Search

1. A landlord may charge a screening fee solely to cover the costs of obtaining information on the applicant.  The landlord must provide the applicant with a receipt for any such screening fee.
2. A landlord may not charge non-refundable fees to secure a signing of a rental agreement.
3. A landlord may charge a deposit to an applicant for the purpose of securing the execution of a rental agreement after the applicant's application has been approved.   If the rental agreement is executed, the landlord shall either apply the deposit toward the moneys due the landlord under the rental agreement or refund it immediately to the tenant/resident.
4. If the Rental Agreement is not executed due to a failure by the applicant to comply with the agreement to execute, the landlord may retain the deposit.
5. If the Rental Agreement is not executed due to a failure by the resident to comply with the agreement to execute, then the landlord shall return the deposit to the applicant within four days.

 A landlord may charge a fee more than once, at the beginning of or during the tenancy, for:

1. A late rent payment
2. A dishonored check
3. Removal or tampering with a properly functioning smoke alarm or smoke detector
4. Any other noncompliance by the tenant with a written rental agreement that provides for a fee for that noncompliance, provided that the fee is not excessive.

Consignments. First, it gave a name to the process; consignment". It is defined as follows: "...an agreement in which a tenant authorizes a landlord[2]to sell a manufactured dwelling or floating home on behalf of the tenant who owns the dwelling or home in a facility that is owned by the landlord and for which the landlord receives compensation."

Question: We just acquired a manufactured home in our community. I would rather sell it to a new tenant, but would consider renting it out or doing a rent-to-own. If I pursue rent-to-own option, will I be subject to the new SAFE Act?

Answer: Remember that the SAFE Act only applies if the seller/landlord is providing financing, and in doing so, is going to make a credit decision regarding the buyer's financial capacity.

In short, so long as you don't extend credit (which includes carrying back a security agreement or other form of installment payment contract) you're not subject to the Act. If you do a credit check for your prospective tenant, this would not be covered by SAFE. Make sure that your lease/option or rent-to-own paperwork is reviewed by legal counsel - and under no circumstances do you want to offer an extension of credit in the transactional documents. Under SAFE, if you extend credit for the purchase of the home you would have to be a Mortgage Loan Originator as described in the Act. I did an extensive summary (FAQs) on the SAFE Act, and you can link directly to it on the MHCO website.

However, on another note, you might want to consider what you are getting into as a landlord of mobile homes. First, you will be responsible for providing certain statutory essential services" which are far more extensive than if you were merely a landlord of the space. Additionally

The Rental Application form provides the basic information needed to make a decision on accepting the applicant. Under current Oregon Law you will have not more than 7 days from application to accept or decline a prospective resident. Used properly, the rental application and personal interview will prove helpful in countering charges of discrimination in renting spaces. When completed, a rental application should reveal:

• Financial information
• Employment information
• Residence history
• Household members
• Social security number(s)
• Driver license number(s)
• Ownership or lien-holder of the unit
• Age, size and condition of the unit
• Information about motor vehicles
• Pets
• Age verification if the community is classified as 55 or older or 62 or older housing
• Credit references
• Emergency contacts
• Authorization to do credit and criminal checks
• Acknowledgement of receipt of disclosure documents

At the time the prospective tenant returns an application for residency, the manager or landlord should provide the prospective tenant with copies of the Statement of Policy, the rent history of the space, the Rental Agreement and the Rules and Regulations. These documents may have been provided earlier in the application packet. You may provide these documents anytime prior to the signing of the rental/lease agreement (ORS 90.510(3)(a). However, make sure that the receipt for receiving these documents is signed prior to signing the rental agreement.

As mentioned earlier, it is advisable to provide the prospective resident these documents with the application so that the prospective resident can make an informed decision regarding where they would like to apply. Take time to make sure the prospective resident is aware of the content of each of these documents. It will do the community or the resident little good to have the prospective resident move in without taking the time to read and understand the Statement of Policy, the rent history of the space, the Rental Agreement and the Rules and Regulations. Poorly informed residents will likely result in future problems in the community. 

Over the past two years the Oregon Manufactured Housing Landlord Tenant Coalition reviewed sub metering statutes.  Last year a landlord-tenant work group drafted a number of significant changes to existing statute.  Those changes were adopted into the Landlord Tenant Coalition Bill (SB 586) and passed by the Oregon Legislature.  Attached is a review of those changes by MHCO Attorney Phil Querin.

Phil will be covering these changes during his presentation at the 2019 MHCO Annual Conference.

Answer: In theory, you should be able to give a 20-day non-curable notice within the 30 days if the same violation occurs. This is because the law provides that the 20-day notice may be issued if substantially the same violation occurs within six months of the date of issuance of the 30-day notice. A few years ago, the law measured the six month period from the end of the 30-day period. However, the law was changed a few years ago, and it would seem that now you should not have to wait until expiration of the 30-day period before issuing a 20-day notice. Otherwise, after the first 30-day notice, the tenant could speed through the park with impunity for the entire 30 days and the landlord could do nothing until the violation occurred again. This result makes no sense. However, there is a related situation which gives a different result: What if the violation was not an "act" such as speeding, but a "failure to act," such as not maintaining the yard? In that case, if the tenant failed to clean up the yard within the 30-day period, the landlord would be entitled to file for eviction immediately after expiration of the 30 days and would not have to issue a 20-day notice.

Answer. At first blush this appears to be an issue involving "hazard trees" under ORS 90.100(21). A "hazard tree" is one that:

1. Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;

2. Measures at least eight inches DBH;[1] and

3. Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560(Issuance of license) and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, to pose an unreasonable risk of causing serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property in the near future.

Regarding hazard trees, ORS 90.727(3) (Maintenance of trees in rented spaces) provides that a landlord:

(a) Shall maintain a tree that is a hazard tree that was not planted by the current tenant, on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park if the landlord knows or should know that the tree is a hazard tree.

(b) May maintain a tree on the rented space to prevent the tree from becoming a hazard tree, after providing the tenant with reasonable written notice and a reasonable opportunity to maintain the tree;

(c) Has discretion to decide whether the appropriate maintenance is removal or trimming of the hazard tree; and

(d) Is not responsible for maintaining a tree that is not a hazard tree or for maintaining any tree for aesthetic purposes.

Additionally ORS 90.740(4) provides that a rented space is considered uninhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree as required by ORS 90.727 (Maintenance of trees in rented spaces).

When the hazard tree legislation was enacted, as best as I can remember, all of us involved in the drafting were looking up, not down. That is to say, we were focusing on large limbs falling on homes, or trees becoming top-heavy from a lack pruning and trimming, and falling over entirely. I do not recall any discussion about the root systems of trees causing dangerous conditions.

However, clearly, if the root system of a tree meeting the definition of a "hazard tree" causes walkways to buckle, it can create a danger to the residents and others using them. Accordingly, under a pretty clear reading of the above-cited statutes, this appears to be a landlord issue that needs to be addressed. As between a resident who does not own the space or the common area walkways, and the landlord who does - and who presumably has the means and insurance to protect against the risk - the financial responsibility rests on the latter. It is a cost of doing business.

However, what if the tree does not meet the definition of a "hazard tree," is located on the resident's space, but has a root system that is encroaching up into common area walkways causing damage? That is a more difficult issue. I say this because if it isn'ta hazard tree, say by girth, then the resident has the trimming and pruning responsibility. But as to that portion of the root system encroaching into the common area, I believe that is the landlord's responsibility. Certainly, the problem did not result from a lack of resident maintenance.

My conclusion is this: The landlord should want the common area walkways safe. If this means cutting out the offending root system, the landlord should do so. Why, because if a resident or their guest falls and injures themselves on a broken walkway, you can be sure the landlord will be sued. Again, it's a cost of doing business, and presumably the reason why smart landlords have good liability insurance.

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

Answer: You do not have to offer him a rental agreement.  Since you indicate that he has signed the MHCO vacation occupancy agreement, presumably he qualifies as a vacation occupant.  Under Oregon law (ORS 90.110 (7)), vacation occupants are not tenants and are not entitled to be offered a rental agreement. 

As per ORS 90.100 (54), “vacation occupancy” is defined as: (1) The occupant is renting the RV space for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence, (2) the occupant has a principal residence other than at the space, (3) the period of occupancy cannot exceed 90 days, (4) the RV must be removed from the park at the end of the occupancy period, and (5) a written agreement signed by the occupant states that occupancy of the space in the RV park is a vacation occupancy and is NOT subject to the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORS Chapter 90).

Since vacation occupants are not “tenants,” they may be asked to vacate at any time without issuing an eviction notice or going to court.  If necessary, law enforcement may be called to remove vacation occupants as trespassers if they refuse to leave.  In that case, you must have a copy of the written vacation occupancy agreement available to show the responding officers that the occupants are not tenants under Oregon law and can be cited for trespassing.  They are effectively the same as a hotel guest that refuses to leave.

If, for some reason, law enforcement refuses to remove a vacation occupant, you might need to file an eviction case in your county circuit court.  Be sure not to accept payment from the person for any period of time after the 90-day occupancy period or it could create a tenancy.  You will need to file an eviction case for a “tenancy not covered by ORS Chapter 90.”  The court clerk should have a complaint form that you can use, or consult with an attorney to file the case.

Mark L. Busch, P.C., Attorney at Law, Cornell West, Suite 200, 1500 NW Bethany Blvd., Beaverton, Oregon 97006; Phone: 503-597-1309; Web:  www.marklbusch.com