to see what they say. While I would not expect there to be a direct prohibition against wasting water, there very well be something that comes close to the point.[1]  If there is some provision in your rules that you can point to, then you could use a 30-day notice of termination under ORS 90.630.  

However, I’m not sure you want to permit the resident 30 days to cure. Under these circumstances, you might want to resort to the non-curable 24-hour notice statute, ORS 90.396(1)(f), for outrageous conduct.  While it is true that landlords and managers should not use the 24-hour notice if a 30-day curable notice would suffice. Accordingly, I would suggest that before resorting to the 24-hour statute, you “paper your file” by giving him a written warning notice, say seven days in advance, telling him what you will do if he does not stop. If he continues to flagrantly waste the community water, then file the 24 hour notice and let the judge decide.  I suspect he or she will come down on your side of the issue.  

Also, keep in mind that if you are forced to issue the 24-hour notice and go to court, at the first appearance, the court will encourage both parties to resolve the matter.  In this situation, if the resident agrees to stop wasting water, then have him enter into a Stipulated Judgment of Restitution (which is prepared by the judge at the time of the first appearance), which would give you the ability to go back  to court quickly (without having to file again), to evict should he violate the agreement. 

There are other statutes that come into play here, although their violation would only give you a right to issue a 30-day curable notice of termination:  

· ORS 90.740(3)(Tenant Obligations)provides that a tenant shall:Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in compliance with the rental agreement and with any laws or ordinances that relate to the tenant’s behavior as a tenant.”

 

While this provision requires you to look elsewhere (e.g. the rental agreement, laws, rules and ordinances), I suspect checking with your local water bureau, you will find certain water conservation rules and regulations that prohibit intentional waste of public water.

 

· ORS 90.740(4)(a)(Tenant obligations) also provides that a tenant shall: “Use the rented space and the facility common areas in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended;”

 

Again, this provision is not directly on point, I think we can agree that that intentional waste of water is not a “reasonable” use of the rented space. Moreover, ORS 90.130(Obligation of good faith) helps out here, since it clarifies that “Every duty under this chapter and every act which must be performed as a condition precedent to the exercise of a right or remedy under this chapter imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.”

 

[1]In briefly looking over the MHCO agreement I do not see language directly on point.

Phil Querin Q&A - What To Do When Resident's Children Reach 18 Years Old and Remain In Community

Phil Querin

Answer. There is nothing in the Oregon landlord-tenant laws that addresses this subject. This is not like an adult who wants to be approved as a resident and move in to an existing home. In that case, I can see that you would want to run him through the fully battery of checks.

But in this case, what would you learn? You would not be able to get any juvenile records. He probably has no credit to speak of, and his income is not necessary for establishing that his parents can afford to live in the community. It strikes me that going forward, you retain the same control over him as any other adults in the park. He has to obey the rules, etc., and if he doesn'tyou could issue a 30-day notice to the parents about his conduct.

If you wanted to add him as a Temporary Occupant, you could do that. If he violated rules, etc., you could terminate his right to be a Temporary Occupant, and require that he vacate. However, in this case, it does not seem that there is cause for concern.

If he had been a problem child, and now had grown into a problem adult, I would strongly recommend that you use a Temporary Occupancy Agreement. Your options in requiring that he vacate upon breach of the rules, are much swifter, although you cannot terminate without cause.

Although I don't believe I've seen this issue addressed in park rules, it's not a bad idea to have something in place. You could say that all children remaining in the park after their 18th birthday, must do X, Y, and Z. That way, when it happens, you will not be accused of picking on one particular tenant's son or daughter.

Lastly, I've often seen a similar situation, where the child moves away after his or her 18th birthday, and then returns a year or so later. Some landlords treat this as they would any other third party wanting to move into an existing resident's home. While it would be nice if the situation was addressed in the community rules, I have not seen this. I believe I would treat any adult wanting to share space with other residents, even parents, the same way I would treat unrelated parties; they must at least pass a background check. The rule should be the same for two residents who have been approved, then one leaves and comes back a year or so later.

In all cases, you can use the Occupancy Agreement, assuming the person passes their background check. If there is ever any doubt about the boomerang child, or former tenant coming back into the community, your best alternative (other than saying "No" based upon the background check) is to use the Temporary Occupancy Agreement.[1] However, never let the Temporary Occupancy Agreement be perpetual; be sure to have an expiration date on the term. You can always renew it if they behave.

[1] The statute is here. Note that you cannot qualify the Temporary Occupant based upon finances, since it is presumed their income is not necessary for the existing tenant(s) to pay the monthly space rent.

Phil Querin Q and A - Home Not Removed - Storage Agreement About To Expire

Phil Querin

Answer: There are certain facts that are missing from this question. I will supply them and then answer. So, let's assume the following: (a) This is a periodic (i.e. month-to-month) tenancy; (b) The tenant has moved out of the home and it is now vacant; (c) The rents are not being paid; and lastly, let's assume that (d) The landlord was to be paid all past-due rent from the sale proceeds.

However, before answering the question, however, let me point out a fatal error by this landlord - and many other landlords: They don't look at the Worst Case Scenario. I'm sure the Storage Agreement adequately covered what was to occur upon sale. But since we have a landlord now asking what happens if the sale does not occur by November 30, I'm led to believe the parties neglected to address (in writing) the possibility of failure. Memo to MHCO landlords: Written agreements with tenants should always address "the exit strategy" - i.e. what protocol kicks in if the home is not sold and not removed by November 30.

Without addressing this issue in the written Storage Agreement, we are left to figure out what Oregon law would provide under these facts. Here's my take:

  • On December 1, the landlord should contact the ex-tenant and demand that the home be removed. This should be done in writing or e-mail, so it can be used later if necessary.
  • If removal does not occur promptly, the landlord must rely upon Oregon law. Unfortunately, the law leaves landlords holding the bag if a home is abandoned.
  • The landlord will have to determine if the tenant will voluntarily waive his abandonment rights, and if not, then he must follow the legal procedure under ORS 90.675.[2] If there is a lienholder on the home, the landlord will have to give them notification under the abandonment law.
  • If the landlord wants to leave the home on the site and resell it to a new tenant, that option is always available[3], and probably should be pursued first, rather than going down the abandonment route, which can be costly in time and money. Care should be exercised to properly document such an arrangement, in order to avoid later complaints by the tenant that they were taken advantage of.

In Oregon, following the formal abandonment process is the only legal way for a landlord to take control of a manufactured home if the tenant fails or refuses to remove it upon termination of the tenancy.

[1] The question about a one-year rule, relates only to the closure of a park or park space, and will not be addressed here.

[2] This may mean that the landlord will have to go through the exercise of issuing a 72-hour notice, then going to court to get a judgment of restitution. Only then is it safe for the landlord to proceed with abandonment.

[3] If title to the home shows that a lienholder has a security interest, the formal abandonment procedure must likely be followed.