Search

Question  A:  We have a Tenant who has refused to fix the water leaks within their mobile home. The park owner pays for the water and there have been significant cost increases due to the leaks. 

The Lease is the MHCO Lease from 2003 and states under Tenant Agreements F. Maintain the Home in accordance with conditions set forth in Paragraph 12.A(8)(a) through (e) which states in (d) all electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in, on, or about the Home, are in operable and safe condition, and that the connections to those systems have been maintained.

What recourse do we have in this situation?

Question B:  We have a tenant whose sewage line is routinely blocked.  We have had a plumber our numerous times and unclogged resident’s sewage line.  We have repeatedly told this resident that they cannot put certain items in the toilet - and yet they continue to do so and block the sewage line.  Does this constitute grounds for eviction?  At what point is the resident responsible for the sewage line and the items they are putting in the toilet?

We’re all pretty familiar with what the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) says. The real challenge is figuring out what it actually means, as in real life. If you use Fair Housing Coach, it’s a good bet that you’re among the vast majority of landlords who are committed to principles of fair housing and try hard to comply with the rules. The problem is that those rules can be vague, confusing, and even contradictory. The only sure way to find out if you’re meeting all of the requirements is to get sued for discrimination and submit to the judgment of the investigator, court, or fair housing tribunal. Of course, that’s hardly a practical strategy; in fact, the whole point of compliance is to avoid getting embroiled in investigation and litigation in the first place.  

Luckily, there’s a better approach. Look at the actual cases involving other landlords and draw the appropriate lessons. Knowing what landlords did right and wrong enables you to make informed judgments about and improve the effectiveness of your own compliance efforts. Regrettably, you may not have the time or legal training to track down and analyze the cases—or the budget to hire an attorney to do it. The good news is that we did the heavy lifting for you. This month’s lesson breaks down the key FHA rulings from 2021, explaining not just who won and who lost, but why and what practical compliance lessons you can take from the case.

Question: I'm in the middle of an eviction against a resident for nonpayment of rent and Legal Aid is claiming there is a statute saying I can only go back one year back for past-due rent. Is this correct?

Introduction. A recent ruling from the Oregon Court of Appeals should be of interest to landlords, including those owning manufactures housing communities. Many provisions in the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Act apply a multiplier for the landlord’s violation of a statute.

A case in point is 90.315(4), a utility billing statute which allows that aggrieved tenants may recover the greater of “one month’s periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged” for each individual violation. In Shepard, the plaintiff sought to apply the statute in an ongoing manner for every month the alleged violation existed. It does not require a calculator to conclude that an alleged violation that existed for 12 months (the statute of limitations under the Act) can amount to a sizeable claim against the landlord – and especially so if brought as a class action on behalf of the entire Park.

Pet Rent

Question:  Is it permissible to charge a tenant rent for their pet? 

The Basics. Except where the physical condition of the home is at issue, a landlord may terminate the space rental agreement by giving the tenant not less than 30 days’ notice in writing if the tenant:

1. Materially violates a law related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant;
2. Materially violates a rental agreement[1] provision related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy; or
3. Is classified as a level three sex offender under ORS 163A.100.