Search

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: Yes, there are a few new laws plus a few new twists on existing laws. In a shameless plug, I encourage all park owners renting RV spaces to attend my RV Law Seminar at the MHCO Annual Convention. The RV seminar is on Monday, October 20th at 3:30.

Liability Insurance

One of the new laws we'll cover is the tenant liability insurance statute. This new law allows landlords to require RV tenants to obtain and maintain liability insurance during their tenancy. The amount of coverage may not exceed $100,000. To implement this policy, landlords can give RV tenants a 30-day notice informing them of this requirement. New RV tenants can be required to obtain insurance as long as you notify them in writing when they apply for tenancy.

If you have long-term RV tenants, it might be worthwhile to make liability insurance a requirement in your park. It adds another layer of protection for you as a landlord if a tenant does something causing major damage or injury in the park. (NOTE: The law does not apply to mobile home park tenants.) There are some restrictions on the insurance requirement, which we will cover in more detail at the RV seminar.

Noncompliance Fees Charged to RV Tenants

There have been a few changes to the laws which allow a landlord to charge tenants a noncompliance fee for certain violations. These fees can be a useful tool in getting tenants to follow the park rules without having to issue an eviction notice. Landlords can charge fees for (1) late utility payments, (2) failing to pick up pet waste, (3) failing to clean up garbage, (4) parking violations, (5) improper use of vehicles on the premises, (6) smoking in non-smoking areas, and (7) keeping unauthorized pets. The fees can't be charged without first giving a written warning and there are several other restrictions that we will cover at the RV seminar.

Section 8 Rental Payments

A new law now makes it unlawful for you as a landlord to refuse to rent to Section 8 tenants for that reason alone. The rationale is to give low income tenants the opportunity to rent anywhere regardless of how they make their income. While this doesn'tusually arise in RV park rentals, all landlords should be aware of the new law.

Prior Evictions, Arrests of Crimes

RV tenant applicants now cannot have their evictions considered if the case was dismissed or a judgment entered in the applicant's favor. Eviction cases 5 or more years old at the time of the rental application similarly cannot be considered in evaluating the applicant.

The law also specifies that only certain types of crimes can be considered in evaluating an applicant: (1) Drug related crimes, (2) crimes against another person, (3) sex offenses, (4) financial fraud, and (5) a "catchall" provision that includes any crime that might affect the landlord's or other tenants' property or safety. Arrests in the person's past on any of these issues that did not result in a conviction cannot be considered. However, pending arrests that have not been adjudicated at the time of the application may be considered.

RV Restroom Requirements

While not a new law, Oregon law requires that parks provide bathroom facilities to "vacation or recreational" campers. Less clear is whether parks are obligated to keep or install restrooms if they only rent to long-term residential RV tenants. At the RV seminar we will explore this issue and how it might affect your park - particularly if you have a mixed-use park of both RVs and mobile homes.

On July 6, 2023 the Oregon Legislature passed SB 611 which lowered the existing cap on annual rent increases for residential tenancies.  With the Governor's signature the bill is now the law.

Every year in late September, the state of Oregon calculates a maximum rent increase for residential tenancies based on the preceding year’s September Consumer Price Index for the West Region (CPI). The formula is a base of 7% plus the CPI. Typically, this results in a maximum rent increase of around 9%. Last year, due to pandemic-related inflation the CPI shot up to 7.6%, resulting in a maximum allowable residential rent increase for 2023 of 14.6%.

A new 10% cap has gone into effect as of July 6, 2023. Any rent increases going into effect from this date until December 31, 2023 may not be more than 10% [see note about rent increases in the City of Portland, below]. The new rental cap for 2024 will be calculated and published by the State of Oregon in the fall.

New Cap: SB 611 retains ORS 90.600’s the statutory formula of 7% plus the CPI, however residential rent increases will now be capped at 10%, regardless of whether the CPI exceeds 3%. All tenancies subject to ORS 90.600, except week-to-week tenancies, are subject to the following rules:

1. A landlord may only increase rent with written notice to the tenant at least 90-days prior to the rent increase; and
2. A landlord may not increase the rent more than once in any 12-month period.

Exemptions: Landlords are exempt from the rent cap under two circumstances:

1. The first certificate occupancy for the unit was issued less than 15 years from the date of the notice of rent increase; or
2. The unit is affordable housing under a federal, state or local program and the increase in rent:
   1. Does not increase the tenant’s portion of subsidized rent; or
   2. Is required by the federal, state, or local program or because of a change in the tenant’s income.

If a landlord is claiming exemption from the cap on the grounds mentioned above, the exemption must be noted in the 90-day rent increase notice.

City of Portland: Landlords in the City of Portland should note that the new statewide 10% rental cap does not override the City of Portland’s Relocation Assistance Program requirements under  Portland City Code 30.01.085(c). Any rent increase of 10% or above, even if allowed under SB 611, will trigger a requirement that the landlord pay relocation assistance if their affected tenants request it. There are limited exemptions to Portland’s 10% increase rule. Landlords should consult with an attorney to inquire about exemptions before increasing City of Portland rents more than 9.9%.

If the son is on parole, you may want to try to contact his parole officer. I fully suspect that there may be conditions of his parole that may apply to keep him out of the park.

At the risk of sounding harsh, it is a fact that "sexual predators" are not a protected class under the state and federal constitution. In short, you can have rules forbidding them to be in the park due to the proximity of children.

If you don't have such rules, you may want to enact some. But even though you don', I believe you did the right thing to require that he not occupy the home. You can and should do the same thing with regards to forbidding him to come into the park at all. If his family wants to see him, they can go to where he currently lives. The person(s) who has/have hired him to do odd jobs should be told that he cannot come into the park for ANY reason.

If you wonder whether this can be done without some specific rules, my response is that I would prefer rules to be in place. But even though you presumably have nothing on point, it would not stop me from banning him from the park. If he legally objects and wins, then it was a court that said he could come in - not you. Your main duty is to the park residents and their children. Better to try to remove him and fail than not to try at all.

Lastly, for your information, ORS 90.630(1)(c) permits a landlord to terminate a tenant if it is determined that they are "a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587." From your question, I could not tell whether the adult son was on the rental agreement, but if so, he is a "tenant." The statute is not clear whether it can be applied to only a single tenant, without terminating the tenancy of the remaining occupants. Of course, the statute doesn'taddress the larger issue of whether you may prohibit him from coming into the park, but I believe you are fully within your rights, as discussed above. However, you should first clear any such action with the park ownership, and they should secure legal advice on how to proceed.

Introduction.  As most MHCO members may remember, ORS 90.630 had a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tenant violations. There was a 30-day cure period for all violations of the law, rules or rental/lease agreement, and if not cured by the 30thday following delivery of the notice, the tenancy was terminated.

The problem with that approach was that some violations consisted of isolated single acts, such as speeding through the park in violation of the community rules. This raised the question, what to do about repeat violations withinthe 30-day period? As long as the conduct ceased before last day of the 30-day cure period, was a tenant in compliance with the termination notice? Without getting into the reasons why I believe such an approach was incorrect, the issue is now moot.

Revisions to ORS 90.630. Pursuant to the new Landlord-Tenant Coalition Bill, SB 586, ORS 90.630 has been amended to specifically deal with single, isolated violations that are notof a continuing nature (such as, for example, the failure to maintain the space, or exterior of the home).

Although MHCO has made the appropriate changes to its forms, members are encouraged to review them in advance of using them. The protocols are different and may take some getting used to. We now have two forms, (a) one for “continuing” violations, and (b) another for those that consist of a single, non-repetitive act. There are also some changes to the statute that apply to both types of violations. Here is a summary:

1. All violations for which a notice is issued must be “material”. Although this term is not defined in the legislation, suffice it to say, you (should) know it when you see it. An isolated failure to mow the front yard one week is not a “material” violation that should trigger a 30-day notice of termination. That is what clean-up notices are for. 

2. The 30-day notice now must separately designate a “termination date”. It is not sufficient to say that the tenancy will terminate if the violation continues past the last day of the 30-day cure period. The MHCO form has been appropriately revised.

3. Conduct is “ongoing” if:

1. 1. It is “constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing”; and
   2. The violation does not involve a pet or assistance animal;
   3. If it is ongoing, the same rules apply as previously, i.e. there is a 30-day cure period (however now a separate “termination date” must be identified, which can simply be the date following the last day of the cure period – as long as it is specifically identified).

4. A critical difference with the separate conduct 30-day notice is that there are now two time periods.

1. 1. The resident has a cure period of “…at least three days after delivery of the notice.” If not so cured within that time (e.g. tenant continues to speed through park) the tenancy will terminate on a date at least 30 days following delivery of the notice. 
   2. Note: it will be important for management to specifically identify the date three or more days hence. Otherwise, the cure period would end on the designated termination date not less than 30 after the delivery of the notice (or 33 if sent by regular mail).

5. Similar to the ongoing violation, for the separate conduct violation, at least one possible method for correction must be identified.

6. The six-month period for the repeat violation (which, if it occurs, entitles management to issue a 20-day non-curable notice) has been corrected. 

1. 1. Previously, the 6-month period commenced from the date of delivery of the violation notice, which was effectively only a 5-month period. 
   2. The new law, and the new MHCO violation form, now begin 6-month period from the termination date designated in the notice. 

7. There were no other material changes to ORS 90.630, including the 3-strikes law.

Conclusion. On its face, the changes appear to address the isolated violation issue with a shortened cure period, and automatically terminating the tenancy within 30-days if not so cured. 

Since I was not present during the discussion of these changes at the Coalition, I cannot comment on the rationale that resulted in this approach. But I cannot help but feel that a resident who fails to cure within the 3-day period – and now has 30 days hang around the park before vacating – has little incentive to be on his/her best behavior. What more can management do to protect the safety and welfare of the other residents while the terminated resident remains in the community?  Perhaps the 24-hour notice provisions of ORS 90.396could be amended to address this issue.