Search

Question: A resident living alone passed away. It took some time for the estate to get underway because they had to search for heirs. An heir was located and was appointed as Administrator to act on behalf of the estate. Shortly after the resident’s passing, we began requesting that a Storage Agreement be signed but the estate was hesitant to do so until the Administrator was appointed. After the appointment the Administrator was initially cooperative, but unexpectedly changed his mind and is now threatening to bring all of the past due rent current, and then, out of spite, tear the home down while still on the space. Presumably, after doing so, we would expect the Administrator to cease all further space rental payments. How should we handle this?

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn’t make 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 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.

Answer: The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) is treated like any other lienholder. It is critical that before the 45-day letter is sent, the park check with the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (“DCBS”) to determine if there are any lienholders on title. We understand that DOR is now showing up on the DCBS records. Remember, if they show up on the record and you fail to give them notice, they could come back against the park for failing to notify them. If they show up on the DCBS records, they should be copied on the 45-day letter, and given all of the same rights as other lienholders, e.g. entering into a one year storage agreement, paying the storage fees, selling the home, etc. Currently, it is our understanding the DOR does not sign and returned storage agreements. If there is a purchase money lien on the property, it will be superior to the DOR and then it [the DOR] will only get payment if there is any equity from the sale. Since the property is worth more than $8,000, if there is no sale, it would go to auction. As a lienholder, the DOR is behind the park, in terms of payment of cost, and then the county tax collector [which presumably is current – thanks to the DOR]. Next, as a lienholder, the DOR would receive some payment. If there are any further proceeds, they would go to the tenant, and if the tenant cannot be located, then to the county fund. If the landlord follows these procedures, there is no remaining liability to the DOR for and of the taxes paid under the program.

That is the question on the minds of most MHCO members we speak to. As you have likely noticed, the costs of water, sewer, and other utilities has increased exponentially in the last few years for both commercial and residential properties alike. The addition of unrelated or undefined fees, such as street maintenance, base charges, and additional services, has become commonplace. Combine that with careless usage of water by tenants and you have a perfect storm for losing revenue. Since we cannot directly control these increasing costs or the careless usage, it is nearly impossible to try and keep up by using rent increases alone.

Our recommendation is to focus on what you can control: who is directly paying for the utility expense. According to the Alliance for Water Efficiency (http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org), the average submetered customer uses up to 20% less than a customer on a master metered system. In our professional experience, we have seen decreases of up to 40%. It is really no surprise that when you transfer the responsibility to the tenant, they instantly become more aware of the leaks and conservation behaviors that they had been ignoring previously. It is just human nature that if something doesn'tcost you anything, you are less likely to be conscientious.

In order to place this responsibility on the tenant and get control of your utility expenses, you need to convert your park to the "Submeter Billing Method" outlined in the Oregon statutes. This can be a daunting task to take on alone, so it is important that you use someone who is an expert. We have spent the last few years immersed in research and have designed Jet Utilities' Submeter Conversion Program around the laws specific to Oregon. We have consulted the best minds in the business, including many Coalition board members, as well as independent council. We can confidently call ourselves experts in not only regulations and project management, but also in the actual installation of the system. Jet has its own licensed journeyman plumbers who are dedicated to the installation of submeters at mobile home parks. We have the knowledge and experience to handle a park of any size, with any type of plumbing material, anywhere in Oregon, Washington, or California.

We are confident that submetering is the right thing to do for your manufactured home community. The largest obstacle that many owners face after realizing their need to submeter is finding a way to fund the project. Until recently, your choices have been very limited: use your own capital or try and secure financing on your own. Neither of those is very attractive or very easy to do given the current economic state. Jet Utilities' Submeter Conversion Program offers owners and managers a turn key solution including the funding for the equipment and installation. There are no loans to qualify for, no up-front capital, and no cost to you. How can we do this, you ask? It is simple. We already have the funding for these projects. We simply install an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) System and utility grade water meters at each space, and then bill you a flat monthly fee that Oregon law allows you to pass directly through to the tenants.

There are some very important laws and regulations that go into the preparation of this as well as the requirement for a Unilateral Amendment to the Rental Agreement which is now available to MHCO members in the "Forms" section of the MHCO website. (MHCO Form 14 - Unilateral Amendment to Rental Agreement for Sub-Metering). This is the first step in preparing for Submeter Conversion.

For more information and a quote for your park, please visit our website www.jetutilities.com or call 1-844-JET-UTIL (844-538-8845) and ask for Erik.

Answer: You've already recognized that it really is a matter of personal preference and how each type of tenancy fits into your park's business model. There is certainly an advantage to having long-term tenants so that you have less turnover and you develop a good reputation as an option for residents who plan on staying awhile.

However, month-to-month tenants can only be evicted without cause on 30 days' written notice during the first year of the tenancy, and on 60 days' notice after the first year of tenancy. (But see special note below for Portland and Milwaukie landlords.) Additionally, state law now prohibits rent increases on monthly RV tenants during the first year of the tenancy and requires 90 days' written notice to raise the rent after the first year.

Conversely, week-to-week tenancies make it easier to evaluate a tenant in the short-term to ensure that he or she will work out in the long run. Weekly tenants can be evicted for no cause on 10 days' written notice and rent can be increased on 7 days' written notice. These are significant advantages when evaluating tenants as possible long-term residents.

The primary disadvantage in creating weekly tenants is the administrative burden. To create a week-to-week tenancy in Oregon, it must have all of the following characteristics: (1) occupancy charged on a weekly basis and payable no less frequently than every seven days; (2) a written rental agreement that defines the landlord's and the tenant's rights and responsibilities under Oregon law, and (3) no fees or security deposits, although the landlord may require the payment of an applicant screening charge.

In your situation, it might make sense to put new tenants on weekly agreements at least initially. If they seem to be working out, you can then offer them a new, monthly agreement later. MHCO Form 80 [Recreational Vehicle Space Rental Agreement] can be used for either weekly or monthly tenants. Just be sure to properly fill out the form and do not charge weekly tenants a security deposit or other fees (or you risk automatically making them monthly tenants right away).

Special Note Regarding RV Parks in Portland and Milwaukie: These two cities have enacted local ordinances that override state law and require a minimum of 90 days' written notice for no-cause evictions from the very beginning of a month-to-month tenancy. Landlords in these cities might want to seriously consider the week-to-week tenancy option for RV tenants since weekly tenancies are specifically exempt from this regulation in both cities.

But the proposal hasn’t received broad support in the Oregon Senate. It’s unclear that Gov. Kate Brown would call a special session to address the matter this month if lawmakers can’t agree on a plan. It’s also uncertain whether the governor would issue an executive order to extend the eviction moratorium into next year if a special session isn’t called.

“I want to see support, frankly, from Democrats and Republicans for the work that needs to be done,” Brown said during a press conference Friday, adding that she hoped to make a decision on whether to call a special session in the next few days. Her office didn’t respond to inquiries about potentially extending the moratorium.

Tenant advocates worry that thousands of Oregon renters could face eviction at the start of the New Year if lawmakers don’t act before the moratorium expires.

Data compiled by Multifamily NW, a rental industry group whose members include landlords and property managers, shows that between 12% and 15% of renters in Oregon have been unable to keep up with their rental payments during the pandemic. A survey conducted by Portland State University researchers found the situation to be considerably worse with 36% of 460 Oregon tenants surveyed reporting they owed back rent.

“Time is running out,” said Alison McIntosh, a spokesman for Neighborhood Partnerships, which runs the Oregon Housing Alliance. “With the eviction moratorium set to expire on Dec. 31, we know that renters across the state will be facing evictions very quickly, both in the middle of the worst spike in COVID cases that we’ve seen so far and the middle of winter. That is really concerning to us. We need the legislature to act to solve this problem.”

Brown extended the residential eviction ban through an executive order in September and it is possible that she could take a similar step if lawmakers don’t come to the consensus needed to warrant a special session. But the federal government’s eviction moratorium expires at the end of the year, and some observers believe that might undercut the legal standing of a new order from Brown.

Rep. Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, the chair of the work group who developed the House proposal, said a legislative solution would be better than an executive order because Oregon could pair the moratorium with financial help for landlords.

“I can’t think of a more compelling reason to come into session than to keep people housed during the pandemic,” Fahey said. “We think at least 20,000 Oregonians will be at risk of facing homelessness come Jan. 1 if we let the eviction moratorium expire without further action. There’s a real sense of urgency to take action to address this looming eviction crisis.”

Under the House proposal, renters who can show that they’ve experienced financial hardships since the start of the pandemic could not be evicted for missing rental payments through June 30, but would have to pay back any accumulated rent on July 1. The Legislature would also set aside $100 million in general fund money to go to existing rental assistance programs and a new landlord assistance fund. Landlords would be required to forgive 20% of past-due rent to access the assistance.

Still, lawmakers acknowledge that $100 million wouldn’t be close to meeting the needs of tenants and landlords. The Portland Housing Bureau estimated that Portland renters alone had missed over $120 million in rental payments by the end of September.

Deborah Imse, executive director for Multifamily NW, expressed concerns last month about the viability of the proposal if there wasn’t adequate funding to address the needs of landlords who would be asked to forgo rent for another six months.

In a letter to Brown earlier this month, Multifamily NW called on the state to allocate adequate rental assistance to make up for the losses of housing providers, create a short-term loan program for tenants who can’t pay rent and implement other relief measures for property owners, including property tax relief.

Multifamily NW is also supporting the passage of a separate proposal floated by Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, which would offer tax credits over a five-year period to landlords who forgive past-due rent. Landlords would be allowed to sell credits to other Oregon taxpayers.

“Rather than implementing additional confusing rules that further strain the relationship between housing providers and renters, Oregon should focus efforts on identifying budget resources to make rental assistance available,” said Michael Havlik, deputy executive director for Multifamily NW. “We think a combination of policies that improve emergency rental assistance programs coupled with tax relief measures is the right approach to resolving the state’s moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent.”

While Johnson’s proposal does not address the eviction moratorium, she said that landlords wouldn’t have an incentive to evict tenants with her proposal on the table because they would lose out on the opportunity to receive the tax credits.

“The landlord gets something in exchange for having provided services to the tenant without cost during the duration of the state of emergency,” Johnson said. “The tenant gets debt relief and peace of mind knowing there’s no obligation to pay back thousands of dollars of back rent or suffer having their credit destroyed or bankruptcy. Finally, the state is able to accomplish that by use of future as opposed to current revenues.”

Ron Garcia is president-elect of the Rental Housing Alliance, which represents smaller landlords. He said he is concerned Johnson’s proposed tax credits would benefit larger corporations and property management companies while doing little to help smaller landlords struggling now.

Fahey said her work group considered including tax credits in their proposal, but they felt that the credits would put a strain on the state budget down the road if they weren’t capped and they believed they could do more to help smaller landlords by getting them direct financial assistance now.

She said that Johnson’s proposal deserved consideration in the regular session, but that the state needs to address the expiring eviction ban before the end of the year.

Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, who owns several small rental properties, said it is imperative that legislators act to help both small and large landlords who have forgone rent for up to nine months and said he would consider both proposals on the table. But he also said he could only support a bill that also addressed the expiring eviction moratorium.

“I’m hoping everybody can envision the possible disaster if the moratorium isn’t extended and we can come together to find some way to get there,” Golden said.

Senate Democrats discussed options for renters during a caucus meeting Monday afternoon. Those discussions remained ongoing Tuesday morning. Still, the possibility of Brown calling a mid-month special session remained in doubt.

Shemia Fagan, D-Portland, who will be sworn in as Oregon’s next Secretary of State in January, said she delayed her resignation from the Senate in order to be available for a possible special session. She said Oregonians deserved to hear legislators debate the proposals publicly in a special session this month since any gap in the eviction moratorium and a separate foreclosure moratorium could have severe consequences for Oregon renters and homeowners.

“Oregonians facing eviction, foreclosures and possible homelessness deserve public leaders who will make a decision regarding housing during a global public health crisis,” Fagan said. “Those decisions should be made in public. People can vote how they want to vote, but Oregonians deserve a special session and a Senate caucus that will take a bill to the floor and have the courage in their convictions to vote yes or no on the Senate floor.”

Answer: The basic rule is that a landlord is required to provide an RV park that is "kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses." Practically speaking, this means that if you know about a particular danger or threat of danger, as a landlord you must take reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate that danger.

The real question of course is what are the "reasonable steps" to take? At the basic level, you should make sure that you have adequate lighting that is well-maintained to illuminate the park streets at night (i.e., replace those burned out bulbs). Your resident manager should also conduct several walk-throughs throughout the day, preferably in the early morning and evening hours to note any problems. If you have a perimeter fence around your park, make sure that it is kept in good repair and that entrance gates are working and secure.

Part of the obligation to keep your park safe is to also promptly enforce all park rules with written warnings and/or eviction notices if necessary. A good example would be an unauthorized occupant staying with one of your tenants who you have reason to suspect is involved in park thefts. Even if you don't have solid proof of the thefts, you can rely on the fact that the person is not an authorized tenant and evict on that basis alone. You should also immediately evict any particular tenant who is causing trouble. (Hint: Consider a simple no-cause eviction notice.)

If you've done all these things and are still having problems, do you have to hire a security guard? Probably not, but it all depends on the circumstances. The test is what is reasonable to eliminate or reduce the danger. In some cases, that might mean installing security cameras if it would reduce thefts and it is financially reasonable (and in this day and age, security cameras are relatively inexpensive and easy to install). In other cases, it might be reasonable to install a perimeter fence to keep out pedestrians cutting through the park (and helping themselves to tenants' personal property).

In the end, you will be held to the standard of providing a reasonably safe park for your tenants. If you know about a particular danger or potential danger, take immediate steps to reduce that danger. While you can't eliminate every threat, you can reduce your risk of liability by addressing foreseeable threats.

Answer:   This is a good question, and all too frequently ignored by owners and managers. The first question is whether the issue is addressed anywhere in the community documents, i.e. the statement of policy, rules, or rental agreement. Likely not. It really isn’t addressed in the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, with the exception of ORS 90.222, which covers renter’s liability insurance, and is excluded from the manufactured housing section of the law.  

Strictly speaking, the fact that the home was destroyed and is likely uninhabitable does not make it any less of a resident responsibility than before the fire. In other words, it is the resident’s primary responsibility to either promptly repair, replace, or remove the home.  The space is still under lease or rental to the resident, so all of the same rules apply, i.e. to keep it in good condition and safe. If the home is nothing more than a shell, the resident should likely remove it as soon as possible.

If the resident does not have fire insurance to repair or replace the home, I suspect he or she will abandon it, thus making it your problem - or the problem of the lienholder if there is one. Incidentally, if there is a lienholder, the loan documents likely require fire insurance, and that it be a named insured on the policy.  If that is the case, then hopefully, between the resident and their insurance company, there may be available proceeds to repair or replace.[1]

If the resident abandons the home, you should immediately send out a 45-day abandonment letter, thus triggering your right (and duty) to take control of the personal property.  It is likely an attractive nuisance for children, which could result in injury to them, and liability to you.  In such case, you should consider having it either cordoned off with “No Trespassing” signs, or removed.  Make sure that you independently confirm that it is a total loss, and with no salvage value.  If there is salvage value, it belongs to the resident.

ORS 90.675is the abandonment law that applies generally to homes located in manufactured housing communities. Today it contains 23 separate subsections, a behemoth in size compared to most statutes.  Buried 21 sections down in the subterranean recesses of the statute is that portion of the law dealing with health, safety and welfare issues, in which 45 day letters and 30 response periods could not possibly work. In such situations, time is of the essence.  Accordingly, subsection 21 sets forth a fast-track protocol for declaring the abandonment of a home that poses certain risks to others (such as the abandoned shell of a home destroyed by fire). Below is a summary of what this subsection says:

If a governmental agency determines that the condition of the abandoned  home constitutes an extreme health or safety hazard under state or local law andthe agency determines that the hazard endangers others in the facility andrequires quick removal of the property, the landlord may sell or dispose of it by taking the following steps[2]:

· The date by which a tenant, lienholder, personal representative or designated person must contact a landlord to arrange for the disposition of the property shall not be less than 15 days after personal delivery or mailing of the abandonment letter required by ORS 90.675(3);

· The date by which a tenant, lienholder, personal representative or designated person must remove the property must be not less than seven (7) days after the date the tenant, lienholder, personal representative or designated person issues the abandonment letter;

· The contents of the abandonment letter must be in accordance with ORS 90.675(5), except that:

• The dates and deadlines in the notice must be consistent with the fast-track protocol above;
• The abandonment letter must state that a governmental agency has determined that the property constitutes an extreme health or safety hazard and must be removed quickly; and
• The landlord must attach a copy of the agency’s determination to the abandonment letter.

We all know that 80% or more of a community homesites must be occupied by at least one 55+ person, and that documented proof of age must be consistently required to qualify for 55+ status under HOPA. Let's not forget that the requirements also mandate the re-survey.

What do the Regulations say? "...The procedures described in paragraph (b) [routinely determining the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant of each unit is 55 years of age or older] ... must provide for regular updates, through surveys or other means, of the initial information supplied by the occupants of the housing facility or community. Such updates must take place once every two years ...."

For example, there were objections to the re-survey mandate on the grounds it was too burdensome. HUD stated that owners would not be unduly burdened by the update requirements since the information "will be readily available in the files."

This comment reflects that the survey requirement can be fulfilled by preparation of a summary of names and ages of the homeowners based on existing file information (assuming the files are up to date). One might annotate a rent roll with resident ages and satisfy the requirement. HUD emphasizes that "...the re-survey does not require that all supporting documents be collected again - only that the community confirm that those persons counted as occupying dwellings for purposes of meeting the 80% requirement are, in fact, still in occupancy."

It is also clear that the survey is a "summary" and not required to include underlying documentation (remember the POA must be obtained for approval of tenancy and kept in the resident's file): "[Only the overall survey summary is required to be available for review, not the supporting documentation. The word 'summary' has been added to this section").

Compilation of the "Summary"

In review of the files to compile the required "summary," it is possible that some files may be missing POA (Proof of Age) documentation. Missing POA reflects inconsistent conformance to a required age verification policy. This can be fatal to defending a "55+" status. Yet, there are plausible reasons why POA may be absent. Perhaps a resident's tenancy commenced before the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (September 12, 1988): this was the last date to "grandfather" underage residents excluded from the calculation of the 80-20 requirement; perhaps the Xerox copier did not work on the day identification was checked; perhaps the applicant's age was so obvious that documentation was overlooked; perhaps the POA was misplaced. None of these explanations will "wash" with fair housing enforcers. Now is the time for review of this information. Supplementing resident files may bolster a defense of the "55+" status by proving the 80-20 ratio, but cannot substitute for consistent conformance to a policy of seeking POA documentation. HUD's requirements are crystal clear: "The housing facility or community must establish and maintain appropriate policies to require that occupants comply with the age verification procedures required by this section."

Should you seek missing POA information?

Yes. In a large scale review of resident files by fair housing enforcers, the main objective for review of proof of age may be to establish the 80-20 ratio: Proof of age in the file may itself be seen as evidence of adherence to collection of required data: even after-acquired information reflects, at least, compliance with the 2-year survey requirement. Proof of age includes

the following: driver's license (an expired or out-of-state license seems 'ok'), birth certificate, passport, immigration card, military identification, any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of "comparable reliability." This may include birth certificates, baptismal or marriage documents, perhaps, and other public records.

What if the tenant refuses to provide proof of age?

New purchaser: Of course, refusal to supply proof of age when applying for tenancy is a basis for denying a tenancy application. The regulations also allow for a declaration from a member of the household over 18 years of age, stating that at least one person in the homesite is at least 55 years of age. This after-acquired information is permissible for the survey, but again does not bolster evidence of conformance to proof of age documentation required for tenancy approval.

HUD provides a skeletal sample of certification. This can also be used as part of the tenancy application alone or better yet as a backup to production of proof of age. The sample reads as follows: "I, (name), am 18 years of age or older and a member of the household that resides at (housing facility or community), (unit number or designation). I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the ages of the occupants of this household and that at least one occupant is 55 years of age or older." Actual proof of age should be obtained at the application stage to avoid false reporting - no defense to a failure to achieve the 80-20 ration.

The regs also allow for other proof of age if an existing resident refuses to provide it. HUD states that "[I]f the occupants ... refuse to comply with the age verification procedures, the [management] may, if it has sufficient evidence, consider the unit to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. Such evidence may include: (1) Government records or documents, such as a local household census; (2) Prior forms or applications; or (3) A statement from an individual who has personal knowledge of the age of the occupants. The individual's statement must set forth the basis for such knowledge and be signed under the penalty of perjury."

Thus, the survey could be supplemented by including a sworn declaration or affidavit by any person with personal knowledge of the age of the resident's age. In past cases where proof of age was critically important, private investigation of public records to obtain that information has been conducted to provide such knowledge. Remember however, that obtaining proof of age "after the fact" shows compliance with the 2-year survey requirement, but does not substitute for a consistent practice of securing the required information at the time of processing the tenancy application.

HUD gives the following example as acceptable: "the owner of a mobile home park where the residents own the coach but rent the land requires a statement of whether at least one occupant is 55 years of age or older before any sublease or new rental." In other words, the qualification procedure can be instituted within the application process itself. HUD states such an example ("All new leases, new purchase agreements, or new applications contain a provision directly above the signatory line for leases, asserting that at least one occupant or the swelling will be 55 years of age or older. In addition the community surveys all current residents for their occupancy status in compliance with the 55 - or-older requirements"). Actual proof of age should always be required with submission of the tenancy application as well.

Conclusion

The continuing survey requirement is mandatory. Whether failure to comply will be fatal to the assertion of "older persons" status is unknown, but this survey requirement is part of the "intent" prong of operating an "older persons" community. In sum, it is time to compile the summary for your park.

(Reprinted with permission from MHI)

Do you operate a 55 & Older Community?

Do you have the necessary MHCO Forms for 55 & Older Communities?

MHCO has the Resources You Need!

If you are one of the many members of MHCO who own and operate a 55 & Older manufactured home community - MHCO has the resources you need to keep that community compliant with current HUD rules.

• Addendum to the Rent/Lease Agreement for Age 55 & Older Communities (MHCO Form 71A)
• 55 & Older Community - Occupation Determination and Age Verification (MHCO Form 71B)
• 55 & Older Community HUD Verification of Occupancy Survey (MHCO Form 71C)

These are excellent tools to use in the effective management of your 55 & Older community. Get the most out of your MHCO membership by purchasing and using MHCO Forms. 

Answer:  The park cannot guarantee that health safety measures will be followed by everyone and it is not your job to police the stay-at-home order.  There is little in the way of legal enforcement mechanisms that the park can use to enforce COVID-19 safety measures, particularly on the tenant’s own space.

The best that you can do is to remind residents that for the overall safety of everyone in the park, they should avoid congregating on anyone’s rental space.  Your reminder could include the admonition that residents are obligated under Oregon law to notdisturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises, and that gatherings right now pose a threat to that peaceful enjoyment. (With regard to visiting family members or guests, there is little you can do to prohibit that issue as long as they are not otherwise violating park rules.)

You do have more control over common areas such as playgrounds, recreational halls, swimming pools, etc. To the extent possible, you should close those areas to help reduce your risk of liability for any claims of negligence should someone become sick after using your park facilities.  For common areas that are necessities, such as laundry rooms or restrooms, post and enforce reasonable social distancing requirements according to government recommended practices, and more regularly clean and sanitize those facilities. 

If certain tenants or groups of tenants persist in gathering in an unsafe manner on their rental spaces, you might have good reason to issue a 30/14-day, for-cause eviction notice for disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the premises.  Or, if a tenant did something intentional like trying to cough on someone, for example, then you could probably issue a 24-hour eviction notice for “outrageous behavior.”  However, as always, check with an attorney before issuing any eviction notices along these lines.