Search

Phillip C. Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

Introduction. On August 26, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the CDC’s[1] current eviction moratorium, ruling that the government agency had exceeded its authority. So, while Oregon landlords are now free of any federal eviction prohibitions, they are still subject to our state laws. These include:

•  SB 278 which provides a 60-day “pause” in the eviction process[2] (90-days in Multnomah County) for tenants seeking rental assistance; and,
• The recent order by Oregon’s Chief Justice, CJO 21-031, which extends the timeframe for eviction hearings after filing of the complaint.[3]

Background. In March of 2020, Congress passed a temporary eviction moratorium with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). This moratorium only applied to properties being financed with federally-backed loans (e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, etc.) or were accepting federal assistance. Upon the expiration of this initial moratorium in July 2020, the CDC stepped in, with no prior Congressional authorization, and imposed its own eviction moratorium, followed by a series of extensions through 2020 and 2021 as the Covid pandemic evolved. 

In May 2021, the CDC’s Moratorium and extensions were challenged in federal court. While the court ruled that the CDC had exceed its authority, it suspended (i.e. “stayed”) the judgment pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was heard in June, 2021, and the high court agreed that the CDC had exceeded its authority; but it nevertheless declined to vacate the stay because the moratorium was scheduled to expire shortly, on July 31, 2021.[4]

On August 3, 2021 the CDC – still with no Congressional authority – issued a new eviction moratorium, this time basing it on the expanding Delta variant emergency.[5] Unlike the original moratorium which applied broadly to the entire country, the CDC’s new moratorium applied only to “US counties experiencing substantial and high levels of community transmission” of Covid. While in theory this was limiting, in reality, almost every county in the US is currently experiencing “substantial and high levels of community transmission”. Like those before it, this moratorium only applied in the absence of state or local protections that were equal to or more stringent than the CDC’s prohibition. The new moratorium was set to expire on October 3, 2021.

Once again, the new eviction moratorium was challenged in the federal courts and eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court. This time the Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the CDC had exceeded its authority and therefore the moratorium was invalid. In their words, “[i]f a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.” So far, Congress has declined to do so.

Where Does This Leave Oregon Landlords?  Regardless of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the CDC’s latest moratorium, Oregon landlords are still subject to eviction restrictions and temporary eviction delays imposed by SB 278, Ordinance 1296 (Multnomah County only), and CJO 21-031.[6]

A Review Of Where We Are Today.

• Nonpayment Debt Remaining from the Oregon Eviction Moratorium (HB 4213/4401): Tenants may not be evicted for a failure to pay rental debt accrued between April 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Per Senate Bill 282, tenants have until February 28, 2022 to pay off those rents, fees and charges without threat of eviction or accrual of additional late fees and penalties.[7]

• Rents, Fees, and Charges after July 1, 2021: Tenants must begin paying their current rents, charges, and fees beginning on July 1, 2021 or risk eviction. If they are unable to do so, they may apply for rental assistance and provide their landlord with proof of application. Under SB 278, the proof of application gives the tenant an additional 60-day “pause” (or 90-days in Multnomah County per Ord. 1296) during which time a landlord is prohibited from either issuing a notice of termination or continuing a pending nonpayment of rent eviction. These 60-day or 90-day “safe harbor” provisions remain in effect until March 1, 2022.[8]

• FED Timing Extensions: Once the 60-day or 90-day safe harbor window is closed under SB 278, if the tenant does not receive assistance or otherwise still cannot afford their rent, their landlord may proceed with the eviction process. As noted above, the Oregon Chief Justice’s Order 21-031 extends the normal timeline for First Appearances in  all FEDs and extends the window within which a trial may be scheduled.[9]

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: What if I already have a termination or eviction pending from July?

Answer: Though the Court’s rejection of the CDC’s new eviction moratorium is brand new, and it’s difficult to say how Oregon FED courts will address the issue (if at all), we do know two things:

1. In order for a tenant to take advantage of the protections that were provided by the CDC’s moratorium they must have given their landlord a form (one created by the CDC, or a written document with equivalent information) declaring that they were a “covered person” as defined by their Order. To be a “covered person” the tenant needed to meet both personal qualifications (income, location) and hardship qualifications (loss of income, extreme medical expenses).[10] In the absence of this form, or its equivalent, a tenant is not covered by the CDC’s order.

2. The eviction moratorium was meant to prevent the eviction only. As stated in their own guidance “[the CDC’s new eviction moratorium is not] intended to prevent landlords from starting eviction proceedings, provided that the actual physical removal of a covered person for nonpayment of rent does NOT take place during the period of the Order.”[11]

So, if there is a pending termination or FED from July 2021, it seems that the only real prohibition on an actual eviction would be: (a) If the tenant provided a document demonstrating that he/she was  a covered person; AND (b) The actual eviction occurred between August 3, 2021 (when the CDC’s moratorium went into place) and August 26, 2021 (when the Supreme Court ruled that it was invalid). 

However, all Oregon landlords must follow the 60-day safe harbor laws (or 90-days in Multnomah County) laid out in SB 278 and Ordinance 1296 regardless of the status of the CDC’s now-invalidated moratorium. For that process, see MHCO’s Guidance and Flowchart.

Question: What if I started an eviction in July and my tenant has not paid August rent?

Answer: This depends on whether your tenant notified you of their application for rental assistance under SB 278. If they have not done so, then you may continue with the FED proceeding and obtain a judgment of restitution in the ordinary course. Otherwise, you are subject to the “pause” rules of SB 278 or Multnomah County’s Ordinance 1296 before re-issuing the termination notice and proceeding with the FED. If your case has already reached the First Appearance stage, the court will reset the hearing and/or trial to the appropriate time. Remember: A tenant may provide proof of application at any time up to the First Appearance. 

In the ideal situation your tenant’s application for rental assistance will result in aid from the State of Oregon, you will be recompensed for the unpaid rent, and the eviction will become unnecessary. 

Question: What about for-cause evictions?

Answer: Evictions for cause are not limited by any of the new Oregon legislation, nor were they limited by the CDC eviction moratorium. As discussed above, the FED process for for-cause evictions is modified by the Oregon Chief Justice’s Order 21-031, which remains in effect until the State of Oregon is no longer operating under a State of Emergency or the CJO 21-031 is withdrawn.

1. Center For Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/.

[2] Tenants need only demonstrate that they have applied for rental assistance in order to receive the 60-day pause (or 90 days if in Multnomah County). Upon receipt of the tenant’s supporting documentation the landlord may not, for the next 60 days (or 90 days in Multnomah County): (a) Deliver a termination notice for nonpayment, or (b) Initiate or continue an action for possession (i.e., an FED) based upon a termination notice for nonpayment.

[3] The Chief Justice’s Order extends the usual 7-day window for scheduling the First Appearance in nonpayment of rent evictions to at least 21 days after the filing of the FED complaint. First appearances for all other evictions will be scheduled within 14 days of filing.

[4]  See, discussion on the Court’s thinking here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-eviction-ban-in-place/

[5] See, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html?s_cid=11509:cdc%20guidance%20delta%20variant:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

[6] See Footnotes 2 and 3 above.

[7] See MHCO Guidance on SB 282 for more detailed information:  MHCO.ORG “Community Updates”, “New MHCO Non Payment of Rent Forms Effective July 1, 2021” (posted 7-13-21) and “Phil Querin Article – New Rules for Non Payment of Rent Evictions – SB 278 – July 1st It’s the Law (posted 6-30-21).

[8] See MHCO Guidance on SB 278 for more detailed information: MHCO.ORG “Community Updates”, “New MHCO Non Payment of Rent Forms Effective July 1, 2021” (posted 7-13-21 and and “Phil Querin Article – New Rules for Non Payment of Rent Evictions – SB 278 – July 1st It’s the Law (posted 6-30-21).

[9] See MHCO Guidance on CJO 21-031 for more detailed information: MHCO.ORG, “Phil Querin Q&A”, “Oregon Chief Justice Order Extending Certain Time Periods For FEDs” (9-22-2021)

[10] To be a “covered person” a tenant must declare under penalty of perjury:

(1) The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;

(2) The individual either (i) earned no more than $99,000 (or $198,000 if filing jointly) in Calendar Year 2020, or expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2021 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return) (ii) was not required to report any income in 2020 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or (iii) received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check);

(3) The individual is unable to pay the full rent or make a full housing payment due to substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses;5

(4) The individual is using best efforts to make timely partial payments that are as close to the full payment as the individual's circumstances may permit, taking into account other nondiscretionary expenses;

(5) Eviction would likely render the individual homeless— or force the individual to move into and live in close quarters in a new congregate or shared living setting—because the individual has no other available housing options; and

(6) The individual resides in a U.S. county experiencing substantial or high rates of community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2 as defined by CDC.

[11] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/eviction-moratoria-order-faqs.pdf

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.

1. How to Initiate Mediation or Informal Dispute Resolution

Mediation may be initiated by a Landlord, a Tenant or Group of Tenants. Either party may contact the mediation services available through: (a) park/marina manager, (b) Local Community Dispute Resolution Center (CDRC), or (c) Manufactured and Marina Communities Resource Center (MMCRC) hotline: 1-800- 453-5511 (Toll Free in Oregon) or email:hcs.mmcrc@oregon.gov or the MMCRC Website.

2. Disputes Eligible for Mandatory Mediation

• Those between the landlord and one or more tenants, initiated by any party.

• Those between more than one tenant as initiated by the landlord.

• Information dispute resolution, disputes between two tenants, initiated by either party. Consistent with statute, upon intake the CDRC will determine the eligibility of an issue for mediation (reference Section 6 below).

3. Good Faith Efforts

Participants must make good faith effort to: (a) schedule a mediation within 30 days after initiation: (b) attend and participate; and (c) cooperate with reasonable requests of the mediator.

4. Mandatory mediation only:

 If a party refuses to participate in good faith in mandatory mediation with another party, or uses mediation to harass another party, the other party:

(a) has a defense to a claim related to the subject of the dispute for which mediation was sought; and

(b) is entitled to damages of one month’s rent against the party.

Effect of Filing for Mandatory Mediation

Between the commencement and conclusion of the mediation:

• If the request for mandatory mediation is made before the landlord files a Forcible Entry5. 6.and Detainer, Oregon Revised Statute 90.767 calls for a “stay” or “toll” (suspension) of

any related court action until conclusion of the mandatory mediation.

• A party may not file a court action over the dispute until conclusion of the mandatory mediation; (c) tenant has continuing duty to pay rent; and (d) landlord’s receipt of rent does not constitute a waiver under Oregon Revised Statute 90.412(2).

5. Matters Subject to Mandatory Mediation

Except as provided in Section 6, below, the following disputes are eligible for mediation:

(a) landlord or tenant compliance with the rental agreement or Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 90 (Oregon landlord/tenant statutes); (b) landlord or tenant conduct within the Park/Marina; and (c) rule changes initiated under Oregon Revised Statute 90.610.

Matters Not Subject to Mandatory Mediation

Unless specifically provided for in a mediation policy established under this section, or agreed to by all parties, no party may initiate mediation for:

(a) Facility closures consistent with ORS 90.645 or 90.671.

(b) Facility sales consistent with ORS 90.842 to 90.850.

(c) Rent increases consistent with ORS 90.600.

(d) Rent payments or amounts owed.

(e) Tenant violations alleged in a termination notice given under ORS 90.394, 90.396 or

90.630 (8).

(f) Violations of an alleged unauthorized person in possession in a notice given under ORS

90.403.

(g) Unless initiated by the victim, a dispute involving allegations of domestic violence,

sexual assault or stalking or a dispute between the victim and the alleged perpetrator.

(h) A dispute arising after the termination of the tenancy, including under ORS 90.425,

90.675 or 105.161.

7. Confidentiality

Subject to Oregon Revised Statute 36.220 (confidentiality of mediation communications and agreements), all communications between the parties and mediator are strictly confidential and may not be used in any legal proceedings.

8. Limitations on Mandatory Mediation Process

Participation in mediation does not require any party to: (a) reach an agreement on any or all issues submitted; (b) participate in more than one mediation session; (c) participate foran unreasonable length of time in a mediation session; or (d) waive or forego any legal rights or remedies.

9. Designees for Parties

Any party may designate any other person, including a non-attorney(“Designee”), to represent the interests of that party provided that the Designee has complete written authority to bind that party to any resolution of the dispute reached in mediation. The Designee shall be equally bound by all rules of the mediation, including confidentiality.

10. Resolution/Nonresolution

The mediator shall notify Oregon Housing and Community Services whether a dispute was resolved but may not disclose the contents of any resolution.

This article was created by Oregon Housing and Community Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer. Under ORS 90.100(21), a "hazard tree" is one that:

1. Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;
2. Measures at least eight inches DBH;[1] and
3. Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 (Issuance of license) 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.

ORS 90.727(5) provides as follows:

Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a tenant is responsible for maintaining the trees on the tenant's space in a manufactured dwelling park at the tenant's expense. (Emphasis added.)

So my take is that (a) if the trees qualify as hazard trees, the resident must maintain/remove them; (b) if the trees are technically not hazard trees (due to girth), the resident must still maintain them; and (c) if the resident declines to remove them, you should do so.

Given the recommendation of the arborist, you should contact the resident about having the trees removed at their expense. If the resident cannot afford the expense, you will have to work something out (e.g. cost sharing, or you remove them and seek reimbursement), since you cannot afford to allow this dangerous situation to continue, as it might endanger other residents.

ORS 90.740(4)(i) provides that it is the resident's responsibility to: "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 as provided in ORS 90.727." Thus, the resident's failure to do so in this case would constitute a basis for your issuance of a 30-day curable notice of termination under ORS 90.630(1).

If the resident declines to do the removal, and decides to move from the community, you will have to make sure that the buyer of the home is aware of the removal responsibility. You could write that into the new rental agreement. (If you do not make it a condition of the rental agreement, and they are "hazard trees," the new resident will not had a duty to remove - you will at your cost.) My guess is that with your advance notice to the prospective purchaser, the cost of removal would be deducted from the sales price.

As for your insurance agent's less than sage advice, I respectfully disagree. If a dangerous condition exists on a space in the community and it is not remedied, even though it is the tenant's primary responsibility, you will be held liable if you permit it to continue. It may be an "Act of God" in your agent's mind, but it is a foreseeable risk waiting to happen in the eyes of the law. (Henceforth, I promise not to give advice on insurance coverage, if your agent promises to refrain from practicing law.)

[1] "Diameter at breast height" i.e. 4.5 feet. See: http://www.phytosphere.com/treeord/measuringdbh.htm

Answer: RVs are treated the same as single family rentals under Oregon’s Landlord-Tenant Laws. If a tenancy is week-to-week, the landlord or the tenant may terminate by a written notice given to the other at least 10 days before the termination date specified in the notice. Tenants may terminate upon 30-days written notice. Landlords may terminate during first year of tenancy with 30-days’ notice. Subject to the following, no cause terminations are prohibited after the first year of occupancy. 

However, ORS 90.427(5) and (6) provides certain exceptions, known as Qualified Landlord Reasons (“QLR”), that permit terminations after the first year of occupancy under the following circumstances:

1. The landlord intends to demolish the dwelling unit or convert the dwelling unit to a use other than residential use within a reasonable time; or

2. The landlord intends to undertake repairs or renovations to the dwelling unit within a reasonable time and: (A) The premises is unsafe or unfit for occupancy; or (B) The dwelling unit will be unsafe or unfit for occupancy during the repairs or renovations; or

3. The landlord intends for the landlord or a member of the landlord’s immediate family to occupy the dwelling unit as a primary residence and the landlord does not own a comparable unit in the same building that is available for occupancy at the same time that the tenant receives notice to terminate the tenancy; or

4.  The landlord has: (A) Accepted an offer to purchase the dwelling unit separately from any other dwelling unit from a person who intends in good faith to occupy the dwelling unit as the person’s primary residence; and (B) Provided the notice and written evidence of the offer to purchase the dwelling unit, to the tenant not more than 120 days after accepting the offer to purchase.

All of the above 1-4 require 90-day advance notice. An Oregon landlord that terminates a residential tenancy under Nos. 1 -4- above must:

1. Specify in the termination notice the reason for the termination and supporting facts;
2. State that the rental agreement will terminate upon a designated date not less than 90 days after delivery of the notice; and
3. At the time the landlord delivers the tenant the notice to terminate the tenancy, pay the tenant an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent.

Note, some jurisdictions, including the City of Portland, have additional notice and relocation fee requirements. (See, https://www.portland.gov/phb/rental-services/renter-relocation-assistance.) This is a summary only and members should consult their lawyer or other expert for details. 

By:  Phillip C. Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

The difference between a well-run manufactured housing community and one with problems frequently lies with the rules and regulations each facility has adopted.  Here are some tips for developing a set of rules and regulations that may be helpful in the successful operation of your community:

1. Avoid Ambiguity.  When writing a rule, make sure that it is understandable.  If a court or jury were called upon to enforce it, would they be able to understand it?  Is it fair?  Is the rule capable of different interpretations?  Is it too vague so as to give little or no guidance to the tenant?  Avoid using general terms which are so subjective that reasonable people could differ about what constitutes a violation.  If necessary, use an example.  If the rule must necessarily be open-ended (e.g. prohibiting loud and disturbing noise or offensive behavior), tie the violation to whether the conduct results in complaints from other tenants.  That way the issue does not become whether the manager is arbitrarily exercising his or her own discretion.
2. Updating the Rules.  Oregon landlord-tenant statutes can change every yerar when the Legislature meets.  Circumstances and needs can change more frequently than that.  At least once a year, take a look at your rules to see if they are legally sufficient and whether they meet the community's present needs.  It is much easier to make smaller changes to the rules one or two at a time rather than trying to get the tenants to agree to a wholesale change of all the rules at once.  If your tenants are on leases, you have the right to submit new park documents (i.e. rules and rental agreement) not less than 60 days prior to the expiration of the lease term.  A tenant shall accept or reject the landlord's proposed new rental agreement at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.  If accepted, the rules and rental agreement will define your new rental relationship with the tenants.  It is one good way to update your rules, without having to go through a formal rules change.
3. Legally Adopting Your Rules.  If the tenants are on month-to-month tenancies, Oregon law requires that the landlord must give at least 30 days' advance written notice to make a change in the rules.  If 51% or more of the tenants affected by the rule change object within the 30 days of service of the notice, the change(s) will not go into effect.  However, if less than 51% object, the new rule(s) will become effective in 60 days from the date the notice was served on the tenants.  The law regarding the contents and timing of the notice of rule change must be strictly followed.  ORS 90.610 describes the process.  Read it carefully!  And use MHCO Form 60: "Sixty Day Notice of Rule Change".  Simply sending a letter to the tenants informing them of a change in the rules is insufficient.  If the rules are not properly adopted they will not be enforceable.  Frequently, the landlord or manager will first learn that their rules were improperly adopted when they try to enforce them.  If one or more of the rules you seek to adopt are opposed by a small but vocal minority who lobby the rest of the tenants against your change, consider meeting with them prior to giving notice of the proposed change, in an effort to mutually draft language that everyone would find acceptable.  If over 51% of the effected space still object, consider implementing the new rules for all new incoming tenants only.  That way, over time, the new rules will have wider and wider application as the older tenants

1. Keeping Track of Your Rules.  If there are more than one set of rules (i.e. old rules for existing tenants and new rules that are given to new tenants) make sure you keep track of which rules apply to which tenant.  Put copies of the applicable rules, together with the rental agreement and statement of policy, in each tenant's file.  Attempting to enforce the wrong rules against a tenant can result in disaster.  Show the date of the latest revision on the first page or, better yet, on the footer of each page.
2. Troublesome Issues.  There are some issues that seem to never go away.  Occupancy issues are one of those troublesome areas that frequently result in litigation.  If your community has rules limiting the time a visitor can stay, make sure it is clear and unambiguous.  Frequently tenants try to avoid these limits by calling their visitor a "house-sitter."  The best approach is to set a definite date, e.g. two weeks, and require that all persons who remain over that period of time must satisfy the same requirements as imposed on incoming tenants - e.g. background check, criminal check, references, etc.  Require that they sign the rental agreement.  If the existing tenant attempts to get around these occupancy rules by arguing that the person is there to provide necessary assistance because of certain physical or emotional disabilities, legal counsel should be immediately consulted due to Fair Housing implications.
3. Consistent Enforcement.  It is not uncommon for landlords and managers to grant exceptions and extensions of time for tenants to come into compliance with a particular violation.  However, landlords can get into trouble when they ignore some violators and enforce the rules against others.  Maintenance violations are a good example.  In order to enforce these rules you must be consistent.  Regular community inspections should be made.  Warnings should be given uniformly to all violators.  Thirty day notices should be given only as a last resort.  If the tenant requests an extension of time to comply, put the agreement in writing.  In those cases where legal action may need to be taken, make sure legal counsel reviews the case before filing the eviction.   Make sure your attorney is aware of your prior efforts to secure the tenant's compliance.  It is always best if the tenant's file shows a clear paper-trail of your efforts to secure voluntary compliance.

Rules and regulations are not foolproof.  Some tenants will always try to find reasons why they do not apply to them.  But clarity, consistency, and fair enforcement will go a long way in keeping peace and harmony in your manufactured housing community.

1. Avoid Ambiguity.  When writing a rule, make sure that it is understandable.  If a court or jury were called upon to enforce it, would they be able to understand it?  Is it fair?  Is the rule capable of different interpretations?  Is it too vague so as to give little or no guidance to the tenant?  Avoid using general terms which are so subjective that reasonable people could differ about what constitutes a violation.  If necessary, use an example.  If the rule must necessarily be open-ended (e.g. prohibiting loud and disturbing noise or offensive behavior), tie the violation to whether the conduct results in complaints from other tenants.  That way the issue does not become whether the manager is arbitrarily exercising his or her own discretion.
2. Updating the Rules.  Oregon landlord-tenant statutes can change every two years when the Legislature meets.  Circumstances and needs can change more frequently than that.  At least once a year, take a look at your rules to see if they are legally sufficient and whether they meet the community's present needs.  It is much easier to make smaller changes to the rules one or two at a time rather than trying to get the tenants to agree to a wholesale change of all the rules at once.  If your tenants are on leases, you have the right to submit new park documents (i.e. rules and rental agreement) not less than 60 days prior to the expiration of the lease term.  A tenant shall accept or reject the landlord's proposed new rental agreement at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.  If accepted, the rules and rental agreement will define your new rental relationship with the tenants.  It is one good way to update your rules, without having to go through a formal rules change.
3. Legally Adopting Your Rules.  If the tenants are on month-to-month tenancies, Oregon law requires that the landlord must give at least 30 days' advance written notice to make a change in the rules.  If 51% or more of the tenants affected by the rule change object within the 30 days of service of the notice, the change(s) will not go into effect.  However, if less than 51% object, the new rule(s) will become effective in 60 days from the date the notice was served on the tenants.  The law regarding the contents and timing of the notice of rule change must be strictly followed.  ORS 90.610 describes the process.  Read it carefully!  Simply sending a letter to the tenants informing them of a change in the rules is insufficient.  If the rules are not properly adopted they will not be enforceable.  Frequently, the landlord or manager will first learn that their rules were improperly adopted when they try to enforce them.  If one or more of the rules you seek to adopt are opposed by a small but vocal minority who lobby the rest of the tenants against your change, consider meeting with them prior to giving notice of the proposed change, in an effort to mutually draft language that everyone would find acceptable.  If over 51% of the effected space still object, consider implementing the new rules for all newincoming tenants only.  That way, over time, the new rules will have wider and wider application as the older tenants

4. Keeping Track of Your Rules.  If there are more than one set of rules (i.e. old rules for existing tenants and new rules that are given to new tenants) make sure you keep track of which rules apply to which tenant.  Put copies of the applicable rules, together with the rental agreement and statement of policy, in each tenant's file.  Attempting to enforce the wrong rules against a tenant can result in disaster.  Show the date of the latest revision on the first page or, better yet, on the footer of each page.
5. Troublesome Issues.  There are some issues that seem to never go away.  Occupancy issues are one of those troublesome areas that frequently result in litigation.  If your community has rules limiting the time a visitor can stay, make sure it is clear and unambiguous.  Frequently tenants try to avoid these limits by calling their visitor a "house-sitter."  The best approach is to set a definite date, e.g. two weeks, and require that all persons who remain over that period of time must satisfy the same requirements as imposed on incoming tenants - e.g. background check, criminal check, references, etc.  Require that they sign the rental agreement.  If the existing tenant attempts to get around these occupancy rules by arguing that the person is there to provide necessary assistance because of certain physical or emotional disabilities, legal counsel should be immediately consulted due to Fair Housing implications.
6. Consistent Enforcement.  It is not uncommon for landlords and managers to grant exceptions and extensions of time for tenants to come into compliance with a particular violation.  However, landlords can get into trouble when they ignore some violators and enforce the rules against others.  Maintenance violations are a good example.  In order to enforce these rules you must be consistent.  Regular community inspections should be made.  Warnings should be given uniformly to all violators.  Thirty day notices should be given only as a last resort.  If the tenant requests an extension of time to comply, put the agreement in writing.  In those cases where legal action may need to be taken, make sure legal counsel reviews the case before filing the eviction.   Make sure your attorney is aware of your prior efforts to secure the tenant's compliance.  It is always best if the tenant's file shows a clear paper-trail of your efforts to secure voluntary compliance.

Rules and regulations are not foolproof.  Some tenants will always try to find reasons why they do not apply to them.  But clarity, consistency, and fair enforcement will go a long way in keeping peace and harmony in your manufactured housing community.

Answer: The Oregon landlord-tenant law does not “require” that a landlord accept partial payments. To the contrary, it provides that it is a “tenant’s duty regarding rent payments is to tender to the landlord an offer of the full amount of rent owed within the time allowed by law and by the rental agreement….”

A landlord may refuse to accept the tender of partial rent of rent that is not paid on time. However, if the landlord agrees to accept a partial payment of rent he/she may do so, although it should be clearly described in a well-drafted written agreement.

Such partial payments do not constitute a waiver of the right to later demand prompt performance in the future. Nor do they prevent the landlord from terminating the tenancy if the balance of the rent is not paid as agreed.

However, there are some pitfalls that the landlord must be aware of: Acceptance of a partial payment waives the right of termination if accepted after issuance of a 72-hour or 144-hour notice of termination.

When presented with a partial payment issue, landlords are wise to closely review ORS 90.417. Lastly, consistent application is important – i.e. if the landlord has permitted partial payments by some residents, he/she would be hard-pressed to disallow others the right to do so without good reason. Here are a summary of how ORS 90.417 applies to this case:

• A tenant’s duty regarding rent payments is to tender to the landlord an offer of the full amount of rent owed within the time allowed by law and by the rental agreement.

• A landlord may refuse to accept a rent tender that is for less than the full amount of rent owed or that is untimely.

• A landlord may accept a partial payment of rent. Doing so does not constitute a waiver, if properly documented. Here is what the landlord must do to avoid waiver: o The partial payment must have been made before the landlord issued a 72-hour or 144-hour notice for nonpayment. o The landlord must enter into a written agreement with the tenant stating that the acceptance does not constitute waiver.

o The agreement should provide that the landlord may terminate the rental agreement and take possession as provided in the Oregon FED laws if the tenant fails to pay the balance of the rent by a time certain.

o The tenant must agree in writing to pay the balance by a date/time certain.

• If the balance is not paid according to this written agreement, the landlord may serve a 72-hour or 144-hour nonpayment of rent notice – but it must be served no earlier than would have been permitted under the rental agreement and the law, had no rent been accepted.

• Notwithstanding a landlord’s acceptance of a partial payment of rent, the tenant continues to owe the landlord the unpaid balance of the rent. In other words, acceptance of partial rent does not eliminate the duty to pay the balance.