Search

Kim Berry: Filling Mobile Spaces with RV's : The Pros and Cons

MHCO

When you drive through a "pure mobile home park" and then drive through a park with a lot of RV tenants you can feel the difference in overall quality. The overall value of a MHP with "Permanent RV" tenants mixed in with Mobile Home tenants is lower than a MHP which is completely filled with Mobile Homes. RV's are not really permanent homes so MHP buyers and banks see RV occupancy as more risky than Mobile Home occupancy. The appraised value is lower, the interest rate that the bank charges can be higher and the pool of interested buyers is smaller. There are a number of MHPs in Oregon which have RV tenants who have been tenants in the same space for over 15 years, but even if you prove this to a bank, they can still be hesitant to lend on the park. Many buyers will simply not look at MHPs with a high percentage of RV tenants. One advantage of having RV tenants to fill spaces is that you can give them a 60 day no cause notice to move out. This can be beneficial for two reasons. Firstly, if the tenant turns out to be a problem tenant who does not adhere to the rules, it is easy to replace them with a good tenant. This also allows a MHP owner to temporarily fill spaces with RV tenants but replace them with Mobile Homes when they find one to put into that space. Of course, it is always a good idea to inform an RV tenant that this is your intention before they move in and expect to live there for years.

Not only does the park income rise when spaces are full, but the overall feeling of full occupancy is good for tenants, management and once full, parks with 100% full lots tend to stay that way for a very long time. Vacant spaces can make a Mobile Home Park feel old, neglected, and undesirable even if it is well maintained otherwise. Also, we all know that it is expensive to bring even a used Mobile Home into a park. The purchase of the house, moving expenses, set up, and final touch up will generally run at least $17,000 for a single wide and anywhere from $35,000 - $60,000+ for a double wide home. Other items to consider are the sales commissions for the Mobile Home Dealer and it can prove to be difficult to get both a house, and a tenant to both qualify for bank financing. Having the park buy and set up mobile homes can be a risk but may be worth it. There is really no calculation or standard that determines what the reduction in value of a MHP with RV tenants is but it certainly is the case that the demand is lower and lending is more difficult.

By using a good Mobile Home Dealer who can find used mobile homes to fill spaces, arrange them to be moved and set up and then sell them is a win-win situation. There are a number of highly reputable licensed dealers who can seamlessly fill vacant spaces and in the end the cost is usually worth it when you calculate the improvement made to the park. If you are thinking about selling your MHP, and even if you are not expecting to, it makes sense to improve your property for long term value.

On the other hand, simply having RV tenants pull their RV into a space has many short term benefits for both the tenant and the MHP. The screening criteria is still the same so the RV tenants make up a very good pool of possible tenants. All in all a pure MHP is more desirable but RV tenants can be as long term as Mobile Home tenants and with the trend heading in the direction of very small living spaces, RV living may be considered a luxury before long.

Kim Berry, Principal Broker

Rundle CRE - Mobile Home Brokers

5319 SW Westgate Dr. Suite 232

Portland, OR 97221

503-980-3512

CELL: 503-807-2568

FAX: 360-935-3512



Phil Querin Q&A: Non Renewal of Lease

Phil Querin

Question:  We have a resident that we would like to not renew on a long-term lease.  Their renewal is coming up in several months.  Do we have to provide the notice of lease expiration and the new documents (rules and regulations)?  Can we simply not renew?

 

Answer. ORS 90.545(Fixed Term Tenancies) provides that upon reaching the end of the term, the lease becomes a month-to-month tenancy on the same conditions as the lease. The only exception to this is for the landlord to submit a proposed new rental agreement to the tenant at least 60 days prior to the ending date of the term. Any provisions that are new, i.e. not in the prior lease, are to be summarized in a written statement; the same applies if the landlord is submitted new community rules.

 

Note that the new lease terms or new rules must “(f)airly implement a statute or ordinance adopted after the creation of the existing agreement; or Are the same as those offered to new or prospective tenants in the community. 

 

Further, the new lease terms or rules cannot relate to the “…age, size, style, construction material or year of construction of the manufactured dwelling” *** and cannot “…require an alteration of the manufactured dwelling *** or new construction of an accessory building or structure.

 

The tenant must accept or reject the proposed new lease at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.

 

Under the recently enacted SB 608, there is a “3-stikes” rule that applies as follows. At the end of the lease it does notautomatically become a month-to-month tenancyif:

  • Landlord gives the tenant notice in writing not less than 90 days prior to the ending dateor
  • 90 days prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later,and: 
    • The tenant has committed three or more (3+) violations of the lease within the preceding 12-month period and
    • The landlord has given the tenant a written warning notice at the time of each violation:
      • Specifying theviolation;
      • Stating that landlord may choose to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term if there are three violations within a 12-month period preceding the end of the fixed term;and
      • Stating that correcting the third or subsequent violationis nota defense to termination under this subsection; and
  • The 90-day notice of termination due to violations muststate:
    • That the rental agreement will terminate upon the specified ending date for the fixed term or upon a designated datenot less than 90 days after delivery of the notice, whichever is later;
  • Thereasonfortheterminationandsupportingfacts;and
  • Is delivered to the tenant concurrent with  or  after the  third or subsequent written warningnotice.

So, the bottom line is that under ORS 90.545, a landlord may not non-renew a tenant at the end of a lease term. You may only offer a new lease as discussed above, or follow the “3-strikes” protocol under SB 608.

Of course, you may always terminate the lease at any time for cause, pursuant to: ORS 86.782(6)(c) (foreclosure trustee sale),90.380(5) (dwelling posted asunsafe by gov’t),90.392 (termination for cause),90.394 (termination forfailure to pay rent),90.396 (termination on 24-hour notice),90.398(termination drugs, alcohol),90.405 (termination, unpermitted pet),90.440(termination in group recovery facility)or90.445 (termination for criminalact) 

Revised Form 4 - Mediation Under SB 586 & MHCO FORM 4 (Mediation Policy Addendum)

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;

 


 

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: 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: Applicant Buys Home, Qualifies for Residency, Disappears Without Signing Rental Agreement

Phil Querin

Question: We have an applicant who was pre-approved for residency, then purchased a home but did not show up to sign the rental agreement or moving into the home. We learned the reason for not showing up was that he had been recently arrested for multiple counts of identity theft and is also being investigated for drug activity.

Answer:  My answer requires that I make some assumptions:

  • When you say “pre-approved” I will assume he has not received a final approval;
  • I will assume that somewhere in your application paperwork it states that the landlord-tenant relationship does not commence until the rental or lease agreement is signed.
  • I will assume that management did not say or do anything to cause the applicant to believe he could purchase the home before final approval.
  • Accordingly, I will assume that the person is NOT legally a tenant in your community.

 

ORS 90.303(3)(Evaluation of Applicant)[1]provides that when evaluating the applicant, the landlord may consider criminal conviction and charging history if the conviction or pending charge is for conduct that is

     (a) A drug-related crime; 

     (b) A person crime; 

     (c) A sex offense; 

     (d) A crime involving financial fraud, including identity theft and forgery; or 

(e) Any other crime if the conduct for which the applicant was convicted or     charged is of a nature that would adversely affect: 

  (A) Property of the landlord or a tenant; or 

(B) The health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of residents, the landlord or the landlord’s agent.  (Emphasis added.)

 

So, under the facts of your question (subject to my assumptions), you are within your rights to decline the applicantat the present time.[2]  Since he is not legally a “tenant” under ORS Chapter 90, the landlord tenant law would not apply, so I would notsuggest proceeding under the abandonment statute, ORS 90.675(Disposition of Manufactured Dwelling). 

 

There is no “limit” on how long an approved applicant has to sign the rental agreement in ORS. But there is nothing preventing you from inserting this requirement in your application paperwork.[3]

 

So that he could recoup the cost of the home, I would try to reach out to him and propose, subject to a carefully drafted agreement, that he could sell the home to an approved tenant. Have him enter into a storage agreement with monthly payments, but no occupancy.  

 

While technically you would not be subject to the park-sale statute, ORS 90.680(Sale of Dwelling), you could use it for guidance when screening other applicants for tenancy.

 

[1]This statute was amended in the 2019 Legislative Session by Senate Bill 971, but the changes do not affect my answer.

[2]Although I don’t think it likely, assuming the pending charges were quickly dropped (and ignoring the drug activity investigation), if there was nothing more on the applicant’s criminal record, the issue of whether you must accept him is slightly different. ORS 90.303(2)(Evaluation of Applicant) provides that a landlord may notconsider a previous arrest if it did not result in a conviction.

[3]Note to self:Perhaps MHCO should consider a clause in its applications stating that any approvals given are subject to any material changes to tenant’s qualifications that occur after submitting the application and before taking occupancy.

Phil Querin Q&A: Can Community Owner Insist Resident Use Specific Sales Agent When Selling Home in the Community?

Phil Querin

Answer: Bad news on both fronts. Let me answer your second question first. You may NOT share in a real estate commission unless you have your own Oregon real estate license. This prohibition against commission sharing even applies between real estate agents and the homeowner they represent. Here is the applicable Oregon Law:

ORS 696.290 [Sharing compensation with or paying finders fee to unlicensed person prohibited]

(1)A real estate licensee may not offer, promise, allow, give, pay or rebate, directly or indirectly, any part or share of the licensees compensation arising or accruing from any real estate transaction or pay a finders fee to any person who is not a real estate licensee licensed under ORS 696.022 (Licensing system for real estate brokers and property managers). However, a real estate broker or principal real estate broker may pay a finders fee or a share of the licensees compensation on a cooperative sale when the payment is made to a licensed real estate broker in another state or country, provided that the state or country in which that broker is licensed has a law permitting real estate brokers to cooperate with real estate brokers or principal real estate brokers in this state and that such nonresident real estate broker does not conduct in this state any acts constituting professional real estate activity and for which compensation is paid. If a country does not license real estate brokers, the payee must be a citizen or resident of the country and represent that the payee is in the business of real estate brokerage in the other country. A real estate broker associated with a principal real estate broker may not accept compensation from any person other than the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated at the time. A principal real estate broker may not make payment to the real estate broker of another principal real estate broker except through the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated. Nothing in this section prevents payment of compensation earned by a real estate broker or principal real estate broker while licensed, because of change of affiliation or inactivation of the brokers license.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prohibits a real estate licensee who has a written property management agreement with the owner of a residential building or facility from authorizing the payment of a referral fee, rent credit or other compensation to an existing tenant of the owner or licensee, or a former tenant if the former tenant resided in the building or facility within the previous six months, as compensation for referring new tenants to the licensee.

(3)(a) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prevents an Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker from sharing compensation on a cooperative nonresidential real estate transaction with a person who holds an active real estate license in another state or country, provided:

(A)Before the out-of-state real estate licensee performs any act in this state that constitutes professional real estate activity, the licensee and the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker agree in writing that the acts constituting professional real estate activity conducted in this state will be under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon broker and will comply with all applicable Oregon laws;

(B)The cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker accompanies the out-of-state real estate licensee and the client during any property showings or negotiations conducted in this state; and

(C)All property showings and negotiations regarding nonresidential real estate located in this state are conducted under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker.

(b) As used in this subsection, nonresidential real estate means real property that is improved or available for improvement by commercial structures or five or more residential dwelling units.

As for requiring that residents use your preferred agent, that too is a No-No. Here is that statute [I've underscored the applicable provision in subsection (1).] The term "services" can clearly be applied to real estate brokerage services, and as such, I cannot recommend that you impose that condition on residents when they want to sell their home.

90.525 [Unreasonable conditions of rental or occupancy prohibited.]

(1) No landlord shall impose conditions of rental or occupancy which unreasonably restrict the tenant or prospective tenant in choosing a fuel supplier, furnishings, goods, services or accessories.

(2) No landlord of a facility shall require the prospective tenant to purchase a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer or one of a group of dealers.

(3) No landlord renting a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall give preference to a prospective tenant who purchased a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer.

(4) No manufactured dwelling or floating home dealer shall require, as a condition of sale, a purchaser to rent a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home in a particular facility or one of a group of facilities. [Formerly 91.895; 1991 c.844 _7]

Bill Miner Q&A: Park Sale and Tenants' Right to Compete to Purchase

Bill Miner

Background  In 2021, HB 2364 was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor modifying the requirements in ORS 90.842 et. al., which requires manufactured home park owners to give their tenants an opportunity to compete to purchase a park prior to selling to a third party. I have brushed off the questions and answers submitted in 2015 as an update to the new law. 

Please note that there are some significant changes with the 2021 law, including a substantial penalty to owners who do not follow the law. I would encourage you to review the changes closely and let me know if you have any further questions. For some of the minor changes, I have bolded and italicized the changes. Any owner who has received an offer to purchase their manufactured home park that they intend to consider, or are entertaining executing a listing agreement with a broker to sell their park, should reach out to legal counsel who have familiarity and experience with this law.  Any broker who is working with an owner should also seek legal counsel to ensure the process is being followed. 

 

 

Q: If I am thinking of selling my park, when do I have to send notice to my tenants?
 

A: ORS 90.842 requires an owner to give written notice of the owner's interest in selling the park before an owner markets a park for sale or when the owner receives an offer to purchase that the owner intends to consider, whichever occurs first. If possible, I advise my clients to send the notice before entering into a listing agreement and certainly before actively listing the property. 

This requirement has been in place since 2015 and HB 2364 did not modify it. In the last few years, my experience has been that the statute is triggered mostly when an owner receives an offer to purchase that it intends to consider.


 

Q: Does the notice need to be sent to each tenant individually versus all tenants (e.g. "Dear Mr. Johnson" vs. "Dear Tenant")?


 

A: The plain language of the law states "all tenants," but the 2014 Summary of Legislation states that the purpose of the bill is to require park owners to notify "individual park residents" if the owner is interested in selling the park. Because it appears that the original intent was to notify everyone, the safer course is to send the notice to each tenant individually.


 

If a tenants committee has been formed, and the purpose of the committee is (in part) to purchase the park, and you have met with the committee in the previous 12 months, you can send a notice to the tenants' committee in lieu of all tenants. Also note that you must send a copy of the notice to the Housing and Community Services Department. 

My practice, since 2015 has been to still send the notice to all tenants, even if an owner is aware of a tenants’ committee. This requirement was not changed with HB 2364. The statute did add that the requirement to send the notice to the Housing and Community Services Department must be done “in the manner prescribed by the department by rule.”  At the time of publication, I do not believe this rule has been promulgated; however, at this time, I would send a copy of the notice to the Manufactured Communities Resource Center.


 

Q: What does the notice have to include?


 

A: (1) The owner is selling the park; (2) The tenants, through a tenants committee, have an opportunity to purchase the park; (3) In order to compete to purchase the park, within 15 days after delivery of the notice, the tenants must form (or identify) a single tenants committee for the purpose of purchasing the park and notify the owner in writing of: (a) the tenants' interest in competing to purchase the park; and (b) the name and contact information of the representative of the tenants committee with whom the owner may communicate about the purchase; (4) The representative of the tenants committee may request financial information described in section 2(2) of the statute within the 15 day period; and (5) information about purchasing a park is available from the Housing and Community Services Department.

HB 2364 increased the time from 10 days to 15 days to allow the tenants to respond.


 

Q: Does 15 days really mean 15 days?


 

A: The law discusses "delivery of the notice." I advise my clients that all notices should be sent by first class mail and 3 days should be allowed for mailing just as if you were sending a 30-day notice or a 72-hour notice. Certificates of Mailing (Not certified mail!!) for each notice are strongly encouraged. By way of example, if you send the notice on June 1, then the "15 days" would run on June 18.


 

Q: What do the tenants have to do after I send them the notice?


 

A: If the tenants are interested in competing to purchase the park, within the 15 days, the tenants must notify the owner in writing of their interest in competing to purchase the park, the formation or identification of a single tenants committee formed for the purpose of purchasing the park and the name and contact information of the representative of the tenants committee with whom the owner may communicate about the purchase.

In practice, a non-profit entity, like CASA of Oregon, will notify you or your legal counsel of the tenants’ interest in competing to purchase your park. I have found CASA of Oregon to be professional and reasonable with both the manner of delivery of notices and information (electronic mail is preferred). In most cases, you (or your legal counsel) will not be dealing with the tenants’ committee but will be primarily communicating with CASA and their professional advisors.


 

Q: Do I have to give the tenants my tax returns, SSN and Mother’s Maiden Name?


 

A: No. But, during the 15 days of delivery of the notice, and in order to perform a due diligence evaluation of the opportunity to compete to purchase, your tenants (through CASA or another non-profit), may request specific financial information which may include: the asking price, if any (this provision contemplates that you may not yet know your asking price when you send your notice); the total income collected from the park and related profit centers, including storage and laundry, in the calendar year before delivery of the notice; the total operating expenses for the facility paid by the owner or landlord in the calendar year before delivery of the notice; the cost of all utilities for the park that were paid by the owner in calendar year before delivery of the notice; the annual cost of all insurance policies paid by the owner as shown by the most recent premium; the number of homes in the park owned by the owner; and the number of vacant spaces and homes in the park. Please note that I have seen requests that ask for additional information; providing information outside of what is outlined above is discretionary. The owner has 14 days to deliver the information to the tenants.

The changes above are three-fold: First, the owner has been given an additional 7 days to pull this information together. In practice, a well-organized owner should have this information all pulled together prior to sending the initial notice so there is no delay.  Second, the statute used to call for the information in the 12 months prior to sending the notice, now it is the calendar year. Figuring out this information across calendar years can be challenging. In practice, an owner may want to give information from the previous calendar year together with a year-to-date snapshot of the income and expenses. CASA may ask for 2-3 years’ worth of information; you are not required to give it, but there is nothing stopping you. Finally, “total operating expenses” were added. My practice has been to provide a P&L or pro forma that you would give to any other seller. Such information would likely exceed your obligations. 

Q:  Is the information protected from disclosure?

A: Yes. The statute allows an owner to designate all, or part of the financial information, as confidential. If the owner designates the financial information as confidential, the parties may establish a list of who can see the information and with whom the information can be shared. In practice, CASA has modified their confidentiality agreement to only allow members of CASA (and their legal and accounting professionals) to see the confidential information. If the confidentiality agreement is breached by the tenants, the owner may recover actual damages from the tenant or tenants.

 

What happens after I disclose the financial information?


 

A: Within 45 days after delivery of the financial information (or 45 days after the end of the 15 day period in the unlikely event the tenants do not request financial information), and if the tenants choose to compete to purchase the park, the tenants must: (1) form a corporate entity that is legally capable of purchasing property or associate with a nonprofit corporation or housing authority that is legally capable of purchasing real property or that is advising the tenants about purchasing the park in which the tenants reside; and (2) submit a written offer to purchase the park, in the form of a proposed purchase and sale agreement, and either a copy of the articles of incorporation of the newly formed entity .

 

The increase to 45 days is a substantial change to the statute. It used to be 15 days. While a bit more onerous, it is less than what was originally being proposed. 

 

Q: Do I have to accept the offer?


 

A: No. You may accept, reject, or submit a counteroffer. You should view the tenants (and negotiate with them) as you would any potential third-party purchaser. If the offer is far off or not commercially reasonable, you can reject the offer outright. While not required, I usually advise my clients to explain why it's not doable (e.g., unreasonable financing terms, not enough cash, long closing date, too much many contingencies). If the offer is close to the mark, you may want to counter with terms. In my opinion, the key is to deal with the tenants committee as you would any bona fide purchaser. don't treat them differently just because they are tenants.

Nothing in HB 2364 changed this, although a “good faith and fair dealing” requirement was added in the consideration and negotiation with the tenants group.  (See below).

Q: What if I just don’t want to sell to my tenants because they’re tenants?

A: In my opinion, this was the behavior that the Legislature was trying to address by adding in the “good faith and fair dealing” requirement. One of the problems with “good faith and fair dealing” is that it is not a specific action that can be measured, but an action that a future judge or jury will likely “know it when they see it.” There is no doubt that if an owner decided not to give a group of tenants an opportunity to compete to purchase or decided not to sell to the tenants when the terms were otherwise commercially reasonable (and better than other offers), just because they are tenants, that behavior would violate the statute. The penalty is severe. The owner could be facing a judgment equal to 10% of the purchase price of the facility plus attorney fees.

 

As you can imagine, as MHCO was attempting to understand what this would mean for owners, we wanted to understand what the intent of the language was. We were able to work with Chair Julie Fahey (now Majority Leader Fahey) to place some helpful language in the legislative record that would assist future owners (and their attorneys) in understanding what was (and was not) “good faith”. 

 

Chair Fahey’s comments, together with the examples of what is good faith will help any future owner navigate an offer from their tenants.
 

During consideration in the Committee, Chair Fahey was clear in stating that the purpose of the good faith language was not intended to give the tenants a “right of first refusal” nor to give tenants any special advantage over another third-party purchaser in negotiation; rather, the purpose is to strengthen the requirement that facility owners give a fair chance to their tenants to compete to purchase a facility. 

 

Furthermore, Chair Fahey stated that, “good faith on the part of the parties, both the tenants and any facility owner, is presumed.” A tenant or group of tenants would have to prove that that a facility owner was unwilling to consider an offer from tenants, to negotiate with tenants, or to sell to tenants solely because they are tenants (and no other commercially reasonable factors exists), would violate the statute, as amended.

 

Additionally, Chair Fahey shared some specific examples of what was acting or negotiating in good faith:

 

  1. After giving the notice required by ORS 90.842, the facility owner enters into a non-binding letter of intent with a separate third-party potential purchaser. That non-binding letter of intent references the facility owner’s duty to consider, in good faith, any offer the tenants may make (this is a common practice, and one I advise my clients on as it allows an owner to move on two tracks). It is very important that the third-party purchaser be aware of and respect an owner’s obligation to consider the tenants’ offer;

 

  1. After receiving an offer from the tenants, the landlord rejects the offer because the material terms of the offer are outside of what the facility owner would consider.  Material terms could include (but are not limited to): price; date of closing, amounts and timing of earnest money deposits; dates of due diligence and contingences and possible effect on date of closing; and whether earnest money is “hard”, or whether the earnest money will go hard; details of contingencies (including financing contingencies);

 

  1. After receiving an offer from the tenants, the landlord rejects the offer because of other extenuating circumstances. Other extenuating circumstances could include (but are not limited to): the potential sale of a facility that would include other consideration besides cash (i.e. stock or property trades);
  2. A landlord rejects an offer from the tenants and the landlord provides a rationale for the rejection that is true (please note that the rationale is not necessary, but providing a truthful rationale, is in of itself good faith); and

 

  1. After receiving an offer from the tenants, the landlord makes a counteroffer that is commercially reasonable.

 

This is not an exhaustive list but provides good guidance on how an owner should consider any potential offer. Again, you should work with your legal professional as you navigate this issue.

 

Q: What happens if the tenants don't respond within the 15 days or don't respond within the 45 days of me providing financial information?

A: You have no further duties under the statute.

Q: What do I do if I think this process is only being invoked to harass me?

A: Call your lawyer. The parties (including the tenants) are required to act in a commercially reasonable manner. Depending on the conduct (and the ability to establish the conduct and motive) your attorney should be able to develop a strategy to combat poor behavior.

Q: I've entered into a purchase and sale agreement with a separate buyer, and I haven't followed the process. What should I do?


 

A: Call your lawyer – today.  It may be fixable but failing to follow this process allows affected tenants to obtain injunctive relief to prevent a sale to a third-party purchaser (which could cause you to be in breach with that third party purchaser) and to recover significant penalties. Bottom line is to be aware of your responsibilities and follow the statute.
 

Q: What do I do after I've completed the process?

 

A: You must file an affidavit certifying that you've complied with the process and that you have not entered a contract for the sale or transfer of the park to an entity formed by or associated with the tenants. The purpose of this affidavit is to preserve the marketability of title to parks. Additionally, there is a requirement that you notify the Housing and Community Services Department who the new owner is.


 

Q:  Are there exceptions to this statute?

A: Yes. The exceptions are listed in ORS 90.848. The most common exception is any sale or transfer in which the facility satisfies the purchaser’s requirement to make a like-kind exchange under section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, if you receive an unsolicited offer from a potential purchaser who is attempting to satisfy a 1031 exchange you are not required to give your tenants an opportunity to compete to purchase.

Bill Miner is currently Partner in Charge of the Portland office of Davis Wright Tremaine. DWT is a full-service law firm with 500 attorneys on both coasts and in Shanghai, China. The Portland office consists of approximately 80 attorneys and over 80 staff. He works with clients to resolve their legal problems through pre-litigation counseling, litigation, and mediation. He tries cases in state and federal courts and through private arbitration. His experience includes defending and prosecuting business torts; breach of contract claims; disputes between and among members of limited liability companies; residential and commercial real estate matters, including landlord-tenant, title, lien, and timber trespass disputes; and probate and trust cases. He is a frequent and popular speaker at MHCO seminars and conferences. You can reach Bill at: http://www.dwt.com/people/WilliamDMiner/

Phil Querin Q&A: Temporary Occupants and Implications for Rules and Regulations Screening and Eviction

Phil Querin

Answer: Not in my opinion. The temporary occupant agreement concept is that the person is not going to be a “co-renter”. They are being permitted to come onto the space as an accommodation by the landlord to the current resident who wants them there. If they are to become a temporary occupant, but your background check inadvertently reveals derogatory references related to financial information, and that concerns you, then limit the amount of time they can remain there, and take things a month, or six months, at a time. You might consider having tenants fill out a form in advance explaining exactly why they want the temporary occupant there. If a tenant wants them there to share the rental obligation then you should know that before offering the temporary occupant status. If that is the case, then have them apply as a tenant. If they don’t pass the financial background check, then reject them on that basis.

Question: The temporary occupancy agreement states that the temporary occupant must comply with the laws/Rules Regulations & Policies of the community. Who is responsible to provide this information to the temporary occupant and when should it be given?

Answer: I understand that the temporary occupant law does not specifically address this point. But you have the most to lose if the rules are not given to them at the outset of the temporary occupant relationship. That being the case, I would suggest you append the rules to the temporary occupant agreement, and have them sign both the agreement and the attached rules. Then there is no question about whether they got them.

Question: The temporary occupant agreement and the law state that a temporary occupant can be terminated “for cause” if there is a material violation of the occupancy agreement and that the temporary occupant does not have a right to cure the violation. The other option is termination by automatic expiration of the agreement (if the box is checked that specifies this). If the landlord needs to issue a for cause termination (instead of termination by automatic expiration) the termination must be done in accordance with the law outlined in ORS 90.392 (for non-MHP tenancies) or 90.630 (for MHP tenancies). However after reading these statutes, they do not give an option for the landlord to issue a for cause notice with no right to cure. How is a landlord supposed to issue a for cause termination notice with no right to cure and have it held up in court? If a landlord issues a for cause notice with no right to cure, what form should be used and what is the time frame for the termination?

Answer: The temporary occupant law is addressed in ORS 90.275. You may terminate the temporary occupant for a material violation of the temporary occupancy agreement. That agreement also terminates by its own terms when it expires (if you checked that box on the form). The law says that upon termination or expiration, the temporary occupant shall “promptly vacate.” If they don’t, then the landlord can issue a for cause termination under 90.630 (for MHP tenancies) to the tenant – not the temporary occupant. That means you would issue a termination notice under 90.630 for the tenant to vacate if the temporary occupant failed to do so as required. The opportunity to cure is for the tenant to get the temporary occupant to vacate. If they temporary occupant fails to vacate within the 30-day cure period given by law to the tenant, then the entire space tenancy is terminated. In such case, the law says the temporary occupant – if they remain – is treated as a “squatter.” ORS 90.403 then permits you to give a 24-hour non-curable termination notice to the “squatter” and evict, if necessary, through the normal FED process.

Phil Querin Q&A: 55 and Older Community - Applicant is 47

Phil Querin

Answer: You may accept the prospective tenant. Under federal law, at least 80% of the spaces must be occupied by at least one tenant age 55 or over. The remaining 20% was originally reserved as "padding" in the event that one or more of the spaces became occupied by someone under 55, say, through death of the qualifying tenant and inheritance by a nonqualifying tenant. It use to be that the federal regulations suggested that intentionally renting some of the remaining 20% to nonqualifying tenants jeopardized the park's 55+ exemption, since it failed to demonstrate that the owner "intended" to hold the park out as a 55+ facility. That interpretation has been changed, and now landlords may rent out some of the remaining spaces to persons under 55 years of age.

However, remember that if you fall below the minimum 80%, the 55+ exemption will be automatically lost and the park will automatically become a family park - meaning that you will not be immune from a fair housing claim if you refuse to rent a space to a tenant with children.