Search

By:  Dale Strom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPILOGUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon Law.

1. Definitions.

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

• "Hazard tree" means a tree that:
  • Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;
  • Measures at least eight inches DBH; and
  • Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, to pose an unreasonable risk of causing serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property in the near future.

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

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

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

4. Landlord Duties re Hazard Trees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undoubtedly, there is a lot here. And it is all subject to change based upon the whims of the Oregon Legislature. So before taking any legal action against a tenant for nonpayment of rent, charges, utilities, or fees (or a no-cause eviction), qualified legal counsel or someone versed in the current status of these ever-changing laws should be consulted.

To access the complete article - click the attachment above - document includes necessary forms as well as summary.

At the MHCO training on June 24th  I presented a slide that stated landlords were no longer required to include the eviction protection notice with a 10 day nonpayment notice after July 1, 2022.  The rationale was the tenant protections were moot because after June 30 the protections no longer applied. 

Section 9 of SB 891 states that the notice of eviction protection doesn’t sunset until 10/1/22. For this reason, landlords should continue sending the eviction protection notice through September 30, 2022. If you have any further questions about this, you should speak with your attorney.

 We are in the home stretch of the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session. The target adjournment date is June 23rd, the constitutional deadline for adjournment is July 10th. The actual date will fall somewhere between the two - most likely in late June. Significant budget, tax, transportation issues still need to be haggled over as the legislative session draws to a close.

Nearly all legislative proposals MHCO has been tracking (mostly opposed) have died in committee.

Click Here or at the top of this article  "MHCO Legislative Update"  for links to bill drafts and the status of all bills actively tracked by MHCO.

Two significant legislative proposals addressing manufactured home communities are on their way to the Governor's desk for signature. Here is a summary of these two bills:

SB 277A - This is the landlord tenant coalition bill that was negotiated over several months and addresses changes to disrepair and deterioration. The bill provides clear definitions of disrepair and deterioration as well as making it clear that cosmetic or aesthetic concerns are not disrepair or deterioration. The 30 day cure period is extended to 60 days. The bill also clarifies the responsibility of new residents who purchase an existing manufactured home in the community for repairs including cosmetic or aesthetic concerns as long as those concerns are included in the community rules and the community owner gives written notice to a prospective purchaser before he or she becomes a new resident.

HB 2008A - this bill caused a great deal of anxiety for community owners when it was introduced in January. The original bill contained nearly every legislative concept that MHCO has been fighting against for the past 20 years. MHCO negotiated with John VanLandingham (Lane County Law Center) and Representatives Marsh, Fahey and the House Speaker to reach a compromise that removed nearly all of HB 2008 and replaced it with three issues.

The first issue increases the amount homeowners are compensated when a community CLOSES from $5,000 (single wide), $7,000 (double wide), $9,000 (triple wide) to $6,000 (single wide), $8,000 (double wide), $10,000 (triple wide) and tied future increases in compensation to CPI.

The second issue in the compromise addressed resident-owned communities. USDA Rural Development would like to pilot their 502 1% loan program in resident-owned cooperatives, however, they won't if there are restrictions requiring a lien holder to remove an abandoned or foreclosed MH after 12 months. The compromise will give resident-owned cooperatives the flexibility to negotiate storage terms with lien holders that are beneficial to the cooperative. This, in turn, will allow the cooperative to attract lenders who offer extremely affordable loan products to manufactured homeowners in cooperatives who wish to replace older or unsafe homes with new, energy-efficient ones.

The third issue, when a community sells the new community owner will need to report to the state - the number of vacant spaces and homes in the manufactured dwelling park; the final sale price of the community; the date the conveyance became final; and the name, address and telephone number of the new owner.

Finally, the other issue of great concern to all landlords is RENT CONTROL. HB 2004A (the rent control bill) is in the Senate. In March the HB 2004A passed out of the Oregon House and has had a public hearing in the Senate. Final action on the bill (work session) is scheduled for the end of May. There is no indication what the Senate will do, but a number of Democratic Senators have expressed opposition. At this time all eyes are on the Senate - we should have a good idea later next week on what direction the Senate will take on rent control and the elimination of 'no cause' eviction. We will keep you posted on any developments - all should be revealed within the next two weeks.

MHCO Legal Counsel Phil Querin will do a complete analysis and provide practical advice for all MHCO members (managers and community owners) on these new laws later this summer. In addition all necessary changes to MHCO Forms will be made as well.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact the MHCO office at 503-391-4496.  

Effective July 1, 2021 the process for evicting residents who have not paid rent since July 1, 2021 forward will require a new process and forms.  The necessary forms for the new non payment of rent process are attached above to this article.  These new forms ARE NOT posted under the "Form Section" of MHCO.ORG due to frequent changes mandated by the Legislature.  Do not use any forms that you downloaded prior to July 1, 2021 as those forms are out of date.  Always download forms from MHCO.ORG on the day of use to make sure you are in compliance with a frequently changing regulatory environment.

Notes on the new process and forms:

• The 10-day (formerly 72-hour) notice can only be issued after 7 days of nonpayment – so if the payment date is the first, then you’d have to wait until the 8th to issue - this did not change under HB 4401.  
  • However, as you must realize with all the legislative stuff, rents between 4-1-2020 and 6-30-21 cannot be collected before 3-1-2022.
  • And notices of nonpayment or FEDs rents for 7-2021+ can commence but (a) only with the eviction protection notice and (b) if tenant provides documentation he/she is applying for funds, the landlord or court has to wait another 60 days.  Bottom line is that residents can drag out nonpayments if they want for months is landlord's only recourse is state/federal funds)

MHCO is working on additional tools to help managers and landlords understand the new regulations.  Look for a ‘flow chart’ in early August and we will do an extensive Q&A article as questions become more apparent.

The two previous articles by Phil Querin on the new process as a result of SB282 and SB278 which are posted under "Community Updates" are probably worth reviewing now that you have the forms in hand.

This has been a long trying process – MHCO appreciates the efforts of all those involved to draft forms that are useful and accurate.  We are especially appreciative of Phil Querin's knowledge and expertise.  More information will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead.  Thank you for your patience.

Answer. ORS 90.531 - 90.543 consists of a series of statutes that permit landlords to convert utility charges from base rent to a program passing them on directly to residents. ORS 90.533 expressly permits garbage collection costs to be converted to a pass-through program. In summary, it provides as follows:

1. Unilateral Amendment. You must first unilaterally amend your rental or lease agreements to remove the cost of garbage collection from your base rent and have it billed to residents by your garbage provider. You do not need tenant consent to make this amendment.

1. 180-Day Notice. You must give not less than 180 days' written notice to each resident, before converting to a garbage pass-through billing program.

1. Reduction of Rent. You are required to reduce your base rent at the time of the first billing under the new program. The rent reduction may not be less than an amount reasonably comparable to the amount of the rent previously allocated to the garbage services averaged over at least the preceding twelve (12) months. Landlords may not convert to this program sooner than one year after giving notice of a rent increase, unless the rent increase is an automatic increase provided for in a fixed term rental agreement (i.e. a lease) entered into one year or more before the conversion.

1. Twelve Months' Garbage Billing Records. Before you may first bill the residents under the new program, you must provide them with written documentation from the garbage provider showing your cost for the service during at least the twelve (12) preceding months.

1. Prohibition on Subsequent Rent Raises. During the six months following your conversion to a garbage pass-through billing program, you may not raise the rent to recover any costs of conversion to the program.

1. Common Areas. At the same time you convert to the pass-through program, you may also unilaterally convert the billing for common areas to a pro rata method that divides the cost based on the number of occupied spaces in the facility. don't forget to address this in the unilateral amendment!

Answer: Under the Fair Housing Act ("the Act") housing providers including landlords, are required to make reasonable accommodations to the rented facilities and common areas, if requested by a handicapped tenant or their legal occupant ('the requestor").

Landlords are entitled to obtain reasonable information from the requestor in order to assist in determining whether the requested accommodation is reasonably necessary because of the disability. If a person(s) disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the landlord, and if the need for the requested accommodation is readily apparent or known, then the landlord may not seek any additional information about the requestor's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation. This law also applies to the use of assistance animals.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a reasonable change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy practice or service that will enable a handicapped person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rented facilities and common areas. There must be an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the person's disability. Landlords are not required to make requested accommodations if doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon them or fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's operations. With respect to a person, a "handicap" means: (a) one with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) one with a record of such impairment; or (c) one who is regarded as having such an impairment. [Juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances and those with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to others, or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, are generally not protected under the Act.]

If a landlord refuses a requested accommodation, the requestor is encouraged to have a discussion with the landlord concerning an alternative accommodation. This is a summary only and not intended to constitute legal advice. For more information, landlords, tenants and legal occupants of tenants are encouraged to consult with their attorney or a Fair Housing expert if they have any questions regarding their rights and responsibilities.

My first reaction is that what the resident is requesting is not appropriate for several reasons [and not simply because other residents do not have computers and cannot access Facebook]. Here is a sampling:

• He is asking for information that goes to business/management issues that may not be appropriate for sharing with residents, either because it is not available, it is subject to change, it may not be known, etc. Even if it is appropriate for discussion at the general meetings, I can see this forum moving in the direction of demanding more and more information than management is willing to share. The test for content is, I suppose, whether it would be a topic of discussion at open meetings.
• There should be one time and place for these meetings, and if you are not going to give up open meetings at scheduled times, then the Facebook approach is not only duplicative, but risks creating two lines of communication, one at the public meetings and the other over the Internet. You should limit the meetings to the open forum.
• Anonymity is a dangerous format for questions, since he could simply begin making up his own questions, turning the Facebook forum into an opportunity for his own private inquisition.
• I don't think I would like to see my residents' questions spread across the Internet, for business reasons. Resident meetings are not open to the public, as far as I know. Why would you do so with an Internet forum?
• Clearly, what he wants is not what the other residents want - his request for the accommodation ignores their wishes and your needs as a manager. In other words, it is administratively impossible.
• I'm sure with time I could come up with a host of other objections.

You should, of course, take this request seriously. While you want to briefly explain why you are unwilling to participate in this process, you don't want this to get into a lengthy dialogue on the matter. For example, what if you gave three reasons for declining his request? Then he files a Fair Housing claim, and you then give five reasons? It appears that you just made up two new ones. Accordingly, anything you say should be couched in "Here are some - but not necessarily all - of the reasons I cannot grant your request. The shorter the better. No need to get into a lengthy letter writing campaign.

You should definitely make a counter-proposal for the kind of accommodation you can grant - e.g. have someone take minutes of the open meetings (not recordings). He and everyone else can have the minutes for review. If anyone wants to raise a question or comment about the minutes, they may do so at the following meeting. He can select a proxy - i.e. another resident - to relay his questions and concerns at the meetings he does not want to attend.

Lastly, it appears that the rest of the residents want you present - his demand seems to want to subordinate everyone's needs to his. That is not the concept behind a "reasonable accommodation." It comes from the landlord to the requestor - not from the residents. Granting him what he wants/needs by taking minutes and allowing the proxy, reaches a far better balance for everyone involved. The residents have open meetings and he has access through the minutes and his proxy.

Answer: HB 2639 will become effective on July 1, 2014. It applies to all housing, whether or not it is manufactured housing inside of a community. The current law provides that a landlord may not refuse to sell, lease or rent any real property to a prospective lessee or tenant based upon the following factors: - Race; - Color; - Religion; - Sex; - Sexual orientation; - National origin; - Marital status; - Familial status (i.e. children under 18 years of age); and - Source of income. Under HB 2639 "source of income" now includes federal rent subsidy payments under Section 8 and any other local, state or federal housing assistance. [However, it does not include income derived from a specific occupation or income derived in an illegal manner.] Your concern is misplaced, but you still must be careful. HB 2639 clarifies that the prohibition against discrimination does not prevent you from refusing to rent or lease real property to a prospective renter/lessee based upon their inability to pay rent. If you have a 33% rule, and consistently apply it, you should be fine. However, what you must do is to include in your 33% calculation, any moneys the applicant is receiving from other state, local, or federal assistance, including Section 8 subsidies (collectively "Government Assistance"). You may not deny an applicant solely because they are receiving Government Assistance, and you must include it in your calculations. Conclusion. It is my opinion that HB 2639 means that going forward, you should include all Government Assistance, as well as other income, when calculating your applicants' ability to pay the space rent. In other words, just because they receive Government Assistance does not mean that you may deny them occupancy. Lastly, even if they qualify under your 33% rule, after including their Government Assistance, if there are other legitimate grounds for denial, such as prior rental history or criminal record, you are still legally entitled to reject them. Please understand that this is not legal advice, and you should verify my interpretation with you own attorney.

Answer: Here is _ 805(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding communication in connection with debt collection. The following activity is prohibited: "Communication with third parties. Subject to limited exceptions, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a post-judgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector." The Take-Away: This law, when coupled with the general expectation of privacy that residents have, it is my opinion that a landlord should never be in the position of voluntarily disseminating personal contact information to potential creditors, or any other people for that matter - unless the tenant consents in advance. If the debt collector issues a subpoena, that's another story. But until they do, landlords should avoid voluntarily complying with requests for personal information on residents. This applies regardless of whether the third party is a debt collector.