Search

Answer: The general answer is "yes," both the park models and regular RVs can (and should) be treated the same with regard to landlord-tenant laws. However, there are certain regulations that you must follow to ensure that the park models fully qualify as "recreational vehicles" as defined by Oregon law.

First and foremost, a "recreational vehicle" is defined by statute (ORS 446.003 (33)) as a vehicle "with or without motive power that is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes" and as further defined by administrative rule. "Recreational vehicle" is then defined in various rules as (1) being identified as an RV by the manufacturer, and (2) not exceeding 400 square feet in the setup mode, including all tip-outs, slide-outs, expandable rooms, and other horizontal projections.

However, this does not mean that park models cannot be equipped with various accessory structures like decks, steps, porches, roof overhangs and other similar construction. The guiding rule is that these external structures cannot be supported by the RV itself and cannot be enclosed with walls, glass or other solid materials if that would exceed the maximum allowed gross floor area of the RV.

While there are other construction exceptions as well (basements, lofts, certain bay windows, freestanding cabanas, etc.), you should consult with a knowledgeable expert to carefully comply with these regulations. The primary Oregon Administrative Rules can be found at OAR 918-525 and 918-530, which are administered by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division.

Assuming you meet the park model regulations, you can use the same rental agreement that you use with regular RV tenants. In many cases, MHCO Form 80 (RV Space Rental Agreement) will work just fine. In other cases, you may want to use a form specifically designed for your park - just make sure that it contains all of the required information, such as how accessory buildings and structures will be dealt with at the end of the tenancy.

In any event, an RV tenancy (unlike a manufactured home tenancy) can be terminated with a no-cause notice if the tenancy is month to month. If the tenant has been in the park less than a year, the no-cause notice period can be 30 days. After the first year of tenancy, the notice period must be at least 60 days. While you would certainly hope not to need to evict a park model tenant, since they technically live in "recreational vehicles," the law gives you that option as a landlord.

By Dianne Lugo

Salem Statesman Journal - February 11, 2025

• The bill that would cap rent increases for manufactured home parks and marinas to the annual inflation rate.
• Proponents of the bill say it would protect residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes, from exorbitant rent increases.
• Opponents, including park owners, argue the bill would lead to closures and sales to large corporations, exacerbating the housing crisis.

Supporters of proposed legislation that would limit rent increases in manufactured home parks and marinas say it would protect existing affordable housing, but opponents fear the bill would force the closure of smaller parks or selling to large conglomerates.

House Bill 3054 would cap allowable rent increases for tenants in manufactured home parks and marinas to annual inflation rates.

"It addresses an alarming trend that we are seeing in manufactured housing communities across our state which is the skyrocketing costs for tenants" who predominantly are on fixed incomes and relying on Social Security, said House Majority Leader Rep. Ben Bowman, D-Tigard.

Multifamily NW, an association of members managing nearly 300,000 units, also wrote testimony opposing the bill, saying rent control poliies have created uncertainty in the state.

"We all know that Oregon is facing a severe housing shortage, and it is abundantly clear that our approach to this issue is not working," wrote Zach Lindahl with Multifamily NW. "Our focus should be on policies that encourage investment and increase supply, not those that further constrain the market."

What Oregon House Bill 3054 would do

HB 3054 would impact a specific subsection of tenants: owners of manufactured homes who rent the land within a park or marina. If a person rents a home within a park, the law won’t apply. Recreational vehicles, apartments or mobile homes outside parks or marinas would not be covered by the law.

“We’re trying to provide a little more transparency, predictability around what the costs of staying in that park will be for people,” said Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, a chief sponsor of the bill and chair of the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness.

According to testimony from the Oregon Law Center during a packed public hearing on Feb. 3, there are about 1,000 mobile home parks representing 62,000 spaces in the state. There are many of those parks in Marsh’s district in southern Jackson County.

The bill also removes some of what landlords can require before the sale of a manufactured home at parks or marinas. Rental increases for this subsection of tenants would be capped at the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation. The CPI calculation in 2024 was 3.2%, according to Oregon's Office of Economic Analysis.

Landlords would be unable to raise rent above 10% of what a selling tenant was paying if they sold a manufactured home that would remain in a rented space.

The bill would prohibit landlords from requiring that a selling tenant, prospective buyer, or buyer agree to an inspection of the inside of a home as a condition to approve the sale or new tenancy. HB 3054 also would bar landlords from requiring aesthetic or cosmetic improvements from prospective tenants.

Supporters cite fear, affordability in Oregon

Nearly 250 pieces of written testimony were submitted in support of the bill.

Bowman said he and other lawmakers hosted a constituent event at a mobile home park in his district that more than 100 people attended. The theme that became impossible to miss, he said, was that the status quo is not sustainable.

"These folks are facing egregious hikes to their rent year over year and it is pushing them to the brink," Bowman said. He said tenants in the mobile home park saw an 8.9% rent increase in 2022, a 10.3% increase in 2023, an 8.7% increase in 2024 and face a 9% increase this year.

The Oregon State Tenants Association submitted a report with a survey of nearly 500 tenants. According to the report, the average annual rent increase was nearly 7%. Average rent prices are projected to surpass Social Security benefits by 75% within 10 years and 100% within 15 years, wrote Rochelle Love Elder, vice president of the Oregon State Tenants Association.

Many of the tenants who would be impacted were too afraid of retaliation to submit testimony or even take a flyer, Elder told lawmakers. Most residents currently pay $865 a month in lot rent. Scheduled rent increases in 2025 will bring most residents' lot rent to $951, she said.

"A lot of them are feeling like cash cows," Elder said.

Elder described the bill as a solution to keep 62,000 people in their homes.

Opponents say bill would force closures, sale of manufactured home parks

Opponents of HB3054 said the bill would do the opposite of what it intends, forcing the closure of smaller parks or sales to large conglomerates. Nearly 100 pieces of submitted testimony opposed the bill.

"It is an extreme proposal that hits owners with a one-two punch," said Bill Miner, a lawyer representing Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon.

The organization represents 750 manufactured homes and marina facilities with 42,000 spaces. According to Miner, the bill relies on faulty assumptions.

"This bill is a solution in search of a problem," he told the Statesman Journal.

A survey from 100 of their owners found the average annual rent increase from 2019 and 2024 was 5.39%. Miner told lawmakers that in the last month, he had received five calls from landlords representing more than 5,000 spaces about the process of closing their parks should the current bill pass.

Miner described the proposal as "an industry killing type of bill."

Answer.  Let’s start at the commencement of the tenancy. Rent may not be increased during first year of the tenancy. After the first year, rent increases are limited to an amount no greater than 7% plus the change in CPI (“Rent Cap”) over the prior rent.[1]  

Let me answer your questions in my hypothetical, assuming that you have month-to-month tenancies in place. Neither ORS 90.600 nor SB 608 place a limit on the number of rent increase notices you can issue during a 12-month period; the limitation under SB 608 relates solely to the amount of the increases.[2]

The law does not specifically address how one calculates the 12-month period when there are multiple increases, but logically, it seems you would start from the date of commencement of the tenancy,[3] and measure 12 months hence. So if the tenancy officially began on February 1, 2018, then February 1, 2019 would be the first anniversary date, and the time at which you could have a rent increase. 

So, if you wanted to increase rent on February 1, 2019, you would need to have issued a written  rent increase notice no later than October 30, 2018, giving you a full 93 days prior to February 1, 2019 (assuming the notice was mailed). 

The amount of the rent increase levied on February 1, 2019 would control how much more you can increase rent during the February 1, 2019 – February 1, 2020 period. If you levied three increases during this period, with proper written notices, they could not, in totality, be more than the Rent Cap. 

So assuming the annual change in CPI was 2.00%, the maximum sum of the increases cannot be more than 9.00% (7.00% + 2.00%) over the first year’s rent. If monthly space rent during the first year was $500, rent during the second year of the tenancy could not exceed 1.09% X $500, or $545.00 – regardless of how many notices you issued in getting there.

The amount of the first increase would dictate the amount of increase in notices #2 and #3. The totality of the increases during the February 1, 2019 – February 1, 2020 period may not exceed $45.00.[4]

Answer. This is a good question, but one that requires an understanding of several different issues.

You will notice that Form 47 for maintenance and clean up does not attempt to terminate the tenancy. It is merely a notice, or reminder. You may issue it as frequently as necessary, and even though you are aware of the default, you may continue to accept rent without it constituting a waiver to later issue a curable 30-day notice of termination for the same non-compliance.

Oregon landlord-tenant law expressly allows a landlord to accept rent after becoming aware of certain violations. See, ORS 90.412(4)(d). In summary, they include:

1. Disrepair or deterioration of the manufactured dwelling; and
2. A failure to maintain the rented space.

And ORS 90.412(5)(a) provides that for "ongoing violations" (e.g. failure to maintain the space or failure to repair the home), a landlord's written warning notice (e.g. Form 47), remains effective for 12 months and may be renewed with a new warning notice before the end of the 12 months. This has the effect of preserving the landlord's right to take action at some time in the future, while accepting rent during the interim. Thus, Form 47 is a less aggressive version of a 30-day notice of termination of tenancy under ORS 90.630 (for space maintenance issues), or ORS 90.632 (for repairs to the exterior of the home).

To reiterate: If the violation relates to the space, and the resident has consistently refused to clean it up, Form No. 47 is appropriate. The resident must do so within 30 days, or the tenancy will automatically terminate; if the violation relates to the home, and the resident has refused to perform the necessary repair, Form No. 55 is appropriate. This form is similar to the 30-day notice for space maintenance, but provides additional time for compliance depending on the nature of the repair, e.g. painting, which may not be feasible during the winter months.

When is Form 47 appropriate? In almost all instances when the violation is not something you want to immediately terminate the tenancy for, this is the better choice. If it becomes necessary to issue a curable 30-day notice of termination under ORS 90.630 for a failure to maintain the space (MHCO Form 43), or a curable 30-day notice of termination for damage or deterioration to the home (MHCO From 55) under ORS 90.632, you want to have one or more (preferably more) MHCO Form 47s in the resident's file, so it shows that you tried to work with the resident but they ignored you.

Remember, judges don't like terminating tenancies in manufactured housing communities, as it essentially forces the homeowner to vacate and sell their home (since the cost or ability to relocate it may be problematic based upon a lack of financial resources or the home's age).

Also, when the resident is elderly and on a fixed income, most landlords and managers would prefer not to terminate his or her tenancy based upon, say, the condition of the home, preferring instead to wait until it is sold or inherited by a family member.

Lastly, think of it this way: Once you issue a 30-day notice to terminate a tenancy, what are you going to do if the resident ignores you? You really have no choice but to proceed with eviction. And until you do so, you cannot accept rent from the tenant beyond the last day of the termination period. So when issuing a 30-day notice of termination, you are drawing a line in the sand, and your options become more limited. Again, would you not rather be in court on a notice of termination after having given the tenant three form 47s that were ignored? That way the judge knows that you tried to work with the resident, and that he or she brought the termination upon themselves.

By: Dale Strom

Dale Strom is a second generation Manufactured Home Community landlord. He is a Board Member, past President and current Treasurer of MHCO and owns two manufactured home communities in Oregon.

This is the fifth of a multiple part series on a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR.

The fourth part of this series covered a period of time immediately after the tenants met with representatives from CASA to early October where both parties were anticipating to sign a purchase agreement on November 1. This period of time of will encompass almost 5 months.

The author is called by both CASA's Executive Director and the Development Manager. Obviously, there is something that isn't going according to schedule. Obviously, November 1 will come and go without the completion of the sale.

Before we get back to the phone call from CASA, a few details that occurred after September 1 were not mentioned in thefourth part of this series.

THE PAPERWORK PROCESS - The Cooperative requested an appraisal on Riverbend for the purpose of financing. An application for Capital Needs Assessment was required to fund the appraisal. Although this process was a few days late, this shouldn't delay the sale, if any, at all. The request for the appraisal was made on or around September 17. The completed appraisal was submitted to the State on October 16.

The appraisal, once completed, is the last and remaining document for the application process. The application then activates the underwriting process. When the State grants its approval of the underwritten application, it is then forwarded to the Oregon Housing Stability Council (HSC) for the final approval. So, who then gives the financing approval?

Grant agreements are then drafted and agreed to by CASA, the Cooperative and the Department of Justice for comments and approval of the funds needed to finance this purchase agreement. Once the agreement has gone through the many approvals and those signatures have been secured, the sale then gets the go ahead. The closing is all that remains. 

PARK OPERATIONS - Always in the back of my mind in the 4thquarter of each year is budgeting and my assessment for a need to increase the rent. Scheduled rent increases that I have asked of the tenants usually takes place on January 1. If the sale does not go through as expected, I will need to start in late September on implementing the increase.

All Oregon MHP landlords know that when they feel that they must increase their rents, that landlord will immediately turn to their Oregon Revised Statutes and go directly go to ORS 90.600. Those landlords will then be reminded that all tenants will need to be given a 90 day notification upon a landlords need for such an increase. In this case, I needed to get my notifications in the mail by September 26 to insure that the tenants did get their notices by September 30 in time for the January 1 implementation. (In Oregon, a tenant needs to be properly served via first class mail so that the notices are in their possession for the full 90 days before the rent is due).

My tenants were now aware that if I was still the owner of the community on January, their rents were now to be increased from $370 to $380 per month for the New Year. (Yes, that is the going rate of MHP rents in the small city). The request for the rent increase at the beginning of the year would become prophetic in more than one way.

Now we have an appraisal, capital needs assessment, an application, a submittal to the State for underwriting, approval by HSC for final approval, financing and finally approval by the Department of Justice, CASA and the Cooperative. And then we are ready for a closing on November 1. What could possibly go wrong???

Receiving the phone call from the Executive Director and Development Manager of CASA, they informed me that the events of their due diligence, application and approval process leading to a final sale was running behind their timeline. Their request was that we agree to and move back the closing date to March 1.

If you remember from the first part of this series, I wanted to sell this community for several reasons. I thought that the possible sale to the tenants would work for me because I was not going to exercise my 1031 option and I wanted to sell but didn't need to sell. The exemption of the State Capital Gains was another huge benefit that does not go ignored. I could wait when the purchasing party was ready.

I also mentioned in the first part of the series that my terms on selling would increase the Ernest Money by $10,000 per month for 2 months for any delay by the buyer for this sale.

CASA did want to delay the sale of the park back to March 1 because of delays of the process that the buyer needs to achieve in this process. It appears that the delay could possibly be with the Department of Justice. It has been suggested to me that the DOJ accomplishes its work on its timeline and doesn't have any kind of fast track program for this type of case. Whatever the delays were, the Ernest Money was increased by $20,000.

Then there is the case of my onsite manager. She has been there the entire 12 _ years that I have owned the community. She has spoken to me over the past 2 or more years about retirement and spending more time for herself and family. She does not want the responsibility of park management anymore. My agreement with my manager when I signed the Purchase Agreement was that she would work for me until November 1. This was extended another month, when the extension by CASA was requested. My manager still resides in the park and will continue to live there as a tenant. 

During this time, I have also been in frequent contact with the Coop board President and the Treasurer about the status of the park. This can lead to problems of a conflict of interest here although the best interest of the Community is most important to both parties. I continue to speak with the onsite manager regarding the status of the park. When it is necessary to speak with the 2 board members, usually the conversation will swerve into the current status of the park and how some issues need immediate attention. With all that has occurred since the formation of the board for the Cooperative, I can honestly say that I have had a great working relationship with both the President and the Treasurer. Also adding that they, in no way, have acted in my behalf to take care of any issues that I have a need to accomplish. I have seen this as phasing out my current manager and bring in the new ownership.

I do look forward to closing this deal in that we have been working on this sale for almost 5 months. Now I look at this delay from another standpoint. We are getting late in 2018. Pushing this sale back into 2019 will make tax planning much easier in that I have more time to do that planning. In addition, the rent increase will be implemented on schedule on January 1. It became prophetic in that the $380 rent is the amount that the Cooperative will start asking its members upon closing.

It remains to be seen if this rent in the long run can be sustained by the Cooperative or if an adjustment of the rent will need to be made.

Now that we are targeting the close sometime in the first quarter of 2019, I can now anticipate enjoying the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. But I also need to find the proper way to sell" the 2 park owned homes to the "occupants" (not a complete legal description of the habitants) of those homes.

Recently

By:  Dale Strom

This is the sixth and final part of a series of a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR.

The delays of the purchase by the state agencies approving the sale to the tenants were discussed in the fifth part of this series. The tenants want to push back the closing to possibly March 1 from an original target date of November 1. The author is told that the close will probably be around the middle of January.

The vacation we had planned with our sons and their wives was scheduled for February 16. We have just come into the new year with the signing of the final documents just a few weeks away.

The delay for the November closing date was due to the Oregon Department of Justice. However Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) also played a role in the delay. OHCS is Oregon's housing finance agency, providing financial and program support to create and preserve opportunities for quality, affordable housing for Oregonians of lower and moderate income. I was not aware of the specifics to the causes of the delays. As I learned later, the funding to Purchase Riverbend in Clatskanie came from several sources.

One other delay that occurred at the end of this process came from an easement that I signed with Charter Communications almost 10 years ago. That also needed to be addressed. That wasn't easy in that Charter's offices stretch from San Antonio to Southern California to Spokane. Backing out of an agreement that automatically renews every 3 years was not easy. The people at CASA worked with the attorneys at Charter to come to an agreement on either working with the existing agreement or outright termination of that agreement.

To complicate matters, CASA terminated its employment of their Development Manager. This was the one key individual that I relied on to guide this process and to be the main line of communication between myself and the Board of the new Cooperative. Now it doesn't look like the closing is not going to get done in January and I am coming close to a personal vacation deadline. That wouldn't go very well with my better half.

In late January, I was contacted by a contractor on a project that I started a year before. The riverbank at one end of the community started giving way which threatened a space with a home on placed on it. Where moving the home to another safe space would cost less than $15,000, this was much less that shoring up a riverbank at an estimated cost of 70 to 80 thousand dollars. My decision to move the home was obvious due to the costs of each of my options.

Apparently the Cooperative decided to pursue the bank stabilization project. Getting together with the Contractor's Project Manager, I signed the permits that I applied for to give that responsibility to the Cooperative. It would be the Cooperative's decision to explore the stabilization project. What is going through my mind is how would the Co-op be able to finance that project? Whatever that answer to that question is, the permits for the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of State Lands is now in the hands of the Cooperative.

CASA apparently settled their issues with the DOJ and OHCS to the point where the funds were secured. The sale was to occur. The date to sign at closing was set for February 14; two days before vacation. I was to meet the escrow officer in downtown Portland at 2:00 PM. To my surprise, the Board for the new Cooperative was also there having just signed the closing documents in the hour before I was to sign. Needless to say, they were very excited to make this deal as much as I was relieved to sign it away and move on myself. Now it is time to move on, and I couldn't be any happier.

EPILOGUE

During calendar year 2013, State Representative Nancy Nathanson asked the Landlord Tenant coalition to work out an agreement between the Tenants and Manufactured Home Park Landlords. To summarize the conversation of that entire year, tenant associations were to be given an opportunity to compete to purchase the communities where they live when an owner considered selling the community. Especially if that prospective buyer wanted to close that Park. The tenants wanted the opportunity to actively manage their property while gaining equity in the communities where they lived.

The Landlords on the other hand were leery of the information that would be divulged to the tenants, the time it would take for the tenants to form a Cooperative Board to explore the possibilities of a purchase and the possibilities of losing a sale to another private party that was to be based upon the IRS tax code of a 1031 exchange. Landlords were concerned that information that was gathered by the tenants could be used against them in social media or in legal proceedings if the tenants were unsuccessful in purchasing the community.

By the end of 2013 the Tenants and the Landlords were not close to an agreement on the issue. It was a confrontation that went to the legislature in the short 2014 session. This led to HB 4038A that was passed in February of that 2014 session allowing the tenants of a MH Community the opportunity to be forewarned of a potential sale and form a Board to participate in any bidding process.

Landlords were required to inform the tenants of their intent or at least their possible considerations as to the disposition of their community. It was most Landlord's feelings that in order to accommodate the Tenants, the time to agree with another private party that would use the 1031 option as part of the future transaction would be lost because time would be of the essence in this case.

The carrot on the end of the stick" to the selling Landlord was the waiver of long term capital gains on the sale of the property. When the 1031 is exercised by the seller

Answer: Here is a quick primer on ORS 90.727, the hazard tree statute, which was enacted in the 2013 Legislative Session:

Oregon Law.

1. Definitions.

• "DBH" means the diameter at breast height, which is measured as the width of a standing tree at four and one-half feet above the ground on the uphill side.

• "Hazard tree" means a tree that:
  • Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;
  • Measures at least eight inches DBH; and
  • Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 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.

1. Habitability. A rented space is considered uninhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree required by the 2013 Act.

1. Resident Duties re Trees Located on Space. A resident shall maintain and water trees, including cleanup and removal of fallen branches and leaves, on the rented space for a manufactured dwelling except for hazard trees.

• "Maintaining a tree" means removing or trimming a tree for the purpose of eliminating features of the tree that cause the tree to be hazardous, or that may cause the tree to become hazardous in the near future.
• "Removing a tree" includes:
  • Felling and removing the tree; and
  • Grinding or removing the stump of the tree.

4. Landlord Duties re Hazard Trees.

• Landlord shall maintain a hazard tree that was not planted by the current resident if the landlord knows or should know that the tree is a hazard tree;
• Landlord may maintain a tree on the rented space to prevent the tree from becoming a hazard tree;
  • Must provide residents with reasonable written notice and reasonable opportunity to maintain the tree themselves.
• Landlord has discretion to decide whether the appropriate maintenance of a hazard tree is removal or trimming.
• Landlord is not responsible for:
  • Maintaining a tree that is not a hazard tree; or
  • Maintaining any tree for aesthetic purposes.
• A landlord must comply with the access provisions of ORS 90.725 before entering a resident's space to inspect or maintain a tree. [Generally, 24-hour notice. - PCQ]
• Subject to the preceding, a resident is responsible for maintaining the non-hazard trees on the resident's space at the resident's expense.
  • The resident may retain an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture to inspect a tree on the resident's space at the resident's expense;
  • If the arborist determines that the tree is a hazard, the resident may:
    • Require the landlord to maintain the tree as a hazard tree; or
    • Maintain the tree at the resident's expense, after providing the landlord with reasonable written notice of the proposed maintenance and a copy of the arborist's report.

1. Tree Obstructing Removal of Home From Space. If a manufactured home cannot be removed from a space without first removing or trimming a tree on the space, the owner of the home may remove or trim the tree at the owner's expense, after giving reasonable written notice to the landlord, for the purpose of removing the home.

1. Use of Landscape Professional. The landlord or resident that is responsible for maintaining a tree must engage a landscape construction professional with a valid landscape license issued pursuant to ORS 671.560 to maintain any tree with a DBH of eight inches or more.

1. Access to Resident's Space [ORS 90.725].

• An "emergency" includes but is not limited to:
  • A repair problem that, unless remedied immediately, is likely to cause serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property;
  • The presence of a hazard tree on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park.
• An "unreasonable time" refers to a time of day, day of the week or particular time that conflicts with the resident's reasonable and specific plans to use the space.
• "Yard maintenance, equipment servicing or grounds keeping" includes, but is not limited to, servicing individual septic tank systems or water pumps, weeding, mowing grass and pruning trees and shrubs.
• A landlord or a landlord's agent may enter onto a rented space to:
  • Inspect or maintain trees;
  • A landlord or the landlord's agent may enter a rented space solely to inspect a tree despite a denial of consent by the resident if the landlord or the landlord's agent has given at least 24 hours' actual notice of the intent to enter to inspect the tree and the entry occurs at a reasonable time.
  • If a landlord has a report from an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture that a tree on the rented space is a hazard tree that must be maintained by the landlord under this Act, the landlord is not liable for any damage or injury as a result of the hazard tree if the landlord is unable to gain entry after making a good faith effort to do so.
• If the resident refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access or may terminate the rental agreement pursuant to ORS 90.630 (1) and take possession in accordance with the Oregon eviction statutes. In addition, the landlord may recover actual damages.

1. Statement of Policy. It shall include the facility policy regarding the planting of trees on the resident's rented space. [See ORS 90.510]

Discussion. It is not clear to me whether your arborist knows what a "hazard tree" is under ORS 90. 727. Cutting the roots may make the tree more dangerous, but under the statutory definition, to be a "hazard tree" it must measure at least eight inches in diameter at breast height ("DBH")[1]. If it does, then you have the primary responsibility. If it does not then your rules would appear to apply.

However, even though the tree is not of sufficient size to be a hazard tree under the statute, I think the discussion merits a closer look. Assuming it was in existence at the time the resident rented the space, what the rule seems to say is that even though the landlord owns the ground and the tree, it becomes the tenant's responsibility once leased. As to small trees and normal vegetation, I can understand this rule. But the larger the tree, the more the argument becomes one of "cost shifting" i.e. requiring a resident to undertake possibly expensive measures (e.g. removing the tree) for the benefit of the landlord's property. This issue, in fact, was the rationale behind the hazard tree legislation.

Oregon law provides that park landlord have certain habitability obligations to residents. ORS 90.730(3)(g) provides:

Excluding the normal settling of land, a surface or ground capable of supporting a manufactured dwelling approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained to support a dwelling in a safe manner so that it is suitable for occupancy. A landlord's duty to maintain the surface or ground arises when the landlord knows or should know of a condition regarding the surface or ground that makes the dwelling unsafe to occupy; (Italics mine.)

Although the statute does not refer to driveways and other amenities on the space, it does refer to the "dwelling", which includes the skirting. Does the tree root make it "unsafe". Probably not, if safety refers just to personal safety and not safety of the property.

However, ORS 90.135 (Unconscionability) provides that a resident may argue that shifting the responsibility for maintenance of landlord-owned property - in this case - a non-hazard tree not planted by the resident that is causing damage to residents' property, is "unconscionable". The statute provides:

If the court, as a matter of law, finds: (a) A rental agreement or any provision thereof was unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision, or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result; ***

Conclusion. I am not saying management is, per se' responsible. But what I am saying is that this is a risk that is better shouldered by a landlord, than a tenant, especially here, where the tree existed before the tenancy, and it ultimately belongs to the landlord.

Note, this may be an insurance issue. Can the residents file a claim with their carriers for the tree damage? This depends on their coverage. In the final analysis, the tree should be removed, since it will continue to damage the tenants' property. At some point they could file a claim against you for the cost of that damage. Why not remove the tree now and avoid any further issues?

[1] Technically, it is measured at four and one-half feet above the ground on the uphill side.

Answer. Welcome to the Nanny State! I agree this is a frustrating situation for landlords.  I believe rule No. 1 is to pick your shots. By that I mean, you want to look at this in the same way a judge or jury would.  Does it pass the “smell test”?  – pun intended. 

To me it does not. This sounds like a case in which you’ve got a pretty good paper trail. But someone has to blink.  If you fold on this, bad precedent is set. Here she’s asking for two extraservice animals. By this rationale, the two pet policy means nothing, and she could gather another six animals and make the same claim.  I believe you should consult your attorney to find out what he/she recommends.   

From where I sit, I think you could take at least one more step, without this going nuclear.  You may want to consider issuing a 30-day notice to vacate, citing the rule and what she needs to remedy it, i.e. remove two of the pets.  

At that time, the issue will come to a head. Will she go to some advocacy attorney group who says they will fight you for free? Will she fold? Will she try to compromise?  There is a Roman saying that if you want peace, prepare for war.  In other words, if you show her you mean business, she may take a more realistic look at her position. Until there is a show of force, she has the upper hand.  If she backs off, there may be an opportunity to find a solution, e.g. and agreement to re-home the pets with a relative. Any solution that is reached should be in writing, and you should have your attorney prepare it.

If she pushes back, and has some legal group threating a fight, you can then decide whether to hold ‘em or fold em’.  Remember, litigation doesn’t happen overnight. You will, at worst, get a threatening letter or two, before something happens. If you don’t want the fight, then walk away.  Good luck!  By the way, during this dispute, if you intend to issue a 30-day letter, you should not also be accepting rent.

Answer: The answer would be the same regardless of whether it is a family park or a 55+ park. This is an issue of making a “reasonable accommodation” under the federal fair housing act. Handicapped persons are members of a protected class. Is the resident “handicapped”? With the various infirmities that can come with older age, there is a likelihood that the resident could qualify as a member of that class. If so, then the landlord should give the tenant a MHCO Request for Reasonable Accommodation form. If everything checks out, granting a “reasonable accommodation” to the community’s minimum age requirement for a second person in a senior park from 45 to 38 is probably not unreasonable. It will not cost the landlord anything. It will not set a “precedent” since federal law requires such concessions for handicapped. All in all, it is a fairly easy solution. Note that I am not commenting on the validity of the request itself. This accommodation is not costly or risky, so the analysis is fairly simple. The harder cases are where the resident wants to bring in a pit bull or other breed with a dangerous reputation; as an “assistance animal,” or the assistance provider, while a relative, has a recent criminal record for violence. If these cases, the landlord has to evaluate the legitimacy of the request, the need to accommodate a “pit bull” or ex-con, versus some other alternative, and the likelihood the resident will contest an outright denial. In this case, I have no problem with having the son fill out an informational form containing contact information, background information and a criminal check. However, since he is not applying for residency, his financial qualifications are irrelevant, since he is there to lend assistance, not pay rent.

By Mark L. Busch, P.C., Attorney at Law Question: Can our park use the regular MHCO manufactured home rental agreement for RV tenants who are allowed in certain spaces throughout our manufactured home park? Answer: No, the park should definitely not use a regular manufactured home rental agreement for RVs. By doing so, the park might inadvertently give the RV tenants more rights than they are otherwise entitled to under Oregon's Landlord-Tenant Laws. Specifically, the MHCO manufactured home rental agreement (and most other, similar manufactured home rental agreements) typically define the rented space as being used for a manufactured home." This could used against the park in an eviction action. The RV tenant's attorney could very well argue that the RV is a "manufactured home