Search

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn'tmake it clear whether the estate was formally filed for probate in court, in which case this "Administrator" would be subject to court supervision and would have to have a bond. I'm suspecting that is not the case - but if it is, you may want to secure legal counsel to notify the court of what's happening and perhaps get him removed.

Assuming that the person is just a designee for the un-probated estate (I will call him the "representative"), I would suggest that you look to ORS 90.675(20), which applies when a resident living alone passes away. Subsection (20) is summarized below, but should not be used as a substitute for reading ORS 90.675 (linked here) in its entirety:

• This subsection (20) applies the same duties as those of a resident who abandoned the property.
• It also applies to any personal representative named in a will or appointed by a court, or any person designated in writing by the decedent to be contacted by the landlord in the event of the tenant's death;
• The 45-day abandonment notice required in ORS 90.675(3) (go to above link) is to be sent by first class mail to this representative at the premises, and also personally delivered or sent by first class mail to them if actually known to the landlord.
• If the representative responds by actual notice to a landlord within the 45-day period provided in the letter and so requests, the landlord shall enter into a written storage agreement with the representative or person providing that the personal property may not be sold or disposed of by the landlord for up to 90 days or until conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
• Note: Entering into the storage agreement includes the duty to pay a "storage fee" which can be no higher than the space rent. This duty is not triggered until the 45-day letter is sent. Presumably you will use a good storage agreement that requires, among other things, compliance with all applicable park rules and state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including a duty to maintain the space. On- site destruction of the home is NOT maintaining the space. Depending upon the home's age, on site destruction could be a violation of certain environmental laws, due to potentially hazardous material used in construction. In fact, since there is a risk that the representative will not comply with the storage agreement - based on his threat of destruction - you may want to consider - only upon the advice of your attorney - to restrict his unsupervised access to the home. Destruction of the home would not only take it off the tax rolls in violation of Oregon property tax law, but it would prevent you, as the landlord, from selling the home upon failure of the representative to meet his obligations. Remember, in addition to the tax collector, you have a vested interest in seeing the home sold for recoupment any sums due (arguably including attorney fees) incurred during the abandonment process.
• Since the abandonment law requires that the landlord has a duty of safe keeping pending completion of the abandonment process, it is my belief[1] that this entitles the landlord to secure the home (e.g. with a new lock) so that heirs and others cannot enter and remove personal property.
• A storage agreement entitles the representative to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the personal property.
• If such an agreement is entered into, the landlord may not enter a similar agreement with a lienholder (if any) until the agreement with the representative ends.
• If the representative requests that a landlord enter into a storage agreement and there is a lienholder, also, you should review subsections (19)(c) to (e) and (g)(C) of ORS 90.675, which describes the rights and responsibilities of a lienholder with regard to the storage agreement.
• During the term of the Storage Agreement, the representative has the right to remove or sell the property, including a sale to a purchaser or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave the property on the space and become a tenant. However, this prospective tenant is subject to the same statutory requirement, including landlord qualification and approval, as found in ORS 90.680 (linked here). The landlord also may condition approval for occupancy upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
• If the representative violates the storage agreement, the landlord may terminate it by giving at least 30 days' written notice to them stating facts sufficient to notify them of the reason for the termination. Unless the representative or person corrects the violation within the notice period, the Storage Agreement terminates as provided and the landlord may sell or dispose of the property without further notice to the representative.

• Upon the failure of a representative to enter into a storage agreement or upon termination of an agreement, unless the parties otherwise agree or the representative has sold or removed the home, the landlord may sell or dispose of it pursuant to sale provisions of ORS 90.675 without further notice to the representative.

So, in summary, the abandonment statute - which is quite lengthy and somewhat difficult to follow - applies in this case, and with proper guidance, you should be able to successfully deal with the representative.

[1] I'm not rendering a "legal opinion" in this Answer - PCQ

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn'tmake it clear whether the estate was formally filed for probate in court, in which case this "Administrator" would be subject to court supervision and would have to have a bond. I'm suspecting that is not the case - but if it is, you may want to secure legal counsel to notify the court of what's happening and perhaps get him removed.

Assuming that the person is just a designee for the un-probated estate (I will call him the "representative"), I would suggest that you look to ORS 90.675(20), which applies when a resident living alone passes away. Subsection (20) is summarized below, but should not be used as a substitute for reading ORS 90.675 (linked here) in its entirety:

• This subsection (20) applies the same duties as those of a resident who abandoned the property.
• It also applies to any personal representative named in a will or appointed by a court, or any person designated in writing by the decedent to be contacted by the landlord in the event of the tenant's death;
• The 45-day abandonment notice required in ORS 90.675(3) (go to above link) is to be sent by first class mail to this representative at the premises, and also personally delivered or sent by first class mail to them if actually known to the landlord.
• If the representative responds by actual notice to a landlord within the 45-day period provided in the letter and so requests, the landlord shall enter into a written storage agreement with the representative or person providing that the personal property may not be sold or disposed of by the landlord for up to 90 days or until conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
• Note: Entering into the storage agreement includes the duty to pay a "storage fee" which can be no higher than the space rent. This duty is not triggered until the 45-day letter is sent. Presumably you will use a good storage agreement that requires, among other things, compliance with all applicable park rules and state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including a duty to maintain the space. On- site destruction of the home is NOT maintaining the space. Depending upon the home's age, on site destruction could be a violation of certain environmental laws, due to potentially hazardous material used in construction. In fact, since there is a risk that the representative will not comply with the storage agreement - based on his threat of destruction - you may want to consider - only upon the advice of your attorney - to restrict his unsupervised access to the home. Destruction of the home would not only take it off the tax rolls in violation of Oregon property tax law, but it would prevent you, as the landlord, from selling the home upon failure of the representative to meet his obligations. Remember, in addition to the tax collector, you have a vested interest in seeing the home sold for recoupment any sums due (arguably including attorney fees) incurred during the abandonment process.
• Since the abandonment law requires that the landlord has a duty of safe keeping pending completion of the abandonment process, it is my belief[1] that this entitles the landlord to secure the home (e.g. with a new lock) so that heirs and others cannot enter and remove personal property.
• A storage agreement entitles the representative to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the personal property.
• If such an agreement is entered into, the landlord may not enter a similar agreement with a lienholder (if any) until the agreement with the representative ends.
• If the representative requests that a landlord enter into a storage agreement and there is a lienholder, also, you should review subsections (19)(c) to (e) and (g)(C) of ORS 90.675, which describes the rights and responsibilities of a lienholder with regard to the storage agreement.
• During the term of the Storage Agreement, the representative has the right to remove or sell the property, including a sale to a purchaser or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave the property on the space and become a tenant. However, this prospective tenant is subject to the same statutory requirement, including landlord qualification and approval, as found in ORS 90.680 (linked here). The landlord also may condition approval for occupancy upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
• If the representative violates the storage agreement, the landlord may terminate it by giving at least 30 days' written notice to them stating facts sufficient to notify them of the reason for the termination. Unless the representative or person corrects the violation within the notice period, the Storage Agreement terminates as provided and the landlord may sell or dispose of the property without further notice to the representative.

• Upon the failure of a representative to enter into a storage agreement or upon termination of an agreement, unless the parties otherwise agree or the representative has sold or removed the home, the landlord may sell or dispose of it pursuant to sale provisions of ORS 90.675 without further notice to the representative.

So, in summary, the abandonment statute - which is quite lengthy and somewhat difficult to follow - applies in this case, and with proper guidance, you should be able to successfully deal with the representative.

[1] I'm not rendering a "legal opinion" in this Answer - PCQ

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. The vast majority of undocumented alien discrimination cases involve exclusion of people who aren’t legal citizens of the U.S. The question: Is this legal?

Damned If You Do: How the FHA Applies to Undocumented Aliens

Notice that citizenship and immigration status aren’t on the list of FHA “protected classes.” In January 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a memo clarifying that the FHA “does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status.” Nor does the law bar discrimination based on “immigration status or resident alien” status, the HUD memo adds. In other words, people who are in this country illegally can’t sue for discrimination under the FHA if that’s the sole reason they experience discrimination.  

However, there’s more to the story. Undocumented aliens and non-U.S. citizens who get excluded may have valid grounds to sue for other forms of discrimination, including religion, race, and especially national origin. Rule: FHA protections extend to every person in the U.S., regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Stated differently, a person doesn’t have to be a U.S. citizen to sue for discrimination.

Example: A Virginia townhouse community rejected a resident alien couple because they weren’t U.S. citizens. The couple sued, and the federal court ruled that they had a valid FHA claim for national origin discrimination. A citizenship requirement may be part of a wider scheme to exclude persons based on their national origin, the court reasoned [Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mut. Ass'n, 522 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981)].

Of course, the same principles could apply to other protected classes. Thus, for example, a citizenship requirement may also constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

Refusing to rent to non-U.S. citizens may also violate other federal civil rights laws. For example, people who aren’t U.S. citizens may be permanent legal residents with “Green Cards” who enjoy nearly all the same rights as citizens to live and work in the country.

In addition to federal laws, landlords must comply with any stricter requirements under state and local fair housing laws. And immigration status is a protected class in some states and municipalities. For example, California makes it illegal to inquire into an applicant’s immigration status; New York City bans discrimination on the basis of “alienage or citizenship status.”

DEEP DIVE

Anti-Harboring Laws

Federal and some states’ immigration laws make it a crime to “harbor” undocumented aliens. However, most courts have ruled that the laws don’t penalize landlords for simply renting housing to people without regard to their immigration status.

Example: In February 2017, a Texas federal appeals court ruled against two landlords who were willing to rent to persons regardless of immigration status but feared they might be prosecuted for “harboring” illegal aliens under state law. The lower court agreed and issued a temporary ban on Texas’s enforcement of the law. But the appeals court lifted the ban and dismissed the case, saying there’s a distinction between “harboring” and simply renting to an undocumented alien [Cruz v. Abbott, February 2017].

Damned If You Don’t: The Liability Risks of Not Screening Applicants’ Immigration/Citizenship Status

Here’s where things get tricky. While screening on the basis of immigration or citizenship status is problematic for conventional housing, it’s actually required for some forms of federally assisted housing. Thus, for example, landlords participating in the Section 8 program are obligated to ask and confirm that applicants and tenants are permanent U.S. citizens or hold some other lawful immigration status.

There are also states and municipalities where landlords are required to verify applicants’ immigration status or face severe penalties, including stiff fines and loss of their business license to operate.

Bottom Line: It’s crucial to consult an attorney and be aware of the fair housing requirements of your particular jurisdiction in determining your policies and protocols for screening and leasing to immigrants.

7 RULES FOR AVOIDING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMMIGRANTS

Once you sort out the basic legal landscape, you need to establish clear policies on leasing to undocumented aliens and train your leasing and management staff to implement them consistently. Here are the seven rules to cover in your training.

Rule #1: Ensure Nondiscriminatory Justification for Citizenship Screening

Technically, unless you live in a state or municipality that prohibits it, screening applicants’ citizenship and/or immigration status isn’t illegal; it might even be required. However, there are risks you must avoid if you adopt such a policy.

First, you need a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and documented business justification for making citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion. Doing it because the law requires it is one example. But also keep in mind that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the U.S. belong to a minority racial, religious, and/or nationality group. Accordingly, stereotypes about undocumented aliens being troublemakers or not paying rent open the door to discrimination on the basis of religion, race, and national origin. Thus, for example, refusing to rent to immigrants because they “can’t keep a steady job” may be deemed a pretext for excluding certain nationalities, particularly in properties located near the Mexican border or on the West Coast where there are large numbers of Asian immigrants.

Rule #2: Apply Screening Policy Consistently

Whatever screening approach you adopt, you must apply it consistently. Just having a principled and justified policy requiring rental applicants to verify their U.S. citizenship won’t protect you if you follow it in some cases but not others. The 2003 HUD memo uses the following example to illustrate the fair housing liability risks of an inconsistent citizenship or immigration status screening policy.  

Example: A person from the Middle East applies for an apartment. Because he’s from the Middle East, the landlord requires him to provide additional information and forms of identification and refuses to rent him the apartment. Later, somebody from Europe applies for an apartment at the same complex. Because the person is from Europe, the landlord rents him the apartment without making him complete additional paperwork or verify the information on the application and rents the apartment. This would be disparate treatment on the basis of national origin.  

Implementation Strategy: The only way to ensure the consistency necessary for compliance is to have clearly written policies that explain why you screen for citizenship and/or immigration status along with procedures and protocols for implementing them. What you must guard against, above all, is allowing leasing staff to ask questions or make decisions about whether to screen particular applicants based on their appearance, accent, apparel, etc.

Rule #3: Ask for the Right Kind of Proof

If you do decide to screen for citizenship and/or immigration status, you need specific procedures and protocols to do it properly. You don’t have to take applicants at their word and have the right to request information enabling you to verify their status. Again, consistency is the key. If you ask one applicant for documentation, you must ask all applicants for it. You must also be careful to request the right information. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status—that is, noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons who are allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94 (a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record, or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay). They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

Rule #4: Apply Your Normal Screening Standards to Immigrants

There’s no rule requiring landlords to make special concessions for applicants based on their citizenship or immigration status. In other words, you may require verification of identity (such as a driver’s license, passport, or other form of government ID), financial and rental history, and other legitimate qualifications that you use to screen any other applicant.

It’s standard practice to ask applicants for Social Security numbers (SSNs). This is okay, especially since many screening companies require an SSN to perform tenant screening, such as credit and criminal background checks. But don’t automatically reject applicants because they don’t have SSNs. Explanation: Not having an SSN doesn’t necessarily mean the applicant is in the country illegally. Noncitizens need to get SSNs only if they want to work in the U.S. And tenant screening companies may still be able to vet their qualifications even without an SSN using alternative information, such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, and last known address.

Also, note that unauthorized immigrants may obtain drivers’ licenses in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington).

Coach’s Tip: Contact an immigration attorney, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), or State Department if you’re unclear about documentation requirements or have questions about the documentation of legal immigration that an applicant presents to you.

Rule #5: Don’t Make Ability to Speak English a Rental Criterion

In September 2016, HUD issued guidance confirming what several courts had previously ruled—namely, that excluding applicants or tenants based on their limited English proficiency (LEP) violates the FHA. Explanation: Statistically, most LEP people come from a country other than the U.S. Thus, disqualifying people because they’re LEP has the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin (and, in some cases, race and/or religion). Discriminatory practices to avoid include:

• Imposing an English-speaking language-related requirement on people of certain races or nationalities;
• Posting ads that contain blanket statements, such as “all tenants must speak English”; or
• Immediately turning away applicants because they’re not fluent in English.

Example: In 2013, HUD ordered a Virginia property management company to pay $82,500 to settle allegations of not letting a Hispanic woman apply for an apartment. According to the complaint, the company refused to give her a rental application because she didn’t speak fluent English even though she brought along a bilingual person to act as translator. HUD investigators also found that the company actually had a written policy requiring all prospects to be able to communicate with management in English without help from others [Travsiňa v. Virginia Realty Company of Tidewater, Inc., FHEO Case Numbers 03-11-0424-8].

Strategic Pointer: It’s imperative to ensure that leasing, management, and other staff remain calm, patient, poised, and professional at all times when dealing with LEP people. Giving in to frustration, even if it’s just a momentary and isolated lapse, may result in comments and actions that serve as Exhibit A in an intentional discrimination case against you.

Example: In 2017, the owner and manager of a California community had to shell out $20,000 to settle claims of national origin discrimination against Latino tenants. The turning point came when a local fair housing group joined the case bringing along evidence showing that the manager repeatedly made statements about not liking having Latino tenants at the community because they didn’t speak English.

For more guidance on this topic, see the Coach’s July 2021 issue, How to Avoid Discriminating Against People with Limited English Proficiency.

Rule #6: Don’t Use Tenant’s Immigration Status as a Bargaining Chip

Citizenship and immigration status liability issues can arise not only during the leasing process but also in the context of dealing with current tenants. One common example is seeking to use that status to extort a rental or other concession from the tenant. In 2012, HUD issued guidance (in the form of FAQs) clarifying that it’s “illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of” FHA rights. “This includes threats to report a person to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” to get them to move out or accept unfavorable treatment, or in retaliation for reporting housing discrimination to HUD.

Example: A married couple sued their landlord for threatening to report them to federal immigration authorities if they didn’t move out within a matter of days. They also claimed the landlord threatened to report their attorney to the California Bar for illegally advocating on behalf of tenants it perceived to be undocumented. In April 2020, the landlord agreed to pay $250,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the allegations of national origin discrimination [DFEH settlement announcement, April 22, 2020].

Rule #7: Protect Immigrant Tenants from Harassment

Immigrant tenants may become a target for harassment, intimidation, and abuse by property staff and neighboring tenants. Regrettably, the emergence of immigration as a divisive political issue in recent years has made such behavior a more widespread problem in the context of not only rental housing but many other aspects of social activity. And to the extent it’s typically based on a tenant’s national origin, race, or religion, landlords that engage in or allow others to engage in such harassment are at risk of liability for interfering with tenants’ use and enjoyment of the property they lease.

Strategic Pointer: Preventing harassment is the bare minimum. Achieving true compliance requires a shift in culture, one in which nationality, racial, and religious differences are not only tolerated but appreciated and respected, if not actively embraced. Staff training should strongly emphasize professionalism and the need to respect the diverse ethnic and cultural differences among prospects, applicants, and tenants.

To accomplish this requires cultural sensitivity and awareness of how well intentioned and seemingly innocent acts and statements may be considered offensive to persons of different national, ethnic, or religious backgrounds.

Example: Training of maintenance and other staffers who may enter into a tenant’s apartment should emphasize that removing one’s shoes before entering another person’s home is an essential protocol of respect in some cultures.

Also train staff to avoid asking people about their accents or where they come from. While such questions might be the product of genuine curiosity or desire to engage on a personal level, they may also be construed as a form of illegal inquiry, especially if they’re accompanied by clumsy or insensitive remarks.

Example: In an attempt to make casual conversation, a real estate broker married to a Brazilian woman asked the wife of a married couple where she was from. What the broker didn’t know was that the wife, who was from Venezuela, felt as if she had just been denied a rental at another property because of her national origin. “Here we go again,” she thought when the broker asked the question. She was convinced that they had just lost a rental opportunity because of her national origin and that it was happening again. The couple filed a discrimination complaint. Result: The broker was found liable for discrimination and ordered to pay $76,500. The Massachusetts appeals court upheld the ruling—although it did reduce the damages [Linder v. Boston Fair Housing Commission, February 2014].

Answer. Based upon recent news reports, it appears that, subject to certain exceptions,[1] there will be no effort by the federal Department of Justice to seek out and charge violators of the Controlled Substances Act in those states where the medical or recreational use of marijuana is legal.

Thus, it appears that when it comes to enforcement of park rules and regulations, Oregon landlords are on their own; neither the feds, nor the state, will go after persons with lawfully issued medical marijuana cards. Furthermore, if a tenant has a valid card, then arguably he or she has some medical condition that has authorized its issuance. Is the landlord obligated under the Fair Housing laws to make a "reasonable accommodation" for their medical condition, and permit the tenant to continue their use or grow operation? If properly done, the answer is likely "No." Here's why:[2]

In January 20, 2011, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") issued a Memorandum, the subject of which was "Medical Use of Marijuana and Reasonable Accommodation in Federal Public and Assisted Housing." While the Memo was limited to federal public and assisted housing, it can be regarded as a helpful - though perhaps not a "final" resource - on the issue.[3] It is very complete and helpful for all landlords. It can be found at this link. Here is what the Memo directs:

Public housing agencies '_in states that have enacted laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana must therefore establish a standard and adopt written policy regarding whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance for residents who are medical marijuana users. The decision of whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance to medical marijuana users is the responsibility of PHAs, not of the Department."

Thus, HUD appears to be leaving it up to the state public housing authorities to decide whether the refusal to permit on-premises use of medical marijuana constitutes a fair housing violation. Between the lines, it appears that HUD will not directly investigate such claims, leaving it up to public housing agencies on the state level.

While HUD's pronouncement is directed toward "public housing" is would be hard to believe private housing would be treated any differently. Oregon fair housing law is "substantially equivalent" to federal fair housing law. So, generally speaking, on the issue of medical marijuana, as goes the federal law, so goes state law.

However, in the 2010 case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court held that employers do not have a legal duty to allow employees to use medical marijuana on the job. This case addressed many unanswered questions on the use of medical marijuana in Oregon from an employment perspective. In a subsequent article [found here] by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon it appears that the rationale of the Emerald Steel Fabricators case is helpful for landlords declining to admit new residents with medical marijuana cards - so long as they have an existing policy against the use and cultivation of marijuana in the community.

Thus, it appears that in Oregon, on both the federal and state levels, enforcement agencies are taking a laissez-faire approach to the medical marijuana issue. This means that landlords have it within their control, with little fear of fair housing/reasonable accommodation claims, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises medical or recreational use of marijuana.

However, I do not believe the proscription should be retroactive to tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards who have already signed their rental agreements or leases. Like you, I believe that a court would not be favorable to your situation.

It appears that your resident's medical marijuana card is in order. It must valid and current for Oregon. A California card, for example, would not suffice. [See, State v. Berrenger, 2010].

Conclusion. Yours is a difficult situation. For existing tenants I believe you can legally institute a "no marijuana" policy against recreational and medical use. However, making it retroactive as to persons already holding medical marijuana cards, would be a difficult proposition, since they did not bargain for that when they became residents or when they received their card.

In some instances, and this may not be one, I have seen situations where the resident, under the guise of holding a medical marijuana card, is also selling the drug illegally to others. This situation is most apparent when there are late night visits by unknown persons for short periods of time. If this situation presents itself, and neighbors complain, you may have recourse by issuing a 30-day curable notice of termination for violating ORS 90.740(4)(j) for disturbing the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment. You do not have to raise the marijuana use, just the noise and disruption. Upon a second similar violation within six months of the date of issuance of the first notice, you can issue a 20-day noncurable notice.

[1] The exceptions are: The distribution of marijuana to minors; Directing revenue from marijuana sales to gangs and cartels; Diverting marijuana from states where it is legal to other states where there are no laws allowing for marijuana use; Using legal sales as cover for trafficking operations; Using violence and or firearms in marijuana cultivation and distribution; Driving under the influence of marijuana; Growing marijuana on public lands; Possessing marijuana or using on federal property.

[2]Note: This answer is not intended to constitute legal advice. Readers should consult their own legal counsel to determine how to proceed in these cases, as the correct outcome depends upon the specific facts of each situation.

[3] Note that Oregon has its own set of fair housing laws.

QUESTION: We ran into a problem recently that we were hoping you could answer.  In Multnomah County, when we file an eviction ("FED"), we are required to file a document entitled "Declaration of Non-Military, Not Minor or Incapacitated." This form requires us to select one of the following categories regarding the defendant's protection under the Service Members Civil Relief Act ("SCRA" or "the Act"): (a) That the person is subject to protection, (b) that he/she is not subject to protection, or (c) that we are unable to determine whether the defendant is or is not subject to the Act.

We had checked the box saying we could not determine, and explained that "We have never seen any indication that this person is or was a service member."  The judge said this was insufficient and refused to grant the FED.  He told us to seek legal counsel.

Any ideas on what we did wrong or how to avoid this problem? I believe there is a web page where you can look up service members, but in this case we don't have a social security number on the resident, so we couldn't look him up anyway.

ANSWER: I've never heard of a judge denying a declaration because a landlord hadn't run the tenant's information through Act's website.  In order to do the search, you need the tenant's first and last name and SSN.  You can also put in their birth date, but I think the SSN gets the best results. The Act's database cannot complete the search if you don't have a SSN or birth date. I'm surprised that the judge didn't set over the hearing and simply direct the you to the website.  Perhaps you could have determined the answer if you had entered the birth date - assuming you had it.  I suspect the judge was new to the job.

Here's the link to their site: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/scraHome.do

When we don't have a SSN or birth date, we put a statement in the declaration similar to the one you used.  Basically, all you should need to do is show that you have conducted a reasonable investigation based upon the information you have, and that you have been unable to determine through the website or other evidence, that the person is protected by the Act. 

Here's an example that we've used at Multnomah County Circuit Court:

Due to lack of information, the Department of Defense's SCRA military records website could not confirm whether or not defendants, John and Mary Doe, are currently on active duty. It appears to be very unlikely, since the community managers see the defendants on a regular basis and have no knowledge of either of them serving in the United States Military.

The problem you describe only occurs when the defendant does not appear at the first appearance hearing and the judge is uncomfortable granting the judgment of restitution by default without what he/she feels is sufficient evidence that they are not on active duty with the military.  The rash of recent improper foreclosures against servicemen/women probably doesn't help the judge's comfort level.  The judge should have been more helpful, but you should be able to conduct your search on the website, then go back and try again.

I think the take-away here is that landlords should try to get as much information from their resident-applicants in order to avoid these situations in the future.

MHCO provides members with numerous services.

Some of those services include:

• Forms & Notices
• Referral to Associate Member Services such as tenant credit & criminal screening, legal, lenders, insurance, appraisal, contractors, management services, computer services, etc.
• Educational Seminars
• Toll-free Telephone Number
• Landlord/Tenant Procedural Assistance
• Park Management/Operations How-To Info
• Government Relations Consultant/Lobbyist
• Annual Conference
• Legislative Alerts
• And More....

Use Your Membership Benefits!
Invite a Non-Member Park to Join MHCO! 

Answer: I assume when he was first accepted as a resident he did not have a criminal record for any sex offenses. The statute that comes into play is ORS 90.630 (Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent.) It provides, in part: " ... the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant: (c) Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587;" This statute has only been in existence for a few years. As I read it, assuming that at the commencement of the tenancy, a landlord ran a criminal background check on a prospective resident and nothing showed him to be a sex offender - and they he later committed a sexual offence - you can evict them at as soon as you find out. In this case, it would seem that you can exclude him on that basis alone. Had this law been on the books when he committed the crime, and he didn'tgo to jail, you could have evicted him at the time. Now that it's on the books, I think you have the same right to keep him out, i.e. to protect the residents' visiting grandchildren. The only issue is whether he is '_a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587." Here is what those statutes say, and I imagine you will have to verify whether he falls into one of the categories. 181.585 "Predatory sex offender" defined; determination. (1) For purposes of ORS 181.585 to 181.587, a person is a predatory sex offender if the person exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others and has been convicted of a sex crime listed in ORS 181.594 (5)(a) to (d), has been convicted of attempting to commit one of those crimes or has been found guilty except for insanity of one of those crimes. (2) In determining whether a person is a predatory sex offender, an agency shall use a sex offender risk assessment scale approved by the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency. [Formerly 181.507; 1997 c.538 _10; 2005 c.567 _16; 2009 c.713 _14] 81.586 Notice to appropriate persons of supervised predatory sex offender; content; additional duties of supervising agency. (1)(a) If the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for a person on parole or post-prison supervision or the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency for a person on probation makes a determination that the person under its supervision is a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall notify: (A) Anyone whom the agency determines is appropriate that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (B) A long term care facility, as defined in ORS 442.015, or a residential care facility, as defined in ORS 443.400, that the person is a predatory sex offender if the agency knows that the person is seeking admission to the facility. (b) When a predatory sex offender has been subsequently convicted of another crime and is on supervision for that crime, the agency supervising the person, regardless of the nature of the crime for which the person is being supervised: (A) May notify anyone whom the agency determines is appropriate that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (B) Shall notify a long term care facility, as defined in ORS 442.015, or a residential care facility, as defined in ORS 443.400, that the person is a predatory sex offender if the agency knows that the person is seeking admission to the facility. (2) In making a determination under subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall consider notifying: (a) The person's family; (b) The person's sponsor; (c) Residential neighbors and churches, community parks, schools, convenience stores, businesses and other places that children or other potential victims may frequent; and (d) Any prior victim of the offender. (3) When an agency determines that notification is necessary, the agency may use any method of communication that the agency determines is appropriate. The notification: (a) May include, but is not limited to, distribution of the following information: (A) The person's name and address; (B) A physical description of the person including, but not limited to, the person's age, height, weight and eye and hair color; (C) The type of vehicle that the person is known to drive; (D) Any conditions or restrictions upon the person's probation, parole, post-prison supervision or conditional release; (E) A description of the person's primary and secondary targets; (F) A description of the person's method of offense; (G) A current photograph of the person; and (H) The name or telephone number of the person's parole and probation officer. (b) Shall include, if the notification is required under subsection (1)(a)(B) or (b)(B) of this section, the information described in paragraph (a)(D), (F) and (H) of this subsection. (4) Not later than 10 days after making its determination that a person is a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall: (a) Notify the Department of State Police of the person's status as a predatory sex offender; (b) Enter into the Law Enforcement Data System the fact that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (c) Send to the Department of State Police, by electronic or other means, all of the information listed in subsection (3) of this section that is available. (5) When the Department of State Police receives information regarding a person under subsection (4) of this section, the Department of State Police, upon request, may make the information available to the public. (6) Upon termination of its supervision of a person determined to be a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall: (a) Notify the Department of State Police: (A) Of the person's status as a predatory sex offender; (B) Whether the agency made a notification regarding the person under this section; and (C) Of the person's level of supervision immediately prior to termination of supervision; and (b) Send to the Department of State Police, by electronic or other means, the documents relied upon in determining that the person is a predatory sex offender and in establishing the person's level of supervision. (7) The agency supervising a person determined to be a predatory sex offender shall verify the residence address of the person every 90 days. [Formerly 181.508; 1997 c.538 _11; 1999 c.626 _10; 1999 c.843 _2; amendments by 1999 c.626 _33 and 1999 c.843 _3 repealed by 2001 c.884 _1; 2001 c.884 _11; 2005 c.671 _11] 181.587 Availability of information on supervised predatory sex offender. (1) Unless the agency determines that release of the information would substantially interfere with the treatment or rehabilitation of the supervised person, an agency that supervises a predatory sex offender shall make any information regarding the person that the agency determines is appropriate, including, but not limited to, the information listed in ORS 181.586 (3), available to any other person upon request. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall make the information listed in ORS 181.586 (3), or any other information regarding the supervised person that the agency determines is appropriate, available to any other person upon request if the person under supervision: (a) Is a predatory sex offender; and (b) Is neglecting to take treatment or participate in rehabilitation. [Formerly 181.509] MHCO Note: The law regarding the eviction of sexual predators was championed by MHCO several years ago. Through MHCO's efforts in the Landlord-Tenant Coalition, MHCO was able to change Oregon Statutes to give Landlords in manufactured home communities the right to evict an existing resident in a community who is discovered to be a predatory sex offender.

A fire or ambulance crew can’t safely respond to a medical emergency in a single family home because the resident has belongings stacked up to the ceiling and blocking many windows or doors.

A tenant living in an apartment faces eviction when he or she fails to pass a follow-up inspection after several warnings about lease violations related to items that create a tripping hazard, fire danger, or limit access to maintenance staff. The tenant then contacts their case manager in a panic.

These are just two examples of possible complications in housing settings that could impact housing providers.  Hoarding is distinct from simply building a collection, which is usually displayed with pride, or letting a few days of dishes and laundry pile up when life gets busy. A person who has been diagnosed with hoarding has a disability under the Fair Housing Act1. Hoarding has been added to the DSM-5, the latest version of the American Psychiatric Association’s classification and diagnostic tool, and is now recognized as diagnosable condition independent of other mental health conditions.

FHCO had received a few calls about potential hoarding situations by the time an invitation came in the spring of 2013 to participate in a collaborative Multnomah County conversation about the issue. Two graduate social work students serving as interns in the Multnomah County Office of Aging and Disability Services convened various agencies to meet for a “community assessment.” Attendees have included representatives of several nonprofit and for-profit housing providers, Aging and Disability and Adult Protective Services, Legal Aid, Animal Control, and Assessments and Tax. This Hoarding Task Force has continued to meet regularly, researching resources and bringing in experts to assist in coordinating services and developing best practices. The group is now beginning the process of staffing cases and developing a more formal protocol.  The good news is that there are new cognitive behavioral therapy models that can be successful in treating hoarding.

Since hoarding disorder is a disability under the Fair Housing Act, these individuals have the right to request a reasonable accommodation (RA) from a housing provider. This might include providing an agreed upon length of time to bring in a professional cleaner / organizer to help clear pathways, reduce pile heights, clear materials in front of heating vents, etc. More will probably be needed than a single deep clean. There may be several steps to the RA request, prioritizing the most immediate safety needs and then allowing a more gradual timeline for reducing other clutter, in conjunction with a professional organizer or mental health provider.

As with any RA request, housing providers need to evaluate the request and the verification of disability and respond in a timely manner. Housing providers are always well advised to review the legal reasons for denial, consult with a fair housing attorney, document the rationale for their decision, and feel comfortable defending it if a complaint / case follows when making a decision on a RA request.  As always, regardless of the request that’s made or what the disability is, if a denial is made, HUD says a conversation should ensue about what would work for the individual with the disability. 

Want to learn more?  Suggested reading list:

• Hoarding basics: www.psychiatry.org/hoarding-disorder -- American Psychiatric Association: “Hoarding Disorder”
• "The Hoarding Handbook: A Guide for Human Services Professionals" – Bratiotis, Christina, et. al., New York: Oxford University Press, 2011
• “Task Forces Offer Hoarders a Way to Dig Out” – The New York Times, Jan Hoffman, 5/26/13
• “Obsessive compulsive and related disorders” – American Psychiatric Publishing

This article brought to you by the Fair Housing Council; a civil rights organization.  All rights reserved © 2015. 

[1] Federally protected classes under the Fair Housing Act include:  race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (children), and disability.  Oregon law also protects marital status, source of income, sexual orientation, and domestic violence survivors.  Additional protected classes have been added in particular geographic areas; visit FHCO.org/mission.htm and read the section entitled “View Local Protected Classes” for more information.

Question: My RV tenant doesn't receive mail, how do I serve him with notices? Answer: Oregon landlord tenant law allows service of notices three ways: first class mail, personal delivery and nail and mail." ORS 90.155. We always advise our clients to deliver notices by first class mail. Not certified

Answer: ORS 90.680 permits tenants to resell their homes to qualified prospective tenants. The refusal to permit or process new applications would appear, on its face, to be a clear violation of the statute.[1] The landlord certainly has the right to screen the new applicants, but not to refuse them outright. Moreover, it is highly likely that some or all of the existing tenants' rental agreements also mirror ORS 90.680, which gives them the contractual right to resell their home, on site, to qualified prospective purchasers. Thus, on two counts, the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Law, and the rental agreement, it would appear that the landlord's conduct would expose him/her to potential legal action. It is also possible that even the potential purchasers may have a potential cause of action against the landlord.

[1] The question does not indicate why the landlord has adopted this policy. While there may conceivably be some rationale explanation, I know of no legal justification for the policy in the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act.