Search

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.

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. 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: In Oregon, month-to-month RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day, no-cause notice during the first year of their tenancy. After the first year, the no-cause notice to a monthly tenant would need to be a 60-day notice. Use MHCO Form 43C for no-cause RV evictions, choosing either the 30-day or 60-day notice option, depending on the length of tenancy.

Caveat: Portland and Milwaukie both have ordinances requiring 90-day no-cause notices to all monthly tenants, regardless of how long they have been tenants. The City of Bend requires 90-day notices after the first year of tenancy. In addition, Portland requires landlords to make "relocation assistance" payments to tenants evicted for no-cause, ranging from $2,900 to $4,500 - although the applicability of this requirement to RV tenants is legally questionable. Bottom line: Consult an attorney if you have an RV park in any of these cities.

If you have any week-to-week RV tenants, they can be evicted with a 10-day, no-cause notice. This applies even in the municipalities mentioned above, which all provide exceptions for weekly tenants. However, remember that to have a valid "week-to-week" tenancy, you must meet these specific requirements: (1) Occupancy is charged on a weekly basis and is payable no less frequently than every seven days, (2) there is a written rental agreement defining the landlord's and tenant's rights and responsibilities, and (3) there are no fees or security deposits (other than applicant screening charges). If your weekly tenant arrangements do not meet these specific requirements, your tenants will be treated as month-to-month tenants under Oregon law.

If you happen to have any fixed-term RV tenants, you cannot evict them with a no-cause notice until the fixed-term ends. Before that, it would require a for-cause notice (i.e., for breaking a park rule or for not paying the rent).

Finally, there is also an exception under Oregon law for RV "vacation occupants." A "vacation occupant" is someone who: (1) Rents the RV space for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence, (2) has a principal residence other than at the RV park, and (3) does not occupy the RV park for more than 45 days. You would need to have these facts documented in a written agreement. "Vacation occupants" are not "tenants" under Oregon law. They can be asked to leave without any eviction proceedings and the sheriff can be called to assist if necessary.

As usual, you should always seek the advice of a knowledgeable attorney if you are unsure whether you can or should issue a no-cause eviction notice.

Both Landlords and Tenants agree of the importance of sub-metering; it is a win-win proposition. Enduring years of Landlord/Tenant Coalition, one of the most daunting tasks was demonstrating Landlords do not have safes' locked full of money. Financing options simply did not exist to fund mandatory sub-metering. Where were Landlords to find upwards of $750+ per homesite to install water sub-meters? Of course, Landlords proved their argument and negotiated the right to unilaterally amend rental agreements to permit community-wide sub-metering; creating provisions to recapture installation expenses by billing Tenants. Considering a new program now available, I believe every Landlord should sub-meter sooner than later!

Now available is a sub-meter and installation program at zero expense to any Landlord wanting to install new or replace old sub-meter systems. No applications, no qualifications, and no money down gets you state of the art wireless monitored sub-meters (water, electric, and gas are all available). What's the catch? ... the Landlord signs a 10 year Billing Agreement with the provider, in which the Tenant pays. So, how does it work?

First, the meters are purchased/installed/administered/maintained/repaired/monitored/insured/read/etc. by an Independent 3rd party. Just as all meter reading companies, this 3rd party charges a monthly fee for their service ... it is their cost of doing business. In Eugene, this 3rd party charges nearly 1/2 less of what EWEB (Eugene Water and Electric Board) charges it's customers. Second, per ORS 90, the 3rd party bills the Tenant the cost of the sub-meter and installation over a minimum of 60 months. The sub-metering process is complicated; no worries, this 3rd party is experienced, has been in business for nearly a decade, has all the systems and sample notices in place, and handles the entire process on behalf of the Landlord.

The Bottom line: local government agencies and utility companies use Landlords to pass through their exorbitant "fees" and rate increases, in which Landlords are forced to carry until the next "rent" increase ... making the Landlord the greedy bad guy. Prior to sub-metering, utility expenses were 23% of my rent; my monthly invoices now line item sub-meter every utility possible. My rents are now very competitive within the market and I have direct control over costs. I see every reason why all Landlords should do the same.

Indeed, it sounds too good to be true ... it is. Contact me at troybrost@gmail.com, 541-554-1499, or visit www.infrasystems.us to find out for yourself. I will provide you with the contact and information you need and assist you along the way.

Answer. RS 90.680(6)(b) provides as follows:

The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant. Reasonable cause for rejection includes, but is not limited to, failure of the prospective purchaser to meet the landlords conditions for approval as provided in ORS 90.510 (Statement of policy) (5)(i) or failure of the prospective purchasers references to respond to the landlords timely request for verification within the time allowed for acceptance or rejection under paragraph (a) of this subsection. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the landlord shall furnish to the seller and purchaser a written statement of the reasons for the rejection.

What this means is that the only prohibition is against unreasonable rejections. That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. But whatever criteria you have, it must be applied consistently to all prospective applicants.

However, note that besides situations in which the prospective tenant fails to timely respond, the source of relevant screening criteria is to come from your Statement of Policy. So check that to see what criteria you have.

Similarly, Oregon law requires that you must inform your current resident in the rental agreement as to what criteria you will use, so check that, as well. In other words, you cannot make up screening criteria on the fly.

The MHCO rental and lease agreements have a number of criteria set out, and as long as you confine yourself to them you should be in good shape. You will note that they are general in nature, and do not set limits on the age or type of criminal convictions.

In checking with John VanLandingham, he reminds me that ORS 90.303 currently provides that a "landlord cannot consider arrests (unless the charge is still pending), but can consider convictions if the conviction relates to conduct relevant to being a tenant, which includes most everything. In consulting with screening companies, we were told that most don't report crimes older than 5 or 7 years."

There is a move afoot to apply limitations on criminal records in hiring. See the discussion on the Internet relating to "Ban the Box," here.

Answer: Assuming that the landlord has a temporary occupancy agreement in place, the answers are found in ORS 90.275 (Temporary occupancy agreement; terms and conditions). Specifically: - The temporary occupancy agreement is between the landlord, tenant and temporary occupant - all must sign. - The temporary occupant does not have the same rights as a tenant under the landlord-tenant law. - One may terminate the temporary occupancy agreement as follows: _ Only for cause that is a material violation of the temporary occupancy agreement ; presumably the theft constitutes a material violation under your rules and regulations which the temporary occupant is required to comply with; it is certainly a violation of law, which would suffice. _ The temporary occupant does not have a right to cure the violation; _ Legally, you do not have to give written notice of termination to the temporary occupant. However, in this case, I would do so, just for the record, and to make it clear that a notice of termination was, in fact, given. _ The temporary occupant is required to "promptly vacate" upon receipt of the notice. I suggest you give him/her a couple of days, just to avoid an issue. _ Although the statute doesn'texpressly require it, I would copy the resident on the notice. - If, after you give the notice, the temporary occupant sneaks back in the evenings, as seems to occur frequently, you should give the temporary occupant a formal "No Trespassing" letter, with a copy to the resident. It would be preferable if you had these notices personally delivered if you can. Then if the temporary occupant comes back, you may call the police to have him/her removed. - Alternatively, except as provided in ORS 90.449 (the statute protecting victims of domestic violence), a landlord may terminate the tenancy of the resident under ORS 90.630 (the statute permitting for-cause terminations) if the temporary occupant fails to promptly vacate the dwelling, or if the resident materially violates the temporary occupancy agreement. - A temporary occupant shall be treated as a squatter if he/she continues to occupy the dwelling unit after you have terminated the temporary occupancy agreement. _ ORS 90.100 (41) defines a squatter as "a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit." _ The landlord-tenant statutes do not have a specific provision dealing with eviction of "squatters." Although it implies you could have them forcefully removed, I would not attempt any self-help remedies. Rather, you could simply file an eviction, attach a copy of the termination notice, and proceed from there. Alternatively, you could proceed against the temporary occupant and the mother, if she did nothing to make sure he was out. If all else fails, I prefer the former approach, since frequently, a parent - especially an aged parent - is simply not capable of insisting that the son/daughter leave, and I don't believe that failure alone, should result in them losing their right to remain in the community. - Before entering into a temporary occupancy agreement, the law permits landlords to screen the proposed temporary occupant for issues regarding conduct or for a criminal record. If that was not done in this instance it should have been. (Note that a landlord may not screen the proposed temporary occupant for credit history or income level.) Lastly, I see no significance in the temporary occupant having a marijuana card. It isn'ta license to steal.

Both Landlords and Tenants agree of the importance of sub-metering; it is a win-win proposition. Enduring years of Landlord/Tenant Coalition, one of the most daunting tasks was demonstrating Landlords do not have safes' locked full of money. Financing options simply did not exist to fund mandatory sub-metering. Where were Landlords to find upwards of $750+ per homesite to install water sub-meters? Of course, Landlords proved their argument and negotiated the right to unilaterally amend rental agreements to permit community-wide sub-metering; creating provisions to recapture installation expenses by billing Tenants. Considering a new program now available, I believe every Landlord should sub-meter sooner than later!

Now available is a sub-meter and installation program at zero expense to any Landlord wanting to install new or replace old sub-meter systems. No applications, no qualifications, and no money down gets you state of the art wireless monitored sub-meters (water, electric, and gas are all available). What's the catch? ... the Landlord signs a 10 year Billing Agreement with the provider, in which the Tenant pays. So, how does it work?

First, the meters are purchased/installed/administered/maintained/repaired/monitored/insured/read/etc. by an Independent 3rd party. Just as all meter reading companies, this 3rd party charges a monthly fee for their service ... it is their cost of doing business. In Eugene, this 3rd party charges nearly 1/2 less of what EWEB (Eugene Water and Electric Board) charges it's customers. Second, per ORS 90, the 3rd party bills the Tenant the cost of the sub-meter and installation over a minimum of 60 months. The sub-metering process is complicated; no worries, this 3rd party is experienced, has been in business for nearly a decade, has all the systems and sample notices in place, and handles the entire process on behalf of the Landlord.

The Bottom line: local government agencies and utility companies use Landlords to pass through their exorbitant "fees" and rate increases, in which Landlords are forced to carry until the next "rent" increase ... making the Landlord the greedy bad guy. Prior to sub-metering, utility expenses were 23% of my rent; my monthly invoices now line item sub-meter every utility possible. My rents are now very competitive within the market and I have direct control over costs. I see every reason why all Landlords should do the same.

Indeed, it sounds too good to be true ... it is. Contact me at troybrost@gmail.com, 541-554-1499, or visit www.infrasystems.us to find out for yourself. I will provide you with the contact and information you need and assist you along the way.

Answer. This issue is not dissimilar to one asked recently where the hospitalized resident's sister came as a concerned family member and, bringing her small child, wanted to stay at the home which was located in a 55+ community.

My response then, s here, is that ORS Chapter 90, like most laws, is enacted to address essentially 80% of the most commonly observed landlord-tenant issues. That leaves the other 20% to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, i.e. as they arise. This situation raises issues that do not have a direct answer under the law.

Here, the issue deals, perhaps more directly, with what authority management has to permit friends and family to reside in the home of the comatose resident? Without some assurance that any of these folks would be permitted to stay in the home, the answer is a bit easier than whether a visiting sister with a small child is in violation of the 55+ park rules (she was not).

The most conservative answer is, to me, the best one; unless there is some basis for granting consent, I would not permit anyone to occupy the home, other than the resident. You have no knowledge of the visitor's backgrounds, and permitting them to encamp in the resident's home could pose problems to other residents.

The Oregon landlord-tenant law contains nothing one could point to that would authorize management to turn over possession to friends and family. Even family alone, should not be permitted access. There are simply too many things that could go wrong, and families can do strange things when a member passes away.[1]

• Like taking items from the home that now belong to the estate;
• Like moving in and claiming the home was "inherited";
• Like selling the home and retaining the proceeds, etc.

And what if the resident recovers? Will there be issues when he/she wants to return home, and one or more persons are staying there? What if valuables are missing?

The take-away is this: Absent some fairly clear instructions from the resident, or the attorney-in- fact under a durable power of attorney, the downside in permitting occupancy far outweighs any upside. Your explanation should be simple and straight forward: Oregon law does not authorize you to turn over possession of a resident's home to any unauthorized third parties. Under no circumstances should you accept any rent payments from them.

Lastly, if the friends and family are already staying in the home, you have a different set of problems. These folks are squatters, in that they did not enter into possession under any legal claim of right. ORS 90.100(43) defines a "Squatter" as:

... a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit. "Squatter" does not include a tenant who holds over as described in ORS 90.427 (7).

Accordingly, you should first try to get them to vacate immediately and peaceably. If they refuse, your only alternative is to file for eviction against them. You do not need a written notice, since this case does not arise under the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. You should contact an attorney familiar with eviction law, who can assist you in using the proper summons and complaint. (See, ORS 105.126) Once filed, the case will proceed in much the same fashion as all other evictions.

[1] Remember that the abandonment law has a specific protocol upon death of a resident living alone. Management is required to secure the home, issue a 45-day letter, and give the estate the same rights as a lienholder, with the obligation to pay storage fees and maintain the home until removal or resale. And no one may occupy the home. See, ORS 90.675(21).