Search

Industry experts on the panel noted that retaining people who are effective with coworkers and the public is an ongoing process. Periodic employment reviews and training programs are generally well received. Most people want to know how well they are doing and what needs to improve. Coaching by regional managers and outside consultants is critical to recognizing employment and operational issues and correcting them before they cause other problems.

Second "tip" is also simple and can be summarized in one word: Documentation. It is critical that your community have well prepared written rental agreements whether for a long-term or month-to-month tenancy. There are, of course, pros and cons to both forms of tenancy. Certainly, in a rent control jurisdiction, long-term leases are preferred. However, it is well understood that obtaining an economically viable long-term lease can be difficult in rent controlled communities because of the legislative constraints on tenant negotiations. To the extent a local jurisdiction has vacancy control it is critical to pay attention to those opportunities to offer suitable long-term lease agreements so that future rent increases are known by both the resident and the park.

Another form of documentation to consider is arbitration agreements. There are intense debates among lawyers, and even within the industry, about whether or not arbitration is a desirable means of conflict resolution. If arbitration is going to be pursued, however, it is critical that the arbitration agreements reference and be drafted in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act. While the State of California has an arbitration statute, it is effectively useless in compelling arbitration in most circumstances in a mobilehome park context. Numerous appellate State court decisions, when deciding whether or not arbitration can be compelled under the state arbitration law, are uniform in declining to enforce landlord/tenant arbitration agreements.

Documentation also means due consideration of park rules. Park rules are the functional equivalent of covenants, conditions and restrictions created for residential developments such as condominiums and planned unit developments. California law requires that park/community rules be reasonable and that, of course, is key to any judicial enforcement. Park owners differ as to whether they prefer general rules or more detailed rules. Again, there are pros and cons to each. However, when it comes to enforcement, it is this writer's experience that more particular detailed rules are typically easier to enforce than a more vaguely worded general rule where "reasonable" discretion by the park's resident manager might be seen by a judge as being less objective or personal. The courts in California tend to err on the side of tenants and thus making sure documentation (Rules) are objectively reasonable can greatly aid in their enforcement.

Tip three is getting to know your customer/market. Understanding who wants to live in your park and why it is important to properly serve that segment of the public and the larger "neighborhood community".

Consistent with knowing your market and customer, is knowing your competition. A park's competition might be other manufactured housing communities or, possibly, nearby apartment complexes, duplexes and triplexes in the area. Knowing who is renting and at what price is critical to knowing if your park is offering all that it can at a competitive price.

A fourth issue noted by regional park managers is the need to conduct a thorough park assessment. Many of the larger owners in the industry have an annual reassessment of each community including what potential capital expenses and improvements might be required. An annual or semiannual assessment can be done in conjunction with a documented risk assessment and analysis. Reviewing a community's streets, curbs, gutters and any recreational amenities can help a community be prepared for accidents; weather cause events and the ever present potential for litigation. A proactive system of having maintenance logs and keeping records of what has been repaired, when, and by whom is critical in the event of a simple slip and fall accident or, more significantly, if a "failure to maintain" lawsuit is threatened. In California failure to maintain allegations are routinely made against many communities that, from all objective criteria, are well-maintained and are highly desirable places to live.

Capital improvement and risk analysis assessments also lead to insight as to how a community is evolving. Is there a plan for replacing or improving the current housing stock? To the extent the park has the ability to help renovate or replace older functionally obsolete housing is a plan being considered. In some areas of California, the options of potential closure or conversion to a resident owned community are worthy of discussion. In rent controlled communities it might be prudent to have park owned homes so as realize appropriate revenue from the park.

One final tip: manage your revenue properly. Successful park operations need to follow and have a well-defined timeframe and process for rent collections. How rents are collected, managed and deposited is critical to cash flow. An annual review of the community to understand whether reserved parking or storage facilities should be provided, for a fee, should be considered. A number of communities have added solar panels to parking areas that generate revenue and help offset electricity costs in the park. Whether or not the park accepts electronic payments and how it processes resident checks can be critical to cash management. Knowing when and where funds are spent is ultimately the reason that the investment is either successful or not.

Thanks to Mindy Parish from Hometown America and Tom Pacelli from J&H Management for their participation and insight as to how operations for community owners can be managed proactively and efficiently.

Bill Dahlin is a partner with the Southern California law firm of Hart King and a leader in the firm's Manufactured Housing Industry Practice Group. He can be reached at 714-432-8700, 714-619-7084 (direct dial) or bdahlin@hartkinglaw.com.

Meanwhile, veterans with disabilities are covered under current federal law. Among other things, fair housing law requires communities to respond properly to reasonable requests for accommodations or modifications that are necessary to meet the disability-related needs of veterans and returning servicemembers.

In this month’s lesson, we’ll explain how fair housing and other civil rights laws protect military servicemembers and returning veterans from discrimination and offer six rules to help you comply with your legal obligations. 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

Veterans with disabilities are covered under the FHA’s ban on disability discrimination. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to exclude or otherwise discriminate against prospects, applicants, and residents because they, or someone associated with them, has a disability.

The FHA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. According to HUD regulations, “physical or mental impairment” includes any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more specified body systems. So the definition covers both physical injuries—such as loss of a limb, traumatic brain injury (TBI), burns, and hearing loss—as well as mental or psychological disorders—such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.

The disability protections may apply even if the veteran doesn’t now have—or hasn’t ever had—a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a life activity. The FHA’s definition of disability protects individuals who are “regarded as” having such an impairment. So a community could trigger a fair housing complaint for denying housing to a veteran based on preconceived notions about emotional problems faced by some veterans transitioning from military service to civilian life.

The FHA goes further to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination by imposing affirmative duties to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications as necessary to allow veterans with disabilities to fully enjoy their dwellings. The law also includes accessibility requirements in the design and construction of covered multifamily communities.

Reasonable accommodations. The law requires communities to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. HUD defines “reasonable accommodation” as a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Common examples include a request to keep an assistance animal in a community with a no-pet policy or a request for a reserved parking space in a community that doesn’t have assigned parking.

Reasonable modifications. The law requires owners to permit applicants or residents with a disability, at their expense, to make reasonable modifications to the housing if necessary to afford them full enjoyment of the premises. Under the FHA, a “reasonable modification” is a structural change made to existing premises, occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability, to afford that person full enjoyment of the premises. Communities must consider requests for reasonable modification not only to the interior of a unit, but also to lobbies, main entrances, and other public and common use areas of buildings. Examples include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for people in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for people in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible, or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area.

6 RULES TO COMPLY WITH LAWS PROTECTING

VETERANS AND MILITARY SERVICEMEMBERS

Rule #1: Comply with Applicable State and Local Law

Check whether your community is subject to state and local laws that prohibit housing discrimination against military servicemembers or veterans.

Currently, eight states have adopted some form of fair housing protections based on military status, though the laws vary in the language used and whom they cover. In New York, the law prohibits discrimination based on military status, while in Massachusetts, the law prohibits housing discrimination against an individual because “such person is a veteran or member of the armed forces.” In general, these laws prohibit discrimination against active duty members and veterans of the armed forces, reserves, or state National Guard.

In some states, fair housing protections for veterans are tied to the nature of their discharge. In Illinois, the list of protected characteristics under the state’s human rights law includes military status as well as “unfavorable discharge from military service,” which generally applies to individuals who have been separated from the service with less than an honorable discharge, but it excludes those with a dishonorable discharge. In contrast, Washington’s fair housing law protects military status, but only honorably discharged veterans. The law in Rhode Island bans discrimination based on “military status as a veteran with an honorable discharge or an honorable or general administrative discharge,” or “servicemember in the armed forces.”

In the absence of statewide protections, there may be local laws protecting military status. Though Texas doesn’t list military status as a protected class, the law in San Antonio bans discrimination based an individual’s veteran’s status.

If subject to state or local laws banning discrimination based on military or veteran status, then you’ll need to review your policies and procedures to ensure compliance with legal requirements. It’s a good idea to ask your attorney about the specifics of the laws in your state and local area because of variations in the language used.

Coach’s Tip: Stay on top of proposed changes to antidiscrimination laws on the state and local level. In California, for example, the state legislators have approved a bill to ban housing discrimination based on veteran or military status; the measure was sent to the governor on Sept. 20, 2019. You should be able to get updates on what’s happening on the state and local level from your attorney or your local apartment association.

States with Laws Banning Discrimination Based on Military or Veteran Status

•      Connecticut
•      Illinois
•      Massachusetts
•      New Jersey
•      New York
•      Ohio
•      Rhode Island
•      Washington

Rule #2: Recognize Fair Housing Protections for Veterans with Disabilities

Regardless of whether military status is protected under applicable state or local law, federal fair housing law bans discrimination against veterans with disabilities. Under the FHA, disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In sum, the law protects anyone with a physical or mental impairment that’s serious enough to substantially affect activities of central importance to daily life—even if it isn’t obvious or apparent.

Recent veterans report high rates of service-connected disabilities (that is, disabilities that were incurred in, or aggravated during, military service), according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. About 29 percent of recent veterans report having a service-connected disability, as compared to about 13 percent of all veterans. Common injuries incurred by these veterans include missing limbs, burns, spinal cord injuries, PTSD, hearing loss, traumatic brain injuries, and other impairments. Other veterans leave service due to injuries or conditions that aren’t considered service connected.

Nevertheless, fair housing law doesn’t prevent communities from responding to actual incidents of dangerous or violent behavior by a resident, even if he has a disability. According to federal guidelines, the FHA doesn’t protect an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation.

TIME OUT!

What Is Traumatic Brain Injury?

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant health issue that affects servicemembers and veterans during times of both peace and war. The high rate of TBI and blast-related concussion events resulting from current combat operations directly affects the health and safety of individual servicemembers and subsequently the level of unit readiness and troop retention. The impacts of TBI are felt within each branch of the service and throughout both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems.

In the VA, TBI has become a major focus, second only to recognition of the need for increased resources to provide health care and vocational retraining for individuals with a diagnosis of TBI, as they transition to veteran status. Veterans may suffer TBIs throughout their lifespan, with the largest increase as the veterans enter into their 70s and 80s; these injuries are often caused by falls and result in high levels of disability.

Active duty and reserve servicemembers are at increased risk for suffering a TBI compared to their civilian peers. This is a result of several factors, including the specific demographics of the military; in general, young men between the ages of 18 to 24 are at greatest risk for TBI. Many operational and training activities, which are routine in the military, are physically demanding and even potentially dangerous. Military servicemembers are increasingly deployed to areas where they’re at risk for experiencing blast exposures from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombers, land mines, mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenades. These and other combat-related activities put our military servicemembers at increased risk for suffering a TBI.

Source: Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC)

Rule #3: Consider Reasonable Modification Requests by Veterans with Disabilities

Carefully consider requests by veterans with disabilities for reasonable modifications. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to permit, at the expense of a person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises as necessary to afford him or her full enjoyment of the premises.

The law requires you to consider modification requests by a current or prospective resident to make structural changes to the interior or exterior of units and to common and public use areas when there’s an identifiable relationship between the requested modification and the individual’s disability. For example, it would be unlawful to refuse to permit the installation of a ramp by a veteran who uses a wheelchair due to loss of a limb or other mobility impairment.

Before granting a request for a reasonable modification, you may require a description of the proposed modifications. You may also require the resident to obtain any building permits and that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. You may not insist that a particular contractor perform the work.

Rule #4: Consider Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Veterans with Disabilities

If a veteran qualifies as an individual with a disability, then you may be required to grant a request for a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as necessary to allow him an equal opportunity to fully enjoy his dwelling.

Requests for reasonable accommodations often involve assistance animals or parking, but communities may face a wide range of disability-related accommodation requests for exceptions to rules and policies. Examples include requests for live-in aides, transfers to different units, early lease termination, and allowing a cosigner on the lease. In general, communities are responsible for paying the costs associated with a reasonable accommodation as long as it doesn’t pose an undue financial and administrative burden.

It may be challenging to handle accommodation requests when the disability isn’t obvious. If the nature of the disability isn’t apparent, federal guidelines permit you to ask for reliable disability-related information to verify that the person meets the FHA’s definition of disability—that is, has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Likewise, you’re allowed to ask for more information if there’s no identifiable disability-related need for the requested accommodation.

You can’t reject an accommodation request simply because it imposes some financial costs on the community. Before rejecting a request because you think it’s too costly, you should compare the cost of the requested accommodation and your financial resources against the benefits to the disabled resident, and whether there are other, less expensive alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the resident’s disability-related needs.

Example: In 2015, a court ordered a California community to transfer a veteran with disabilities and his family to a more expensive unit—and to let them stay there until the end of the lease—as a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

The resident was an Army combat veteran who was diagnosed with PTSD. Due to ongoing construction near his unit, the veteran asked the community to transfer his family to another unit away from the noise as a reasonable accommodation due to his disability. According to the veteran, the construction noise triggered nightmares, anxiety, and other symptoms because it reminded him of gunfire, explosions, and screaming, making him feel as if he were in a war zone.

Allegedly, the community didn't dispute that he had a disability-related need to be relocated during the construction, but the parties disagreed whether he could pay his current rent to live in a more expensive available unit. The community offered to move the family to another unit at his current rent but wanted them to move back when the construction was completed.

The resident rejected the offer, asking for a court order to let them stay until their lease ended five months later. He argued that the construction noise had already caused significant distress, so letting them stay until their lease ended would offer a reprieve from his PTSD triggered by the construction.

The court granted his request, ruling that the cost of moving the family to the more expensive unit during the construction was a reasonable accommodation that wouldn’t cause an undue financial burden on the community. And the increased financial burden to let them stay there through the end of their lease was minimal [Holland v. The Related Companies, July 2015].

Rule #5: Don’t Reject Disability-Related Requests for Assistance Animals

Pay particular attention to reasonable accommodation requests for an exception to your pet policies to allow a veteran to keep an assistance animal because of a disability.

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from having a pet policy—as long as you don’t use it to keep out assistance animals. Some communities ban pets altogether, while others place limits on the number, type, size, or weight of pets and impose conditions such as extra fees, pet deposits, or additional rent charges. Whatever your policy on pets, it’s unlawful to deny an exception for an assistance animal needed by an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community.

Example: In July 2019, HUD charged a Maine community and one of its agents with discrimination for denying a veteran with disabilities the right to keep his assistance animal. In his HUD complaint, the veteran alleged that he called the community in response to an ad on Craigslist. When he told the agent that he had a disability-related need to live with his assistance dog, according to the veteran, the agent allegedly responded, “absolutely not,” and said she regretted allowing a prior tenant to live with his assistance dog because other tenants then wanted to get pet dogs.

“No person with a disability should be denied the accommodation they need, especially individuals who served in the Armed Forces to defend our freedom,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation to comply with this nation’s fair housing laws.”

Rule #6: Comply with Other Federal Laws Protecting Military Servicemembers and Veterans

Apart from your obligations under fair housing law, communities should know about—and comply with—two important federal laws protecting military servicemembers and returning veterans:

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), formerly known as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, is a federal law that provides protections for military members as they enter active duty. It covers issues such as rental agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, eviction, installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedings, automobile leases, life insurance, health insurance, and income tax payments.

Among other things, the SCRA allows servicemembers to terminate, without penalty, leases and rental agreements before or during active military service under certain circumstances. The SCRA also bars communities from evicting military members or their dependents from their principal residence during the period of their active military service without a court order. Complying with the SCRA should be at the top of community concerns when it comes to dealing with military servicemembers. Failure to do so can lead to civil penalties or damages—even criminal liability.

Example: In March 2019, a Virginia-based property management company and related entities agreed to pay up to $1.59 million to resolve allegations that they violated the SCRA by obtaining unlawful court judgments against military residents and by charging improper lease termination fees, according to the Justice Department. The settlement is the largest ever obtained by the department against a landlord or property management company for violations of the SCRA.

The complaint alleged that from 2006 to 2017, the company obtained at least 152 default judgments against 127 SCRA-protected servicemembers by failing to disclose their military service to the court or by falsely stating that they weren’t in the military.

Under the SCRA, if a landlord files a civil lawsuit against a tenant and the tenant doesn’t appear, the landlord must file an affidavit with the court stating whether the tenant is in the military before seeking a judgment. If the tenant is in military service, the court typically can’t enter judgment until it appoints an attorney to represent the tenant, and the court must postpone the proceedings for at least 90 days. Landlords and lenders can verify an individual’s military status by searching the Defense Manpower Data Center’s free publicly available website or by reviewing their files to see if there are applications, military leave and earnings statements, or military orders indicating military status.

The complaint also alleged that the company imposed unlawful charges against servicemembers who attempted to terminate their leases early in order to comply with military orders. The SCRA allows military tenants to terminate a residential lease early if the servicemember receives deployment or permanent change of station orders or enters military service during the term of the lease. If a tenant terminates a lease pursuant to the SCRA, the landlord may not impose any early termination fee.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. In their role as employers, communities must comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which prohibits employment practices that discriminate because of an individual's past, current, or future military status, service, or obligation.

In general, USERRA seeks to ensure that servicemembers are entitled to return to their civilian employment upon completion of their military service. Servicemembers should be reinstated with the seniority, status, and rate of pay that they would have obtained had they remained continuously employed by their civilian employer. In addition, USERRA provides protection for veterans with disabilities, requiring employers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability.

• Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.
• Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003: 50 USC App. §501 et seq.
• Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: 38 USC §4301 et seq.

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. [Caveat: Even if the DOR doesn'trespond to the 45-day letter, they still must be notified of the upcoming auction, per the statute. Again, there could be liability to the DOR if they have a valid lien, got the 45-day letter, but weren'tinformed of the date and time of the 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.

Editor's Note: The next MHCO Management Training Seminar is three weeks away - June 13th in Medford.  We are very excited to be welcoming Bjorn Hess as our one of MHCO's newest members who will also be presenting at MHCO's training seminar on June 13th.  Bjorn Hessis a founding member and partner of the law firm Hazen, Hess & Ott, PLLC of Camas, WA. He is licensed to practice law in both Washington and Oregon. In addition, Bjorn is an owner of Sterling Properties Real Estate Services, a property management company based in Vancouver, WA / Lake Oswego, OR. After completing his Doctor of Jurisprudence and Master of Science in Personal Financial Planning at Texas Tech University, Bjorn returned to the Pacific Northwest where focuses his practice on landlord tenant law and serves as Chief of Operations at Sterling Properties Real Estate Services. Bjorn's passions include traveling abroad to experience different cultures, skiing, cycling, and pheasant hunting with his chocolate labrador Kona (who can often be found at his office). He is a volunteer member of the Mt. Hood Ski Patrol.

Bjorn will be presenting at MHCO's Medford Seminar on June 13th on Fair Housing.  We are extremely excited to have him participating in the MHCO training programing.  

By:  Bjorn A. Hess, Attorney at Law

Two weeks ago I had the unique opportunity to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington D.C. Much of the museum dealt with race and the struggles experienced by African Americans in our nation and touched on difficulties in access to housing amongst other topics. Having dealt with Fair Housing issues as an attorney it was informative for me to experience a museum that dealt in part with housing laws and how we got to where we are today. The following article looks at the history behind current legislation intended to prevent discrimination in housing and how it became law. 

The Fair Housing Act (The Act") is federal legislation codified in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 intended to address discrimination in the context of housing. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act is to prevent discrimination by a landlord or homeowner against either a prospective tenant or prospective buyer on the basis of status as a member of a protected class.  The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was signed into law by then-president Lyndon B. Johnson one week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King

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.

following my article titled “Home Fire in the Community” I received an email from John Van Landingham with a ‘gentle reminder’ that “…you might want to add that, if a governmental agency posts the burned-out home as constituting a health hazard, the abandoned property timelines can be shortened. ORS 90.675 (21).” John was – as usual – absolutely correct.  Below is an amplification of my earlier post.

ORS 90.675 is 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 and the agency determines that the hazard endangers others in the facility and requires 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.

[1] Note that the MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements do have a provision for the resident to maintain fire insurance, but it is optional, and applies only if the box is checked.  This situation should be a cautionary tale for owners and managers requiring such insurance, with proof that it is being maintained.

[2] Note: the following steps are exceptions to the rest of ORS 90.675.  This means that if there is no exception in this list, the rest of the statute will apply.

Answer. I'm not a bankruptcy attorney, but can tell you generally what the process entails. The moment the resident files for bankruptcy - or even tells you they filed, you should halt any action you're in the process of taking. In the case of the 72-hour notice, you should not file for eviction, even though no rent payment was timely made. In the case of a 30-day notice, same thing; don't file for eviction even though correction was not timely made.

The main thing you want to verify is that, in fact, the resident did file for bankruptcy. In such case, they should be able to give you some evidence of the filing, such as the bankruptcy court filing number. Needless to say, if no filing was made, you are within your rights to proceed, at least until they do file, at which point you should then stop moving the matter forward legally. However, if the resident tells you they have taken out bankruptcy, you should assume it to be true unless and until you verify that that is not the case.

Once you have verified that the resident is in bankruptcy, the question is what you should do. Not being a bankruptcy attorney, I cannot tell you how long to expect the entire process will take before the resident exits the process. However, if you are listed in the bankruptcy petition, you will receive a notice of the First Meeting of Creditors, which you should attend. That will give you an opportunity to learn what the resident intends to do, i.e. abandon the home or remain there and resume paying rent. Your goal should be to have the resident resume making rental payments as soon as possible. You will have an idea whether that will occur at the First Meeting of Creditors. The same thing applies if the resident is under a curable 30-day notice.

If the situation is such that the tenant cannot pay, or cannot give you assurances that he or she can pay, or if the resident is under a default notice that is not curable, and you simply want them out, you should confer with a good bankruptcy attorney regarding your alternatives.

What you will likely be presented with from your attorney is a decision about whether you should file with the court to "lift" the bankruptcy stay of proceedings[1], so that you may complete whatever legal action you were in the process of taking when the filing occurred.

In the cases I have been involved with in the past, my experience was that if the bankruptcy stay was not going to assist the resident in dealing with his or her debts (e.g. it was a "no asset" case, and there was no chance the resident could pay the rent, etc.) the bankruptcy trustee would likely agree to lifting the stay so that your legal action could proceed. The decision to file is usually a cost-benefit analysis, e.g. what will the procedure cost, will it get the resident out sooner, and will you be able to get a rent-paying tenant into the space relatively quickly?

The take-away in all bankruptcy filings is (a) you do not want to take any steps (including a demand letter from a lawyer) against the resident the moment you know (or reasonably believe) he or she has filed for bankruptcy, and (b) you want to consult with an attorney to evaluate your legal alternatives. I have seen many cases where landlords simply stop, wait for the bankruptcy to be over, before pursuing legal action. That is a mistake. Too many times, the bankruptcy continues for several months, the resident has remained there rent-free for that time, and the landlord is the one who loses. The same thing applies when the resident has abandoned the premises and then files for bankruptcy. While you cannot legally proceed until the stay is lifted or the bankruptcy proceeding has either been dismissed or is completed, waiting without taking action to lift the stay means the space cannot be re-rented to anyone else.

[1] This means that upon filing, everything comes to a halt, i.e. it is "stayed."

By Gordon R. Friedman - The Oregonian/OregonLive

Published 8-20-18

The Portland City Council will soon consider an ordinance to cap what landlords can charge for security deposits and limit how they may use renters' credit and criminal conviction history to deny them tenancy.

"Screening criteria and security deposit reform" will be the subject of an upcoming council agenda item, Commissioner Chloe Eudaly wrote in an August 14 post to her Facebook page. The ordinance is scheduled for a hearing September 20, said Eudaly spokeswoman Margaux Weeke.

It is exactly the kind of move that Oregon landlords feared when they banded together to try to raise $2 million to fight those and other restrictions they say will undermine their businesses.

Policymakers in other cities have also explored regulating security deposits, citing mounting pressures on renters who struggle to save up cash for move-in fees. New York City's comptroller in July introduced a deposit-limiting measure. The Seattle City Council adopted a similar ordinance in December 2016, and landlords filed a lawsuit to challenge it.

In Portland, landlords may currently charge what they like as a security deposit, and there are few regulations over how deposits must be returned after a tenant vacates. That would change under Eudaly's ordinance. In the Facebook post, Eudaly described one an effect of the ordinance as "limit security deposit requirements."

The ordinance would also change how landlords may use information about potential tenants. Property owners typically perform criminal records and credit history checks on rental applicants. Some renter advocates have described the background checks as offering landlords a pretense for discriminating against those with criminal pasts or poor credit.

Eudaly said in her Facebook post that changing how landlords may use information about rental applicants to deny them tenancy is in part intended to "reduce barriers to housing" and "prevent discrimination."

According to a draft of the ordinance provided by Eudaly's office, she has considered establishing a system that requires landlords to approve tenants on a first-come, first-served basis, though a minimum credit score would still be allowed.

To deny applicants, landlords would be required to rank applicants on their credit history, criminal convictions and housing record and give them a chance to provide favorable information.  

The draft ordinance includes a list of crimes that are not to be judged by landlords as meaning a tenant convicted of them would likely harm the property or cause the premises to be unsafe, if the applicant was sentenced at least three years prior or released from prison one year prior. The list includes felony assault and battery, felony burglary or breaking-and-entering, stalking and misdemeanor domestic violence, dealing or manufacturing illegal drugs, and non-forcible sex offenses, among others.

Most importantly, the “vacation occupancy” period for RVs has been expanded from 45 days to 90 days.  This means if you have a written agreement that complies with the vacation occupancy requirements in HB 2634, those RV occupants do not become “tenants” under Oregon law.  As such, they may be asked to vacate at any time without issuing an eviction notice or going to court.  If necessary, law enforcement may be called to remove any “vacation occupants” as trespassers if they refuse to leave.  In that case, you must have a copy of the written vacation occupancy agreement available to show the responding officers that the occupants are not tenants under Oregon law and can be cited for trespassing.

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

If occupants meet the criteria to sign a vacation occupancy agreement, my view is that RV park landlords should use a 90-day vacation occupancy agreement as a “probationary period” to ensure that they follow the rules and pay the rent.  If they are causing problems, you can ask them to leave any time before the 90-day period expires, thus avoiding creation of a “tenant.”  If they work out as good 90-day occupants and want to become tenants, you can then sign them up using a month-to-month rental agreement.

Answer: The submetering statutes, ORS 90.531 - 90.539 are complex and confusing. As most owners and managers know who have explored converting to submeters, the concept is relatively simple. But the devil is in the details, i.e. the statutes. The basic concept is that for communities with utilities [e.g. water and sewer] that are buried in the base rent, they may extract those charges from base rent, and pass them through to the residents directly for payment. The "quid pro quo" for this is that the residents' base rent is reduced in a commensurate amount, so in theory, there is no initial net difference to landlord or tenant. But when utilities are increased, it becomes the residents' immediate responsibility to pay the increased charge - the landlord no longer has to raise the rent via a 90-day notice to recover the increase. Your question specifically pertains to one of the "devilish details' of this conversion process, i.e. passing through the utility cost for common areas. Specifically, you are referring to subsection (5) of ORS 90.537 ("Conversion of billing method for utility or service charges"). That statute provides that a landlord who has previously included utilities and services in their base rent [called "the rent billing method"] and converts to the "submeter billing method" may unilaterally, and at the same time as the conversion to submetering, begin billing for common areas to a "pro rata billing method" [i.e. where the residents' cost of the utility is charged and paid separately from the rent in an amount determined by apportioning on a pro rata basis the provider's charge to the landlord as measured by a master meter]. This common area charge must be included in the 180-day notice to residents that precedes the submeter conversion process. This means that the landlord would charge each resident a prorata portion of the master meter readings attributable to common area costs. Obviously, master meter readings do not distinguish between utility services provided to residents, versus those provided to common areas. For purposes of determining the amount of the offset the landlord should check with the utility provider to find out the cost of its service to the common areas. If the provider cannot provide the landlord with an accurate cost for service to the common areas, the landlord "shall assume the cost of serving the common areas to be 20 percent of the total cost billed." Note: Only if the landlord continues use the rent billing method for the cost of utilities to the common areas may the landlord may obtain an offset against the total rent reduction given to residents. This is because if the common area utility cost is still buried inside the base rent. It would be unfair to the landlord to require a dollar-for-dollar rent reduction for all utilities, since those attributed to the common areas are not passed directly through to the tenants for separate payment. In other words, the right of offset '_is not available if the landlord chooses to bill for the common areas using the pro rata method." If the cost of the utility service to the common area is apportioned on a prorate basis and passed through to the residents, there will be no need for offset against the rent reduction as a part of the conversion to submeters. In those cases, the landlord may only apportion the common area utility cost on a prorata basis. For purposes of determining the pro rata charge per resident, ORS 90.534 ("Allocated charges for utility or service provided directly to space or common area") clarifies the protocol to be followed: - A utility charge that is assessed to residents on a pro rata basis must be allocated among them '_by a method that reasonably apportions the cost among the affected tenants and that is described in the rental agreement." - Methods that reasonably apportion the cost among the residents include, but are not limited to, methods that divide the cost based on: _ The number of occupied spaces in the facility; _ The number of residents or occupants in the home compared with the number of residents or occupants in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service; or _ The square footage in each home compared with the total square footage of occupied homes in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service. - A utility or service charge to be assessed to a resident for a common area must be described in the written rental agreement separately and distinctly from the utility or service charge for the tenant's space. - A landlord may not: _ Bill or collect more money from residents for utilities or services than the provider charges the landlord; _ Increase the utility or service charge to a resident by adding any costs of the landlord, such as handling or administrative charges. See, I said the devil was in the details! ~PCQ

10 Essential Rules for Avoiding Fair Housing Trouble

This month, we highlight 10 essential rules to help you to comply with fair housing law. Housing discrimination has been outlawed for more than 50 years, but all too often communities still find themselves on the wrong side of the law and are forced to pay out thousands—and in some cases millions—in settlements or court awards, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees to get themselves out of fair housing trouble.

In this article, we’ll provide an overview of fair housing requirements and offer 10 essential rules to help you ward off fair housing problems at your community. 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status. In a nutshell, the FHA prohibits communities from excluding or otherwise discriminating against prospects, applicants, and residents—as well as anyone associated with them—based on any of these protected characteristics.

The FHA also bans discriminatory statements—including advertising—that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. And the law prohibits retaliation against anyone for exercising his or her rights under fair housing law or assisting others who exercise that right.

FOLLOW 10 ESSENTIAL RULES

TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

Rule #1: Don’t Discriminate Based on Race or Color

The FHA bans discrimination based on both race and color, two separate but closely related characteristics. In general, race refers to a person’s physical appearance and color refers to a characteristic of a person’s race, so discrimination claims based on color are often coupled with claims based on race.

Be sure to give prospects the same information about availability and the terms and conditions of tenancy, such as screening criteria, rental terms, and any other relevant information. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to deny housing based on an applicant’s race or color by providing different and false information about terms, conditions, and availability of rental properties.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of two New York apartment buildings agreed to pay $272,000 to resolve allegations of racial discrimination against African American prospects in violation of federal, state, and local fair housing laws. The Fair Housing Justice Center filed the lawsuit based on the results of a two-year investigation involving white and African American testers posing as prospective renters. The complaint alleged that the white testers were repeatedly shown available units and encouraged to apply, while the African American testers were routinely told that no apartments were available for rent.

It’s also important to apply the community’s policies and procedures—including screening criteria—consistently without regard to race, color, national origin, or other protected characteristics. Whatever your policy on criminal background checks, for example, applying it only to applicants who are members of racial or ethnic minorities, but not to white applicants, is a sure way to trigger a fair housing complaint.

Example: In August 2019, the owners and managers of a Tennessee community agreed to pay $42,250 to resolve a race discrimination case alleging that they denied the rental application of an African-American applicant because of his criminal record, despite contemporaneously approving the rental applications of two white people with disqualifying felony convictions.

Tip: If your community has a policy to conduct criminal background checks, check to make sure it passes muster under HUD’s 2016 guidelines on the use of criminal records in conventional and assisted housing communities. The HUD guidance doesn’t prevent communities from screening applicants based on their criminal history, but you could trigger a fair housing complaint if the policy, without justification, has a disparate impact—or discriminatory effect—on minority applicants.

Rule #2: Don’t Discriminate Based on National Origin

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on national origin, which means the geographic area in which a person was born or from which his or her ancestors came. National origin discrimination means treating people differently because they or their family are from outside the United States, or because they have physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of persons from a foreign geographic area.

Example: In March 2019, the owners of a Minnesota rental home and a realty company agreed to pay $74,000 to resolve allegations that they refused to rent to a family of five adults and six minor children because they are Native American and Hispanic, and had minor children. HUD’s charge alleged that the housing providers discouraged the family from renting the six-bedroom home by offering them less favorable rental terms, including increasing the requested monthly rent by $1,000.

“Denying a family housing because of their ethnicity or familial makeup not only robs them of a place to call home, it violates the law,” Anna María Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Tip: In September 2016, HUD issued new “Limited English Proficiency” (LEP) guidance on how fair housing law applies to claims of housing discrimination brought by people because they don’t speak, read, or write English proficiently. Although people with limited English proficiency are not a protected class under the FHA, the law bans discrimination based on national origin, which is closely linked to the ability to communicate proficiently in English.

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Religion

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on religion, so it’s unlawful to refuse to rent to people, or to treat them differently, because of their religion. For example, it’s unlawful to show favoritism toward applicants who share your religious beliefs—or bias against—those of other religious faiths.

Example: In December 2019, a California homeowners association (HOA) and its management company agreed to pay $40,000 to resolve allegations that they refused to permit a condo owner to display a religious object, a mezuzah, on her front doorpost because it violated community rules. A mezuzah is a small object placed on the doorpost of many Jewish homes in fulfillment of religious obligations. Allegedly, someone forcibly removed the mezuzah from her doorpost.

“A rule prohibiting the display of a mezuzah effectively makes that housing unavailable for many observant Jews,” said Kevin Kish, director of California’s Department of Fair Employment & Housing. “For that reason, DFEH interprets California fair housing law to require landlords and HOAs to permit residents to display mezuzah outside of their homes.”

Tip: The FHA doesn’t define “religion,” but fair housing experts believe it’s broad enough to prohibit discrimination against individuals who aren’t affiliated with a particular religion or don’t ascribe to particular religious beliefs. Treating people differently simply because they do—or do not—attend religious services or identify with a religious faith could lead to fair housing trouble.

Rule #4: Don’t Discriminate Against Families with Children

Fair housing law prohibits discrimination because of familial status, which FHA defines to mean households with one or more children who are under 18 years of age, where the child is living with:

• A parent,
• A person who has legal custody (such as a guardian), or
• A person who has the written permission of the parent or legal custodian to care for the child.

That covers not only traditional families with children, but also same-sex couples, single mothers or fathers, grandparents, and others who have permission to have a child under 18 living with them. It also includes pregnant women and those in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child, such as a foster or adoptive parent.

There’s a limited exception to the familial status provisions that allows senior housing communities to lawfully exclude children, but it applies only if the community satisfies strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” Otherwise, it’s unlawful to refuse to rent to families with children under 18 by enforcing an “adults-only” policy or adopting rules, such as an age limit, that would prevent children from living there.

Overly restrictive occupancy standards can lead to discrimination claims based on familial status because they limit the housing choices of families with children under 18. In general, the law considers two people per bedroom—regardless of gender—to be a reasonable occupancy standard, but there are exceptions based on the size or configuration of the unit and other factors.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of a single-family rental home in Idaho agreed to pay $15,000 to settle allegations that they discriminated against a family attempting to lease their 2,600 square foot, four-bedroom rental home because they have seven minor children. HUD’s charge alleged that when the couple met with the property manager about renting the home, he told them that the owners had set a limit of four children for the home.

“Persons attempting to provide a home for their family should not have their housing options limited because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

The FHA’s familial status provisions also protect pregnant women from discrimination, so it’s unlawful to require residents to move out because of the birth of a child.

Example: In April 2019, the owners and operators of a student housing community in Arizona agreed to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to resolve allegations of discrimination based on sex and familial status. The Tucson Civil Rights Division brought a charge of housing discrimination against the community after viewing an example lease agreement on the apartment complex’s website. Allegedly, a portion of the lease agreement stated that if a female resident became pregnant, then she must vacate the apartment upon or prior to the birth of the child.

Rule #5: Don’t Discriminate Based on Sex

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against applicants based on their sex. Making decisions about whether to accept or reject applicants based on their sex can lead to costly fair housing litigation, particularly when combined with allegations of discrimination based on familial status or other protected characteristics. 

Example: In June 2018, the owner of a three-unit rental community in South Dakota agreed to a $3,000 settlement to resolve allegations of discrimination based on sex and familial status. The complaint alleged that the owner refused to rent a unit to a woman and her 17-year-old daughter because she would be concerned about any woman being alone there and she had “always rented to bachelors” [U.S. v. Kelly, South Dakota, 2018].

Sexual harassment—that is, unwelcome sexual conduct—is a form of discrimination based on sex, according to HUD, which explains the two main types of sexual harassment:

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a housing provider requires a person to submit to an unwelcome request to engage in sexual conduct as a condition of obtaining or maintaining housing or housing-related services. HUD offers these examples:

• A landlord tells an applicant he won’t rent her an apartment unless she has sex with him.
• A property manager evicts a tenant after she refuses to perform sexual acts.
• A maintenance man refuses to make repairs unless a tenant gives him nude photos of herself.

Hostile environment harassment occurs when a housing provider subjects a person to severe or pervasive unwelcome sexual conduct that interferes with the sale, rental, availability, or terms, conditions, or privileges of housing or housing-related services. HUD offers these examples:

• A landlord subjects a tenant to severe or pervasive unwelcome touching, kissing, or groping.
• A property manager makes severe or pervasive unwelcome, lewd comments about a tenant’s body.
• A maintenance man sends a tenant severe or pervasive unwelcome, sexually suggestive texts and enters her apartment without invitation or permission.

Combatting sexual harassment remains a top priority for federal enforcement officials, who continue to come down hard on owners and managers accused of sexual harassment against prospects, applicants, or residents.

Example: In August 2019, the owner and manager of rental properties in New York agreed to pay $850,000 to resolve allegations that he sexually harassed numerous female applicants and residents for nearly three decades. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that the landlord subjected former residents and prospects to unwanted sexual intercourse, sexual advances and comments, groping or other touching of their bodies without consent, and offers to reduce or eliminate security deposits and rent in exchange for sexual contact. The complaint also accused him of taking or threatening to take adverse action against residents when they refused or objected to his advances.

“The sexual harassment of the vulnerable female applicants and tenants in this case by their landlord is an egregious and intolerable violation of federal civil rights law,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue to pursue any depraved landlords and others who prey upon vulnerable women” [U.S. v. Waterbury, New York, August 2019].

Rule #6: Don’t Discriminate Based on Disability

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on disability. Under fair housing law, disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The list of impairments broadly includes a wide range of physical and mental conditions, including visual and hearing impairments, heart disease and diabetes, HIV infection, and emotional illnesses. Examples of major life activities include seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and speaking. In sum, the law protects anyone with a physical or mental impairment that’s serious enough to substantially affect activities of central importance to daily life—even if it isn’t obvious or apparent.

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to deny housing to people—or to treat them less favorably than others—because of a disability.

Example: In October 2019, the owner and manager of a California community agreed to pay $50,000 to resolve a fair housing claim by a resident who alleged that her lease was illegally terminated based on her disability. In her complaint, the resident claimed that the community terminated her lease because throughout her tenancy she experienced multiple medical emergencies that required the assistance of an ambulance to transport her to the hospital. Allegedly, the property manager received complaints from other residents about these emergencies.

“Housing providers cannot terminate or decline to renew a lease simply because they disfavor tenants with disabilities,” Kevin Kish, Director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said in a statement.

Tip: Although the disability rules protect those recovering from past drug addiction, it specifically excludes anyone who is currently using illegal drugs. The law also excludes individuals with disabilities whose tenancy would constitute a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others—or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others—unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation. Nevertheless, federal guidelines warn against a blanket policy that excludes anyone based upon fear, speculation, or stereotypes about disabilities. Instead, the law requires an individualized assessment of whether that particular applicant or resident poses such a threat based on reliable objective evidence of current conduct or a recent history of overt acts.

Rule #7: Carefully Consider Reasonable Accommodation and Modification Requests

In addition to the general rules banning disability discrimination, the FHA imposes affirmative duties on housing providers—with respect to reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and accessibility design features—to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the same opportunity as everyone else to have full use of the community.

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, practices, or services if necessary for an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the housing. In general, communities are required to make an exception to the rules, when requested, if it’s both reasonable and necessary to allow an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community. Common examples include a request to keep an assistance animal in a community with a no-pet policy or a request for a reserved parking spot in a community that doesn’t have assigned parking.

Example: In August 2019, a New Jersey HOA agreed to pay $30,000 to resolve allegations of discrimination against a resident with disabilities by denying her the right to have a dog as an assistance animal. According to the HUD charge, the community allegedly required the resident, who has hearing and sight disabilities, to cage her animal in common areas and use the service entrance when entering and exiting the building with the animal.

“No person with a disability should be denied the reasonable accommodation they need to make a home for themselves,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Example: In March 2019, the owners and managers of a San Diego apartment complex agreed to pay $17,000 to resolve allegations that they denied the request of a resident with disabilities for a designated parking space close to the building. The HUD complaint was filed by the resident, who uses a wheelchair, alleging that his request for an assigned parking space in the development’s garage had been denied. He said that the community later allowed him to park in non-assigned accessible spaces in the garage, but it wouldn’t give him the key necessary to enter the garage and to use the elevator. As a result, the resident said that whenever he wanted to enter the garage, he had to wait for another resident to open the gate, then follow that person in so he could use the elevator.

“To a person with mobility limitations, a designated parking space can mean the difference between merely living in a development and truly being able to call a place home,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Tip: The FHA also makes it unlawful to refuse to allow reasonable modifications to the unit or common use areas, at the applicant or resident’s expense, if necessary for the individual with a disability to fully use the housing. Reasonable modifications are structural changes to interiors and exteriors of units and to common and public use areas, such as lobbies, main entrances, and parking lots. Examples include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for people in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for persons in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible, or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area.

Rule #8: Abide by Rules Banning Discriminatory Advertising

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. Liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. Instead, the focus is on whether the statement would suggest a preference to an “ordinary reader or listener.” The rules apply not only to verbal and written statements, but also to all advertising media, including newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and the Internet.

Example: In April 2019, the owner of a Maine rental property and its rental agent agreed to pay $18,000 to settle allegations that they denied housing to families with children. A fair housing advocacy group filed the HUD complaint alleging that the community posted discriminatory advertisements indicating that children were not allowed and refused to negotiate with fair housing testers posing as families with children.

“It’s hard enough for families to find places to live that meet their needs without being denied suitable housing because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD is committed to working to ensure that housing providers comply with their Fair Housing Act obligation to treat all applicants the same, including families with children.”

Rule #9: Watch Out for Potential Retaliation Claims

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with” anyone who has exercised a fair housing right—or anyone who assisted others in exercising that right. Because discrimination and retaliation are separate violations under fair housing law, you could face liability for retaliation if you take adverse action against a resident solely because he filed a discrimination complaint against you—even if the discrimination claim is ultimately dismissed.

Watch out for potential retaliation claims when dealing with requests for reasonable accommodations or modifications by or on behalf of individuals with disabilities. The law protects people from retaliation for exercising their right to make disability-related requests.

Example: In March 2019, the owner and manager of a California rental community agreed to pay $6,000 to settle allegations that they refused to remediate mold at the property as a reasonable accommodation for a couple with disabilities and retaliated against them for asking that the mold be removed. In their HUD complaint, the couple alleged that the owners retaliated against them for making the reasonable accommodation request by increasing their rent and issuing a notice terminating their lease.

“Reasonable accommodation requests aren’t requests for special treatment. They are what many individuals with disabilities need to live in the place they call home,” Anna María Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Rule #10: Abide by Applicable State and Local Fair Housing Laws

To avoid fair housing trouble, it’s important to comply with not only the FHA, but also applicable state or local fair housing laws. Often, these state and local laws extend fair housing protections beyond federal requirements to ban discrimination based on:

Marital status: Nearly half the states prohibit housing discrimination based on marital status, which generally means being single, married, divorced, or widowed.

Age: Many state and local laws ban discrimination based on age, though there are significant differences in how the laws apply because of the way they define age.

Sexual orientation and gender identity: Many state and local fair housing laws ban discrimination based on sexual orientation; of those, many, but not all, also cover gender identity or transgender status.

Source of income: Many state and local fair housing laws also cover lawful source of income to ban discrimination against people based on where they get their financial support. The specifics of the laws vary, but they generally apply to wages, retirement benefits, child support, and public assistance. Of those, many, but not all, also cover housing subsidies, most notably Section 8 housing vouchers.

Military status: Some state and local laws offer some form of fair housing protection for military status. The laws generally prohibit discrimination against active duty members and veterans of the armed forces, reserves, or state National Guard.

Other protected classes: Some state and local laws ban discrimination based other factors, such as status as survivor of domestic violence, genetic information, HIV status, lawful occupation, political beliefs or affiliation, student status, alienage or citizenship, personal appearance, or arbitrary personal characteristics.