Search

A landlord may require payment of an applicant screening charge solely to cover the costs of obtaining information about an applicant as the landlord processes the application for a rental agreement. (ORS 90.295) This activity is known as screening, and includes but is not limited to checking reference and obtaining a consumer credit report or tenant screening report. The landlord must provide the applicant with a receipt for any applicant screening charge.

The amount of any applicant screening charge shall not be greater than the landlord's average actual cost of screening applicants. Actual cost may include the cost of using a tenant screening company or a consumer credit reporting agency, and may include the reasonable value of any time spent by the landlord or the landlord's agents in otherwise obtaining information on applicants. In any case, the applicant screening charge may not be greater than the customary amount charged by tenant screening companies or consumer credit reporting agencies for comparable level of screening.

A landlord may not require payment of an applicant screening charge unless prior to the accepting the payment the landlord:

1. Adopts written screening or admission criteria
2. Gives written notice to the applicant of:
   1. the amount of the screening charge
   2. the screening or admission criteria
   3. the process that the landlord typically will follow
   4. the applicant's rights to dispute the accuracy of any information provided. 

New Oregon Law. No. 4 above has been stricken,2 and the following rules (found at ORS 90.675(14)(d) and (e) and (15) of HB 3016,) will apply. On January 1, 2016, if the landlord follows these new laws, the tax collector and Department of Revenue (collectively "tax collector") will be required to cancel unpaid taxes in the following additional circumstances:

1. The landlord sells the home to a buyer who intends to occupy it in the community in which it is currently located, after:

a. Purchasing it at the abandonment sale; or
b. Acquiring it as a result of a written agreement with the tenant or tenant's

personal representative, etc. in accordance with ORS 90.675(23)(a) [currently (22)(a)].

1 If there are remaining funds after that, the balance is paid in the following order to any lienholder to the extent of any unpaid balance owed on the lien and the remainder to the tenant, together with an itemized accounting.
2 Currently in ORS 90.675(d)(A), (B), and (C). Note that HB 3016 also added the following text to No. 2: "...and the landlord disposes of the property."

2. The following additional conditions must be met:

1. There is a lien on the home for unpaid property taxes and special assessments owed to a county or to the Department of Revenue;

2. The landlord must prepare and sign and affidavit or declaration (hereinafter "Affidavit of Compliance") in the form set forth on MHCO Form 31A, with the county tax collector or the Department of Revenue (hereinafter, "tax collector"). Upon filing this Affidavit of Compliance, the county tax collector will provide title to the home for the landlord to give to a buyer at the time of the sale.

3. After the sale, the landlord must file a second Affidavit of Compliance in the form set forth on MHCO Form 31B, with the tax collector. It must be accompanied by:

   i. Payment of the amount remaining from the sale proceeds after the deduction of the landlord's claims and costs, up to the amount of the unpaid taxes or tax lien. The landlord may retain the amount of the sale proceeds that exceed the amount of the unpaid taxes or tax lien;

   2. Payment of any county warrant fees; and

   3. A third Affidavit of Compliance, this time from the buyer, in the form set

      forth on MHCO Form 31C, stating his/her intent to occupy the property in the community. Thereupon, the tax collector shall cancel all any remaining unpaid taxes or tax liens on the property.

Effect of New Law. The new law will permit landlords to sell abandoned homes with unpaid property taxes to persons who will reside in them at the community in which they are currently located. To the extent that the net sale proceeds (after deduction of the landlord's statutory claims and costs) are insufficient to pay the former resident's unpaid property taxes, the shortfall will be waived by the tax collector. If the sale proceeds cover more than the landlord's statutory claims and costs, and all of the unpaid taxes, the landlord may retain any excess.

A: The landlord did several things wrong:

(a) he/she failed to reduce the agreement to writing, saying, for example, that the niece had to comply with all of the rules and regulations, that she was responsible for the rent, and generally fully memorializing the arrangement.

(b) the landlord failed to fully qualify the niece and failed to have her sign a rental agreement (or occupancy agreement) before taking possession. However, none of this means that the landlord is not without a remedy.

The original resident is still the tenant under the rental agreement and still responsible for the rent. It is quite possible that the niece is also a "tenant" in a legal sense. The landlord could and should be sending out 72-hour notices to the space naming both the resident and the niece. If the landlord has the phone number of the original resident, he/she should let them know what is going on. Under 90.630 if three or more 72-hour notices are sent with any 12 month period, the landlord may then issue a 30-day non-curable notice of termination. I suggest at least 4 such notices, just to be on the safe side. A more risky (and untested) approach, is to simply issue a 30-day notice of termination under the general (i.e. non-manufactured housing section of the law) landlord tenant law. It is my opinion that the landlord would be within their right to do so, since the occupant is not the owner of the home and the owner of the home is not the occupant. The manufactured housing section of the law - which requires that all notices be "for cause" does not technically apply here because of this distinction. However, before proceeding down this path, the landlord should obtain legal advice.

Answer: ORS 90.532 (3) provides as follows: Except as allowed by subsection (2) of this section for rental agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2010, a landlord and tenant may not amend a rental agreement to convert water or sewer utility and service billing from a method described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(i) [i.e. where the charge is included in the base rent] *** to a method described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(ii) [i.e. where the charge is billed separately from base rent and apportioned among the tenants on a pro rata basis as measured by a master meter]. The exception covered in subsection ORS 90.532(2) provides as follows: A landlord may not use a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method: (a) For water service, if the rental agreement for the dwelling unit was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless the landlord was using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all tenants in the facility immediately before January 1, 2010. (b) For sewer service, if it is measured by consumption of water and the rental agreement was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless the landlord was using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all tenants in the facility immediately before January 1, 2010. Translating this to plain English, here is my take: - For rental agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2010 you may not convert water or sewer charges from an in-rent method to a pro rata billing method except as follows: _ Water service: If the rental agreement was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless you were using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all 180 spaces immediately before January 1, 2010. _ Sewer Service: If sewer service is measured by consumption of water and the rental agreement was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, you may not convert from an in-rent method to a pro rata method, unless you were already using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all 180 spaces immediately before January 1, 2010. - Garbage service: You may not convert from an in-rent method to a pro rata billing method unless the pro rata apportionment is based upon the number and size of the garbage receptacles used by the tenant. There does not appear to be any time frame limitation on this rule Pursuant to ORS 90.534 [Allocated charges for utility or service provided directly to space or common area], if a written rental agreement so provides, you may use a pro rata billing method with a master meter and require tenants to pay you a utility or service charges (e.g. electrical and natural gas) that has been billed to you or provided directly to the tenant's space or to a common area. However, you may not unilaterally amend an existing rental agreement to convert utility and service billing from an in-rent billing method to a pro rata billing method. It appears you could use the pro rata billing method (other than sewer and water) per above rules, only on a going forward basis with new residents. Conclusion. This is the best I can tell you. It is not legal advice, and based only upon my interpretation of the statutes which are quite complex. It appears that yours is a difficult situation in which water/sewer submetering will not actually help. With the exception of garbage service, there is no easy answer. However, upon closer evaluation by your attorney, perhaps you may be able to figure out a work-around solution. Good luck!

Answer: It is now statewide law that rents cannot be raised at all during the first year of a month-to-month tenancy. After the first year of the tenancy, you are required to give written notice to the tenant at least 90 days prior to the effective date of the rent increase.

The written rent increase notice to tenants must state (1) the amount of the rent increase; (2) the amount of the new rent; and, (3) the date on which the increase becomes effective. If the notice is mailed to the tenants, you must add at least three additional days to the notice period (not counting the date mailed) to allow for mailing. The notice can also be hand-delivered to the tenants, but this means putting it directly in the tenant's hand - posting the notice is legally ineffective.

If you happen to have any fixed-term tenancies, be aware that rent can only be raised for those tenants in accordance with whatever the rental agreement says concerning rent increases. Week-to-week tenants can have their rent raised with at least seven days' written notice prior to the effective date of the increase. The same rules apply regarding the information that must be in the notice (amount, new rent, effective date), and regarding additional mailing time for the notice.

There is currently no limit on the amount of a rent increase, although there are rent control measures under consideration in the Oregon legislature. With that in mind, beware that any rent increase that you issue before the legislature adjourns might be subject to new laws. Check in on the MHCO website to keep apprised of any legislative changes.

Special rules also apply within the Portland city limits. By ordinance, a rent increase of 10% or more within a 12-month period triggers the tenant's right to terminate the tenancy on 14 days' written notice and potentially receive a "relocation assistance" payment from the landlord. These payments are based on the size of the rental unit and start at $2,900. However, it is questionable whether the ordinance as written applies to RV tenancies. If you intend to issue a rent increase of 10% or more within the City of Portland, you should first consult with a knowledgeable attorney to assess the risk of being subject to relocation payments.

The 2011 Oregon Legislative Session has now reached the halfway point.  MHCO has been successful in defeating a number of particularly bad pieces of legislation.  We need to stay engaged and vigiliant as the Legislative Session moves to adjournment in late June. 

MHCO Defeated:

HB 2172 - Rent Control with mandatory mediation and the establishment of a regulatory enforcement regime that would all the Oregon Attorney General enforcement landlord- tenant law in Oregon manufactured home communities.  For those of you who are familiar with Washington State this is a similar program with rent control.  This bill had strong support from many legislators who are in powerful positions, including Representative Buckley who is the House Ways and Means Co-Chair.  Peter Ferris was heavily involved in this bill - many of MHCO's members from southern Oregon have probably heard about his bill over the last year.  Many of the concepts will resurface again in future Legislatures.

HB 2885 - This bill originally applied to all  residential properties that had Department of Education employees who where evicted - required landlord to inventory their belongs and return appropriate property to the Department of Education.  This bill has been amended to exclude residential property.

HB 3073 - This bill expanded upon HB 2383 from 2009 that established a 14 day right of first refusal.  This bill was designed to increase the 14 days to an undetermined amount.  I will have more about this issue in a subsequent update on the landlord tenant coalition bill.  Representative Nathanson was hoping to increase the 14 days to a higher number.

HB 3183 - This bill lift the ban on local governments from passing rent control ordinances.  It will still have a hearing later this session, but since it the public hearing did not occur before today the bill cannot move forward to a work session.  It can only have a hearing - nothing more.  That being said, please do not be complacent when a hearing is scheduled - we need as many people to show up to oppose this bill as possible.  We will be dealing with this issue for the next session or two - we need to be vigilant.

Two additional issues that MHCO has been focused - mandatory water sub-metering and mandatory escrow when a community owner sells a manufactured home in their community have been significantly altered.  MHCO was able to perserve the exemption from mandatory water sub-metering for communities with 199 or less spaces.  MHCO also successfully changed SB 85 to eliminate the mandatory escrow requirement for community owners who sell a manufactured home in their community.  Two big wins for community owners in Oregon.

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. (1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if: - The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and - There exists a written rental agreement that specifies: _ The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge; _ The type and amount of the late charge; and _ The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due. (2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed: - A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market; - A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable flat amount", described above; or - Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. (3) In periodic tenancies [e.g. month-to-month], a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant. (4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment. (5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed. (6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

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

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

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

[1] Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors.

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