Search

Answer: There are certain facts that are missing from this question. I will supply them and then answer. So, let's assume the following: (a) This is a periodic (i.e. month-to-month) tenancy; (b) The tenant has moved out of the home and it is now vacant; (c) The rents are not being paid; and lastly, let's assume that (d) The landlord was to be paid all past-due rent from the sale proceeds.

However, before answering the question, however, let me point out a fatal error by this landlord - and many other landlords: They don't look at the Worst Case Scenario. I'm sure the Storage Agreement adequately covered what was to occur upon sale. But since we have a landlord now asking what happens if the sale does not occur by November 30, I'm led to believe the parties neglected to address (in writing) the possibility of failure. Memo to MHCO landlords: Written agreements with tenants should always address "the exit strategy" - i.e. what protocol kicks in if the home is not sold and not removed by November 30.

Without addressing this issue in the written Storage Agreement, we are left to figure out what Oregon law would provide under these facts. Here's my take:

• On December 1, the landlord should contact the ex-tenant and demand that the home be removed. This should be done in writing or e-mail, so it can be used later if necessary.
• If removal does not occur promptly, the landlord must rely upon Oregon law. Unfortunately, the law leaves landlords holding the bag if a home is abandoned.
• The landlord will have to determine if the tenant will voluntarily waive his abandonment rights, and if not, then he must follow the legal procedure under ORS 90.675.[2] If there is a lienholder on the home, the landlord will have to give them notification under the abandonment law.
• If the landlord wants to leave the home on the site and resell it to a new tenant, that option is always available[3], and probably should be pursued first, rather than going down the abandonment route, which can be costly in time and money. Care should be exercised to properly document such an arrangement, in order to avoid later complaints by the tenant that they were taken advantage of.

In Oregon, following the formal abandonment process is the only legal way for a landlord to take control of a manufactured home if the tenant fails or refuses to remove it upon termination of the tenancy.

[1] The question about a one-year rule, relates only to the closure of a park or park space, and will not be addressed here.

[2] This may mean that the landlord will have to go through the exercise of issuing a 72-hour notice, then going to court to get a judgment of restitution. Only then is it safe for the landlord to proceed with abandonment.

[3] If title to the home shows that a lienholder has a security interest, the formal abandonment procedure must likely be followed.

Answer: You are referring to MHCO Form 35B "Manufactured Home Storage Agreement (With Homeowner)." Before addressing your specific questions, it is necessary to point out what this form is intended to do. Here are some that come quickly to mind: (a) A resident, living alone, moves out of the home and wants to sell it on site; (b) A person inherits or buys the home, but cannot be approved for occupancy due to the background check or their financial condition; (c) A resident, living alone, passes away, and the estate wants to sell it.

It is important to remember that this is a "storage" agreement not a "rental" agreement. In fact, it expressly disclaims a "landlord-tenant" relationship between the community and the home owner. Accordingly, the legal relationship is more akin to one in which a party stores their property in a commercial storage facility.

You should not treat a breach of the Storage Agreement as something that is remedied by going to FED court. Rather, the provisions of Oregon law dealing with statutory liens in ORS 87.152 et. seq. apply. This process can get very complicated, and I highly recommend that you secure the services of an attorney before proceeding.

Lastly, the MHCO Storage Agreement contains a provision for mandatory arbitration, in lieu of any other court or legal process. However, the box on the form must be checked in order for it to apply. The reason that this arbitration alternative exists is because it was believed that the process mandated by the statutes might be better implemented for park owners through arbitration, which can be cheaper, faster, and easier - especially if the matter becomes contested.

The MHCO form does require that the home be maintained by the owner. Accordingly, you may wish to consider sending a notice to the owner demanding that they do the clean-up work or you will do so, and pass the charge on to them. I don't think the issue of payments and maintenance are the same. Accordingly, I don't believe there is a need to discontinue accepting payments. However, all of this needs to be handled carefully, and for this you should speak with your attorney.

Answer: You are referring to MHCO Form 35B "Manufactured Home Storage Agreement (With Homeowner)." Before addressing your specific questions, it is necessary to point out what this form is intended to do. Here are some that come quickly to mind: (a) A resident, living alone, moves out of the home and wants to sell it on site; (b) A person inherits or buys the home, but cannot be approved for occupancy due to the background check or their financial condition; (c) A resident, living alone, passes away, and the estate wants to sell it.

It is important to remember that this is a "storage" agreement not a "rental" agreement. In fact, it expressly disclaims a "landlord-tenant" relationship between the community and the home owner. Accordingly, the legal relationship is more akin to one in which a party stores their property in a commercial storage facility.

You should not treat a breach of the Storage Agreement as something that is remedied by going to FED court. Rather, the provisions of Oregon law dealing with statutory liens in ORS 87.152 et. seq. apply. This process can get very complicated, and I highly recommend that you secure the services of an attorney before proceeding.

Lastly, the MHCO Storage Agreement contains a provision for mandatory arbitration, in lieu of any other court or legal process. However, the box on the form must be checked in order for it to apply. The reason that this arbitration alternative exists is because it was believed (and still is) that the process mandated by the statutes might be better implemented for park owners through arbitration, which can be cheaper, faster, and easier - especially if the matter becomes contested.

The MHCO form does require that the home be maintained by the owner. Accordingly, you may wish to consider sending a notice to the owner demanding that they do the clean-up work or you will do so, and pass the charge on to them. I don't think the issue of payments and maintenance are the same. Accordingly, I don't believe there is a need to discontinue accepting payments. However, all of this needs to be handled carefully, and for this you should speak with your attorney.

Question: A home was purchased by a local dealer from a resident who had not paid rent for several months. The dealer then sold the home to another person who applied for tenancy and passed the screening criteria. The landlord wants the past due rent ($900) paid before permitting applicant to move into the home. Can the landlord go after the dealer to pay the past due rent? Can the landlord keep the applicant from moving in until the $900 is paid? Should the landlord have given some notice to the existing tenant, the dealer, and/or the prospective tenant, regarding how the unpaid rent should be handled? What about other expenses the tenant who sold the home ran up, such as utilities, late fees, maintenance clean up expenses, etc.? What do you suggest as far as notices to the dealer stating the amount of money owed? The dealer is not the lien holder.

Answer: Landlords should become intimately familiar with ORS 90.680, and then make sure their rules and rental agreements conform to what is allowed. Set forth below is a summary of those portions of the statute that address your questions:

o If the prospective purchaser of a manufactured dwelling or floating home desires to leave the dwelling or home on the rented space and become a tenant, the landlord may require the following:

o That a tenant give not more than 10 days' notice in writing prior to the sale of the dwelling or home on a rented space;

o That prior to the sale, the prospective purchaser submit to the landlord a complete and accurate written application for occupancy of the dwelling or home as a tenant after the sale is finalized;

o That a prospective purchaser may not occupy the dwelling or home until after the prospective purchaser is accepted by the landlord as a tenant;

o That a tenant give notice to any lienholder, prospective purchaser or person licensed to sell dwellings or homes of the requirements of the resale requirements [Emphasis mine - PCQ];

o If the sale is not by a lienholder, that the prospective purchaser pay in full all rents, fees, deposits or charges owed by the tenant prior to the landlord's acceptance of the prospective purchaser as a tenant [Emphasis mine];

o If the landlord's rules and/or rental agreement requires prospective purchasers to submit an application for occupancy as a tenant, at the time that the landlord gives the prospective purchaser an application the landlord shall also give the prospective purchaser copies of the statement of policy, the rental agreement and the facility rules and regulations, including any conditions imposed on a subsequent sale ;

o The following conditions apply if a landlord receives an application for tenancy from a prospective purchaser:

o The landlord shall accept or reject the prospective purchaser's application within seven days following the day the landlord receives a complete and accurate written application ;

o An application is not complete until the prospective purchaser pays any required applicant screening charge and provides the landlord with all information and documentation, including any financial data and references, required by the landlord;

o The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant. Reasonable cause for rejection includes, but is not limited to:

o Failure of the prospective purchaser to meet the landlord's conditions for approval;

o Failure of the prospective purchaser's references to respond to the landlord's timely request for verification within the time allowed for acceptance or rejection;

o In most cases, the landlord must furnish to the seller and purchaser a written statement of the reasons for any rejection ;

o The landlord may give the tenant selling the home a notice to repair the home [e.g. for damage or deterioration] under ORS 90.632. The landlord may also give any prospective purchaser a copy of that notice.

o The landlord may require as a condition of tenancy that a prospective purchaser who desires to leave the dwelling or home on the rented space and become a tenant must comply with the repair notice within the allowed period under ORS 90.632.

o If the tenancy has been terminated for failure to timely complete the repairs under ORS 90.632, a prospective purchaser does not have a right to leave the dwelling or home on the rented space and become a tenant.

Obviously, the statute was drafted with tenant/purchasers in mind. However, as long as the home remains on the space, the landlord has complete control over the situation. In your case, I suspect the delinquent tenant made no effort to notify the landlord of his planned sale to the dealer. However, that does not prevent him from imposing these requirements on the dealer if he wants to put a tenant in the park.

Going forward, it might be advisable for all landlords who have faced this situation before, to prepare a summary of requirements to give dealers when they purchase homes from tenants already sited in the park. They may want to expressly address this in their rules, so tenants cannot say they didn't know. The written summary to dealers should clearly state that if a departing tenant owes monies to the landlord, repayment will be required before occupancy of the home will be permitted by a new resident. [A more difficult question that is not addressed by the statute, ORS 90.680, is whether the landlord may prevent the dealer from removing the home without paying the past due sums. I suspect the answer may be Yes" a landlord may do so

Answer. I remember writing this provision several years ago, and it has survived the test of time - in other words - to my knowledge it has never been set aside or otherwise ruled illegal or unconscionable by any Oregon courts.

The genesis of this provision relates to the change in Oregon law several years ago that prohibited landlords from imposing a "removal on resale" condition when consenting to the sale of older homes in their communities. Essentially, the condition said that if when the resident sought to sell the home to a new buyer, the landlord could consent, but could add the condition that the home had to be removed on resale. In theory, this was designed to permit landlords to incrementally upgrade the age of the homes in their communities.[1]

The law, prohibiting this practice, is found in ORS 90.680(12) which provides that:

A landlord may not, because of the age, size, style or original construction material of the dwelling or home or because the dwelling or home was built prior to adoption of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5403), in compliance with the standards of that Act in effect at that time or in compliance with the state building code as defined in ORS 455.010:

(a) Reject an application for tenancy from a prospective purchaser of an existing dwelling or home on a rented space within a facility; or

(b) Require a prospective purchaser of an existing dwelling or home on a rented space within a facility to remove the dwelling or home from the rented space.

The quid pro quo for landlords permitting this legislation was twofold:

• A law that expressly allowed landlords to impose maintenance requirements to the exterior of homes (ORS 90.632);
• A law providing that the failure to enforce the maintenance provision did not constitute a waiver of the right to do so in the future. See, ORS 90.414(1)(c).[2]

While these laws worked well for the exterior of older homes, they did not address the interior, where typically, landlords could impose no updating requirements. However, ORS 90.740 (Tenant Obligations), provided for several things I believed we could incorporate into the MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements. Among other things, the statute provides that residents must:

• Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire;
• Install and maintain in the dwelling or home a smoke alarm approved under applicable law;
• Install and maintain storm water drains on the roof of the dwelling or home and connect the drains to the drainage system, if any;
• Use electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems;

And since ORS 90.630(1)(a) provides that '_the landlord may terminate a rental agreement *** if the tenant: (a) Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant... " I felt it was not unreasonable to require that if the resident made any modifications to the home or its heating, cooling or electrical systems, they must comply with all local, state and federal codes and regulations in existence at the time of the modification."

I then consulted with one or more professional inspectors who specialize in manufactured homes, to ask if they could inspect the interior of the home and vet these issues. I was assured they could.

Lest your resident argue that neither they, nor their buyer, wants to pay for this, I would respond that this requirement is not just for their safety, but the rest of the Park's residents. If the home should catch fire, the conflagration could endanger others as well as them.

Lastly, it is my position, which I have vetted with others, that notwithstanding the ORS 90.680(12) proscription against imposing a "removal on resale" condition, it does not apply if the resident has made changes '_to the original construction material of the dwelling or home *** [that] was built prior to adoption of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5403), in compliance with the standards of that Act in effect at that time or in compliance with the state building code... ."

In other words, it is my belief[3] that if a resident has made changes to the heating, cooling, or electrical systems inside their home, he or she is no longer protected against the prohibition against "removal on resale" condition. So your recalcitrant resident has two choices: (a) Either consent to the interior inspection by a professional, to make sure it is "safe from the hazards of fire" or (b) You can impose a "removal on resale" requirement. And by the way, since you can impose, as a condition of approval, that the new resident has fire and liability insurance, you will want to consider imposing both conditions, and becoming a co-insured on the liability policy. Good Luck!

[1] Tenant lawyers argued that the provision was illegal, since it violated the law prohibiting termination of MHP tenancies without cause. It was the result of this standoff that resulted in the compromise legislation.

[2] When these laws were being negotiated, non-waiver was important to several landlords who had fixed income elderly residents whose homes were in need of exterior maintenance or painting. While they were willing to forego enforcing the maintenance requirements so long as the aged resident was living there, they did not want to waive the right to do so later, if the home was sold, or transferred by inheritance.

[3] You should verify this with your own legal counsel. MHCO's Q&A articles should not be relied upon as "legal advice".

One decision can make a significant difference in monthly payments: whether to finance the mobile home with a personal property loan or a mortgage.

Personal property loans, known as chattel loans, have much higher interest rates than mortgages. To some owners of manufactured homes, refinancing chattel loans into mortgages could reduce monthly housing expenses.

Get the latest refinance rates

Refinancing a mobile home

To qualify for refinancing as a mortgage:

• The home must be on a permanent foundation that meets standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• The manufactured home must be titled as real estate rather than as personal property.
• The homeowner has to own the land that the manufactured home is on. An important exception to this rule is explained below.

Big difference in interest rates

In 2012, about 68 percent of all manufactured-housing purchase loans were considered higher-priced mortgage loans, and many of them were chattel loans, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Interest rates on chattel loans range from 7 percent to 12.75 percent, says Ken Rishel, founder of Rishel Consulting Group in Chicago. The loans are usually for 15 or 20 years.

In contrast, the average rate for a 30-year fixed-rate loan has been well below 5 percent for all of 2014.

Rishel, whose company makes chattel loans of at least $5,000, says the interest rates are risk-based, and chattel loans are often the only choice for borrowers with poor credit. Chattel loans are the main option for owners whose mobile homes are not permanent foundations.

Converting to a new title

Some states have eased the process of converting a personal property title into a real estate title, making refinancing possible, says Marc J. Lifset, an attorney with McGlinchey Stafford in Albany, New York.

Lifset helped financial institutions lobby for the approval of that legislation in Alaska, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

"The legislation provides a clear definition of when the home is real estate and when it is not," he says. "It makes the process more certain. In many states, the definition was murky."

Getting a real estate title

A real estate attorney or title company can help with a title conversion as a first step to refinance. Owners of manufactured homes need to provide:

• A certificate of title to the home or a copy of the manufactured certificate of origin.
• The deed to the land where the home with the permanent foundation is located.

Once the owner has the real estate title in hand, the next step is to find lenders that provide mortgages on manufactured homes. The rest of the process is similar to closing a mortgage on any residential property.

Borrowing on leased land

Under some circumstances, owners of manufactured homes leasing a lot at a mobile home community can get mortgages -- even if they don't own the land beneath their feet.

The Federal Housing Administration offers a program known as Title I, designed for owners whose mobile homes are on a permanent foundation but are within a manufactured housing community.

Among the requirements for a Title 1 mortgage:

• The mobile home must be the borrower's primary residence.
• The home has to be on a rental site in a manufactured home park that conforms to FHA guidelines.
• The lease agreement must meet FHA standards.

It's not easy to find mobile home communities that meet the FHA's strict guidelines, says Rishel, whose company makes chattel loans in land-lease communities. "Not many landlords participate on the Title I program."

Few lenders offer Title I mortgages. One is 21st Mortgage, which is owned by Clayton Homes, one of the nation's largest manufacturers of mobile homes.

Costs of switching title

When a mobile home is titled as personal property, the owner pays personal property taxes. When it's titled as real estate, the owner pays real estate taxes. In many states, property taxes tend to be higher.

"The consumer has to do the math on how much they are going to save by lower interest rates, compared to how much more taxes they may be paying and what the closing costs are going to be" in a refinancing, Lifset says.

Another potential downside: If the owner has to build a permanent foundation to refinance a chattel loan, that expense has to be taken into account. Building a new foundation could cost $10,000 to $15,000, Rishel says.

"Refinancing is a valuable thing but for a limited number of people who live in manufactured homes," he says.

MHCO would like to thank Ken Rishel for providing this article:

Answer: There are certain facts that are missing from this question. I will supply them and then answer. So, let’s assume the following: (a) This is a periodic (i.e. month-to-month) tenancy; (b) The tenant has moved out of the home and it is now vacant; (c) The rents are not being paid; and lastly, let’s assume that (d) The landlord was to be paid all past-due rent from the sale proceeds. However, before answering the question, however, let me point out a fatal error by this landlord – and many other landlords: They don’t look at the Worst Case Scenario. I’m sure the Storage Agreement adequately covered what was to occur upon sale. But since we have a landlord now asking what happens if the sale does not occur by November 30, I’m led to believe the parties neglected to address (in writing) the possibility of failure. Memo to MHCO landlords: Written agreements with tenants should always address “the exit strategy” – i.e. what protocol kicks in if the home is not sold and not removed by November 30. Without addressing this issue in the written Storage Agreement, we are left to figure out what Oregon law would provide under these facts. Here’s my take: • On December 1, the landlord should contact the ex-tenant and demand that the home be removed. This should be done in writing or e-mail, so it can be used later if necessary. • If removal does not occur promptly, the landlord must rely upon Oregon law. Unfortunately, the law leaves landlords holding the bag if a home is abandoned. • The landlord will have to determine if the tenant will voluntarily waive his abandonment rights, and if not, then he must follow the legal procedure under ORS 90.675. If there is a lienholder on the home, the landlord will have to give them notification under the abandonment law. • If the landlord wants to leave the home on the site and resell it to a new tenant, that option is always available , and probably should be pursued first, rather than going down the abandonment route, which can be costly in time and money. Care should be exercised to properly document such an arrangement, in order to avoid later complaints by the tenant that they were taken advantage of. In Oregon, following the formal abandonment process is the only legal way for a landlord to take control of a manufactured home if the tenant fails or refuses to remove it upon termination of the tenancy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Phil Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

Current Oregon Law. ORS 90.680 is the statute governing the on-site sale of homes in a manufactured housing community. It previously contained no limitations on landlords who required, as a condition of tenancy, that residents selling their homes must enter into a consignment agreement with the landlord. That will change on January 1, 2016.

New Oregon Law. ORS 90.680 is now amended as follows:
1. It defines the term "consignment" to mean a written agreement in which a resident

authorizes a landlord to sell their manufactured dwelling or floating home in the

community for compensation.

2. It prohibits landlords from requiring as a condition of occupancy, that residents enter

   into consignment agreements with the landlord.

3. It prescribes the specific conditions under which a landlord may sell a resident's home

   on consignment:

a. The landlord must be licensed to sell dwellings under ORS 446.661 to 446.756;

i. The license may be held by a person other than the community owner, so long as there is common ownership between them;

b. The landlord and resident must first enter into a written consignment contract that specifies at a minimum:

1. The duration of the contract, which, unless extended in writing, may not exceed 180 days;

2. The estimated square footage of the home, together with the make, model, year, vehicle identification number and license plate number, if known;

3. The price offered for sale of the home;

4. Whether lender financing is permitted, and the amount, if any, of the

   earnest money deposit;

5. Whether the transaction is intended to be closed through a state-licensed

   escrow;

6. All liens, taxes and other charges known to be in existence against the

   home that must be removed before the resident can convey marketable

   title to a prospective buyer;

7. The method of marketing the sale of the home (e.g. signs posted in the

   community; Internet advertising; print publications, etc.);

8. The form and amount of compensation to the landlord (e.g. fixed fee

   with amount stated; commission percentage, etc.); and

ix. In determining the resident's net sale proceeds, the order by which the gross sale proceeds will be applied toward payoff of the liens, taxes, actual costs of sale, landlord compensation, and other closing costs.

c. Within 10 days after a sale, the landlord is to pay the resident their share of the sale proceeds, and provide a written accounting for all funds received;

d. The above-described process (i.e. through a written consignment agreement with landlord acting as the resident's representative) is the only permissible way a landlord may recover any commission, fee (however designated), or retain a portion of the sale proceeds of a resident's home in the community.

4. In cases in which a landlord is attempting to sell a home under ORS 90.680 and so is a resident in the community, the following new rules will apply:

1. If a landlord advertises a home for sale within the community, a resident selling their home may do so as well, by posting a sign in a similar manner and location;

2. A landlord may not knowingly make false statements to a prospective purchaser about the quality of a resident's home also being offered for sale;

3. Note: Nothing prevents a landlord from selling a home to a prospective purchaser at a price or on terms, including space rent, that are more favorable than the price and terms offered for homes offered by residents.

5. Miscellaneous:
a. If a landlord requires a prospective purchaser to submit an application for

occupancy, upon request from the purchaser, the landlord must provide, a copy

of the application;

2. Upon a prospective resident's request for a copy of the rental/lease agreement,

   the landlord may require payment of a reasonable copying charge;

3. If the prospective purchaser agrees, a landlord may provide these requested

   documents in an electronic format;

4. When a landlord considers an application for tenancy from a prospective

   purchaser of a resident's home, the landlord shall apply substantially similar credit and conduct screening to a prospective purchaser of a home from the landlord;

5. A landlord or resident who sells a home located inside the community is required to deliver title to the purchaser within 25 business days after completion of the sale;

6. If the sale by the landlord or resident includes paperwork whereby the seller is carrying back a contract or security interest and the purchaser is paying some or all of the purchase price with installment payments, where applicable, the landlord or resident is required to notify the county that the purchaser is responsible for property tax payments;

7. If a person violates ORS 90.680 three or more times within a 24-month period, a person damaged thereby has a cause of action against the violator for the damages caused as a result of the third or subsequent violation or $500, whichever is greater.