Search

Answer: First and foremost, send the checks back as soon as they come in. Do not hold onto them, as there is Oregon case law saying that doing so for an unreasonable amount of time can constitute acceptance. Include a letter with the checks reiterating what you told him about the necessity of the repairs and the need to sign the rental agreement. I hope the nature of the repairs and the amount of time he has to complete them are a part of the rental agreement. IF not they should be. The only real way to enforce this requirement is to make the repairs a written condition of the tenancy. Do not accept any rent from him unless and until the tenant has signed the rental agreement and it contains an explicit description of the work he is to do and a completion date. If he takes possession without having signed a written rental agreement, you may give him a 24-hour notice to terminate under ORS 90.403. The statute contemplates an improper subleasing arrangement which is not the case here. However, in all respects, it should work, since his possession is unauthorized and in possession without a signed rental agreement. Make sure that you use the proper form of notice, as this is not the same situation as giving a 24-hour notice for outrageous conduct under ORS 90.396. Alternatively, if you have rules in the community that prohibit occupancy without a written rental agreement, you could issue a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1)(b). That way, if he cured by signing the rental agreement (with the repair provision in it) he could stay. This second alternative, though more time consuming, gives him a chance to come into compliance before having to vacate.

Last night the Oregon Senate passed HB 4143 the Tenant Protection" bill. The bill is now on its way to Oregon Governor Kate Brown.

'The Oregonian' reports -

"... the 16-9 vote came late Wednesday

Answer. First, let me ask why we're having this discussion today, rather than before you began the conversion in 2011? This is always a risky proposition, since if you converted without following the proper protocols, there could be potential liability. (On the other hand, one might argue that even if it was done improperly, there is no damage, since the residents actually saved money in the process!)

To rephrase your question, let me ask it this way: Is it permissible to pass sewer charges directly to residents from (a) the base rent method (i.e. where it's included in base rent), to (b) a pro-rata method (i.e. where the monthly sewer bill is prorated to each resident based upon the number of occupied spaces in the community)?

The short answer today is "No." Since the statute, ORS 90.532, is complicated, I will try to paraphrase the prohibition as follows: For rental agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2010, a landlord and tenant may not amend a rental agreement to convert water or sewer utility and service billing from a method described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(i) (the base rent method) to a method described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(ii) (the prorate allocation method).

If your residents are on month-to-month rentals, they "renew" every month. Thus, every resident who was in the community before January 1, 2010 and is still there today, has a rental agreement that was entered into after January 1, 2010.

As for what to do now, I would recommend that you discuss the situation with your attorney, and proceed upon his or her recommendation. The first order of business is to make absolutely sure that your prorata method worked to your residents' financial benefit. Secondly, if financially feasible, institute a submetering system, according to the conversion laws. As for your new residents, here is a paraphrase of what the law says:

A landlord may not use a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for sewer service, if sewer service is measured by consumption of water and the rental agreement for the dwelling unit was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless the landlord was using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all tenants in the facility immediately before January 1, 2010. If the sewer service is not based upon consumption of water, you may prorate.

For new residents, you do not want to put them on a base rent method with the idea that you can later convert to a pass-through method using a prorata allocation. Oregon law does not permit that method of pass-through conversions today, unless the prorate allocation method existed in the entire community before January 1, 2010. Good luck!

A 55 plus Community has been in existence for fifteen (15) years. During that time two sets of on-site managers have managed the property. Each management team has allowed a few families to move in believing the community was well within the 20% margin allowed by Federal Fair Housing regulations. Unfortunately, a few of the original residents have had a death in the family leaving the youngest (younger than 55) resident remaining as the head of household. An annual age survey of the residents has not been maintained by either of the on-site management teams. A prospective resident (younger than 55) has now been denied as a new tenant and is challenging the 55 plus status of the Community. Without an accurate age survey of the existing residents how is the Community/Owner going to prove the Community satisfies the Federal Fair Housing requirements of a 55 plus Community ? This Community/Owner in all probability will face costly litigation while attempting to collect the necessary data and the Community may even lose its 55 plus status. If the on-site manager/owner had completed an annual age survey of the residents this costly experience could have been avoided. Does your 55 plus community have a current "age survey"?

MHCO has a number of forms for 55 and Older Communities:

• MHCO Form 71A: Addendum to the Rental/Lease Agreement for Age 55 & Older Communities
• MHCO Form 71B: 55 & Older Community Occupancy Determination and Age Verification
• MHCO Form 71C: HUD Verification of Occupancy Survey

Another example of ongoing record keeping includes updated copies of any insurance certificates naming the Community/Owner as an additional insured. If the Community requires pet owners to name the Community/Owner as an additional insured on their homeowners insurance policy an annual review of the certificates of insurance is necessary. If a resident's pet bites another resident and the insurance certificate has lapsed or the Community has been dropped as and additional insured the Community/Owner will not be afforded any protection. When is the last time you reviewed the certificates of insurance which name the community/owner as an additional insured ?

Either one of the above examples can potentially have a devastating effect on your Community's profitability. Protect you investment's profitability by making records management an integral part of your office activities.

Bill Miner's power point presentation for MHCO's 90 minute seminar (June 24, 2022) on Non Payment of Rent Evictions (for MHCO Members Only) is attached above.  

MHCO would like to thank Bill for an outstanding presentation and for his continued efforts to provide quality information on all aspects of Landlord Tenant Law to MHCO members.  And we would like to thank the MHCO members who attended this special zoom seminar.

Answer: This is a good – and important – question. Here are some points to always remember: 1. A resident who is renting the home is not under the manufactured housing section of Oregon’s residential landlord-tenant law (“ORLTA”) which is contained in ORS Chapter 90. This means that you do not treat non-owner residents the same way you would as if they were renting an apartment or home. Landlord and tenant rights, duties and remedies are different, depending upon whether the person renting the space also owns the home. 2. A landlord’s remedies [e.g. for-cause termination, etc.] against a non-owner resident are found in ORS 90.392, 90.394, 90.396, 90.398, 90.403 and 90.405; they are not found in the manufactured housing section of ORLTA, which commences at ORS 90.505. 3. Similarly, you do not want to use a standard manufactured dwelling space rental agreement for a non-owner resident. However, due to the number of park-owned homes, MHCO has developed a space rental agreement for tenants who do not own the home. You should use it. If you use MHCO’s standard manufactured home space rental agreement for persons owning their home, you will be contractually giving the non-owner resident greater rights than you would otherwise need to do. For example, the “cure period” for violations is much shorter for non-owner tenants – because they only need to vacate with their personal property. They do not need to move a home. If they owned the home, they would have a 30-day right to cure under ORS 90.630. This means that you will have to use a different, non-MHCO form for rules violations by non-owner tenants. 4. However, the eviction process, i.e. the filing and service of an FED Complaint under ORS 105.105, et. seq, is the same. That is, the process of the “first appearance,” trial settings, etc. is exactly the same. 5. Importantly, since the park owns the home, the park is the “landlord.” This means that it must provide inside the home certain safety measures that ORLTA requires of landlords, such as smoke detectors and [if there is a carbon monoxide source] a carbon monoxide detector. Some counties require a carbon monoxide detector in all cases, even if there is no carbon monoxide source, e.g. a gas fireplace. Go to the State Fire Marshall’s site for more information on these important issues.

Answer to Question 1: Generally, no. However, this isn'ta license to be rude to them. Let's start with the basics: If you are a legal 55+ community, you are not required to admit as residents, persons with children, i.e. those under the age of 18. If there are children in the community (perhaps before the facility converted to 55+, or simply because less than 20% of all spaces are occupied by persons with children), the park may do things that it could not do if it was a family park, such as prohibit children's Big Wheels and bicycles in the street. Generally, however, the best approach is to strive for 100% compliance with the 55+ laws in terms of occupancy. If you want to be a "safe" 55+ community, you will have rules that expressly say so; a rental/lease agreement that expressly says so; application and tenant home sale provisions that limit spaces to at least one occupant 55+; and generally hold yourself out in all advertising as a 55+ community. Of course, seniors are permitted to bring children (e.g. grandchildren, etc.) into the community, but the rules may place limits on the amount of time they may remain there.

Answer to Question 2: You need to go through the formal rule change process described in the statute. A rule that is not legally enacted, isn'treally an enforceable rule. However, you should immediately issue a written notice to all residents that based upon legal advice, those rules (identifying them) that appear to be discriminatory against children, will not be enforced. If you own a family park and are concerned that your rules may appear to "target" children, you should consult with your attorney for advice on how to proceed. Note that even if your rules don't appear to target children, if they, in fact, affect the activities of children more heavily than adults, they could still be deemed to be discriminatory (e.g. occupancy limits). And if you are a family park, but you have over 80% of the spaces occupied by at least one person age 55 or over, you should ask your attorney about "converting" to become a legal 55+ community. Until you do, even though 99% of the community's spaces are occupied by seniors, you're still a family park, and subject to the anti-discrimination laws protecting children.

Answer: Oregon landlord tenant law allows service of notices three ways: first class mail, personal delivery and "nail and mail." ORS 90.155.

We always advise our clients to deliver notices by first class mail. Not certified, not UPS, not FedEx, but good old fashioned first class mail with a stamp. They still make those. You can always get a certificate of mailing showing that you sent the notice on the day you say you did.

First class mail is not always an option; therefore, you can serve personally. When we say "personal delivery" it does not mean taping the notice to the door, or placing it under a windshield wiper (I've seen both cases), it means physically handing it to the person you are trying to give the notice to. Make a note of the time you sent it and if you can, bring a witness.

Answer: ORS 90.630(3), the statute governing the issuance of 30-day notices of termination in manufactured housing communities, permits a landlord to issue a 30-day notice to a tenant who is '_classified as a level three sex offender under ORS 181.800 (3)[1] or is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.838... ."[2] The notice is non-curable, and must so state.

I point this statute out simply to underscore that protections exist inside the park to unilaterally issue a 30-day non-curable termination notice if a resident is determined to be a sex offender. The rationale for the law is fairly obvious - the presence of a sexual predator inside the community creates an inherent danger to other residents and their guests.

Of course, the statute only addresses other tenants. It says nothing about invitees of tenants who may come into the community to provide materials or other services, which is what your question deals with. However, a guest or invitee who is a sexual predator is no less of a threat when he's inside the community than a resident who is a sexual predator. For that reason, i.e. the safety and security of other residents, you should act promptly. Before doing so, though, be sure that you personally verify that he is a registered sex offender, and, if possible, obtain a copy of the document verifying it for your records. Then proceed as follows:

1. Contact the resident for whom the person is working and tell him or her of the community's concern, and ask that the worker be told that due to his criminal record he may no longer come into the community. If the resident agrees to cooperate, that should suffice. [Note: This approach assumes that the resident is cooperative in nature, and there is little or no risk that he will return. If the resident is uncooperative, then proceed to No. 2 below.]
2. If the resident refuses to cooperate, then you will have to escalate the matter. Deliver a No-Trespassing notice to the resident to give to the maintenance person, saying that he may no longer come to the community for any reason. The letter should say that if he violates this demand, you will call the police and have him removed as a trespasser. [Note: My preference would be to deliver it to the workman (with copy to resident) personally, since that way you'll know he has actual notice. However, I would leave the decision to you. If you do it in person, make sure you have another witness with you. You may want to first speak to the local police department regarding this approach, since some may have specific protocols they want followed if they are to later be called upon to enforce it.]

The use of a trespass letter can be helpful in many scenarios where there is a person coming into the community that causes upset to other residents. In many cases - and perhaps even in your case - the problem guest is a relative of the resident, which accounts for their willingness to have them there notwithstanding their past criminal conduct. But remember, as a park owner [this is not something managers should do without the owner's express knowledge and consent] you have a duty to avoid dangerous situations you become aware of, and the frequent presence of a known registered sexual predator in the community certainly qualifies.

[1] ORS 181.800(3) provides that a '_level three sex offender who presents the highest risk of reoffending and requires the widest range of notification."

[2] ORS 181.838 relates to juveniles, and provides that (1) '_a person is a predatory sex offender if the person: (a) Is required to report as a sex offender under ORS 181.809 as the result of a finding that the person committed an act that if committed by an adult in this state would constitute a predatory sex offense; and (b) Exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others. (2) In determining whether a person is a predatory sex offender, an agency shall use a sex offender risk assessment tool approved by the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency. (3) As used in this section, "predatory sex offense" means a sex crime listed in ORS 181.805 (5)(a) to (d) or an attempt to commit a sex crime listed in ORS 181.805 (5)(a) to (d), if the sex crime is classified as a felony.