Search

Oregon Legislative Session Begins

with Catastrophic

Rent Control and Vacancy Control Proposals

The 2025 Oregon Legislative Session has commenced.  Legislators wasted little time in filing a proposal to further restrict the ability of manufactured and floating home providers to raise rents.  HB 3054 specifically targets manufactured and floating home communities by limiting future rent increases to CPI only and significantly further restricting the ability to raise rent on new tenancies to market rent.  This is one of the most extreme and catastrophic proposals to come out of the Oregon Legislature that targets a specific housing sector.  The legislative proposal will most likely have its first public hearing on Monday, February 3rd in Salem.

MHCO wants to make you aware of this proposal as it may become law in 2026 or sooner.

Summary of the new RENT CONTROL/VACANCY CONTROL proposal:

1. Restricts annual rent increases for tenants in parks and marinas to increases in the Consumer Price Index.
2. Amends  ORS 90.600 regarding rent increases for facility tenancies to limit any rent charged to a new tenant who purchases a home from a former tenant to no more than a ten percent increase over the selling tenant’s rent.
3. Amends ORS 90.680 to prohibit a facility landlord from requiring a selling tenant or a prospective purchaser of a home from an existing tenant to make aesthetic or cosmetic improvements to the home, only maintenance or repair items.
4. Amends ORS 90.680 to prohibit a facility landlord from requiring a selling tenant or prospective purchaser to provide or allow an inspection of the interior of the home as a condition for accepting a notice of sale, approving a sale, or approving a purchaser as a new tenant. This would include any inspections relating to safety or fire control.

MHCO is aggressively opposing this legislation.  We are working with other associations and allies to defeat this proposal.  At the end of the day, we can only succeed in defeating this legislation if all members and non members are actively engaged through emails, phone calls, meetings and attending/testifying at public hearings.

In the next few days we will be providing talking points and contact information to specific communities that are constituents of key Legislators.  We will also be providing information on the public hearing to be held on February 3rd in Salem. 

Under a limited exception, senior housing communities may lawfully exclude families with children, but that exception applies only if your community satisfies specific technical requirements. Unless you meet these requirements, your community could be liable for restricting or otherwise excluding families with children from living there.

In this lesson, we’ll review the law governing familial status and offer 10 rules—the essential Dos & Don’ts—for complying with fair housing law when dealing with families with children. Finally, you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on familial status. In general, that means you can’t discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. Specifically, the FHA’s ban on discrimination based on familial status applies when one or more children under the age of 18 are living with:

• A parent;
• An individual with legal custody; or
• An individual who has the written permission of the parent or custodian.

It also applies to pregnant woman and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of one or more children under 18.

In a nutshell, the familial status provisions apply whenever there’s one or more children under 18 living in the household. The children may be living with one or both birth parents—whether they’re married, divorced, single, gay, or straight. The adult could also be an adoptive parent, foster parent, or legal guardian. Individuals with legal custody include family members or others approved by the courts. More broadly, the law applies to people with written permission of the parent or legal guardian.

Senior housing exemption. Under a limited exception, senior housing communities may lawfully exclude children, but only when they satisfy strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” The exemption applies to housing communities or facilities that are governed by a common set of rules, regulations, or restrictions. A portion of a single building is not considered a housing facility or community, according to HUD. And remember: The senior-housing exemption applies only to the FHA’s familial status provisions; the community still must abide by the law’s protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability.

FOLLOW 10 RULES FOR DEALING WITH FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

Rule #1

DO Make Housing Available to Families with Children

DON’T Deny Housing Because There’s a Child in the Household

Though it’s been unlawful for more than 30 years, communities continue to run afoul of fair housing provisions by denying housing to families with children.

It’s important to remember that familial status is on the same footing as race and any of the other protected classes under fair housing law. Just as it’s unlawful to turn people away because of their race, you can’t turn prospects away because they have one or more children living with them. It doesn’t matter whether you—or your current residents—would prefer to be living among adults; it’s unlawful to deny housing to people—or to treat them differently—because there’s a child under the age of 18 in the household. In fact, simply expressing a preference against families with children can lead to a fair housing complaint.

Example: In February 2020, the owners of a California community and its leasing agency agreed to pay $10,000 to resolve allegations that its leasing agent denied a father of two children the opportunity to rent a condominium. In his HUD complaint, the father alleged that he was denied the opportunity to rent the condo because his two young daughters would be living with him part time. According to the father, the leasing agent refused to consider his application for the unit, saying, “I don’t want to waste your time or mine. Sorry.” The housing providers denied that they discriminated against the family.

“Families today face enough challenges without being denied a place to call home because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue working to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation under the Fair Housing Act to treat home seekers with children equally.”

Example: In March 2019, a California rental property owner and his management company agreed to pay $15,000 to resolve a HUD complaint alleging that they refused to rent a unit to a couple because they have three children. The case came to HUD’s attention when Project Sentinel, a HUD Fair Housing Initiatives Program agency, filed a complaint alleging that the family was denied the opportunity to rent a two-bedroom unit because they have children. The housing providers denied that they discriminated against the couple.

“Families shouldn’t have their access to housing denied simply because they have children,” Farías said in a statement. “This type of discrimination has been against the law for more than 30 years, and HUD will continue working to make the public and housing providers aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #2

DO Follow the Rules to Qualify for the Senior Housing Exemption

DON’T Adopt or Enforce Adults-Only Policy

Although fair housing law generally prohibits discrimination based on familial status, there’s a limited exception that applies to senior housing communities that meet strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” Senior communities that comply with these technical requirements are exempt from the general rules that protect families with children. There’s no middle ground—you either meet those requirements or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re likely to trigger a fair housing complaint if you adopt or enforce an “adults-only” policy that prevents families with children from living there.

Example: In January 2019, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced a $10,000 settlement to resolve a fair housing complaint against the owner of a six-unit rental community and the real estate brokerage firm that managed it. Fair housing advocates filed the complaint, alleging that the property was advertised online as an “adult complex” and included a restriction of “maximum 2 adults.” During a follow-up call, the property manager allegedly told a tester that children were not allowed. DFEH found that the complex wasn’t a senior citizen housing development and that there was cause to believe a violation of state fair housing law had occurred. The case was settled prior to formal mediation.

“In California, senior housing developments can, with some exceptions, exclude residents under 55 years of age if they have at least 35 units and meet other requirements,” DFEH Director Kevin Kish said in a statement. “All other rental properties violate the law if they categorically exclude families with minor children.”

Rule #3

DO Apply Same Terms and Conditions Regardless of Familial Status

DON’T Treat Prospects Differently Because They Have Children

Treat prospects consistently, regardless of whether there are children in the household. It’s unlawful to impose different terms and conditions of a tenancy on households based on familial status, so you can’t make the leasing process more cumbersome, or quote higher rental terms, for families with children.

Example: In May 2019, a court refused to dismiss a fair housing case against a Virginia couple who engaged the services of a real estate agency to assist them in leasing their five-bedroom, five-and-a-half bath, 8,500 sq. ft. home. Shortly after it was listed for rent at $3,750 per month, a prospect contacted the realty agent about leasing the home for his multigenerational family. When the agent asked how many people would be living there, the prospect said his family consisted of him and his wife, their five minor children, and his two parents.

A few days later, the agent allegedly told the prospect that the owners “were not interested in renting to a large family.” Later, the owner allegedly told the agent that he was willing to rent to the prospects “if they paid more.” According to the prospect, the agent told him that he could rent the home if he was willing to pay “a few hundred dollars” more since there would be two families living there. The prospect said he told the agent that there would not be two families living there. The home was later rented to a family consisting of a husband, wife, and two children for the advertised rent.

The prospect sued the owners and the agency for discrimination based on familial status under state law. The prospect claimed that the agent’s “tone and communications” made him believe that the landlords feared additional wear and tear on the home because his family included five children and that the couple wasn’t willing to rent them the home, despite the prospect’s willingness to pay the advertised rent, because they were “a large family.” According to the prospect, the owner’s use of terms “additional family” and “two families” were code words to mask their preference to refuse to rent to his family because it included five children under age 18.

The court refused to dismiss the case. The owner alleged that his request for additional rent was related to the presence of the additional adults, not the minor children, in the household, but court ruled that further proceedings were needed to resolve the case [Commonwealth ex rel. Real Estate Board v. Tutt Taylor & Rankin Real Estate LLC., Virginia, May 2019].

Rule #4

DO Be Prepared to Justify Reasonableness of Occupancy Standards

DON’T Apply Unreasonably Restrictive Occupancy Standards

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from maintaining reasonable occupancy policies as long as you apply them consistently. But it’s illegal to set overly restrictive occupancy standards that have the effect of excluding families with children. If a community’s occupancy policy keeps the number of occupants unreasonably low, it’s likely to discourage families with children from living there unless they’re willing to pay for a larger unit.

To ensure your community’s occupancy standards pass muster, the first step is to check applicable state and local laws, which may limit occupancy based on the number of people, square footage, and other factors. In general, federal fair housing law defers to reasonable state and local restrictions on occupancy, so you have to be familiar with those laws before you set or enforce your occupancy standards.

Subject to state and local law, two persons per bedroom is a reasonable occupancy policy under federal fair housing law, according to HUD guidelines issued in 1991 known as the “Keating memo.” Nevertheless, HUD says that’s only a rule of thumb, which may not be reasonable in certain cases because of the size of the bedrooms and of the overall unit, the age of the children, the unit configuration, other physical limitations of the housing, state and local law, and other relevant factors. Among other things, HUD will look at evidence, such as discriminatory statements or rules, which may suggest that the occupancy policy was adopted as a way to restrict children from living there.

Example: In February 2020, HUD approved a settlement between fair housing advocates and a group of California property owners and managers resolving allegations of discrimination based on familial status. Fair housing advocates filed the HUD complaint, alleging that fair housing testing showed that the owners and two property managers refused to rent to families with children or offered them different lease terms and conditions. The advocates also claimed that the owners and managers implemented an unreasonably restrictive two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy at two rental properties. The housing providers denied the allegations.

“Families looking for safe, decent housing shouldn’t be penalized because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Today’s agreement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to ensuring that housing providers meet their obligation to treat all applicants the same.”

To avoid fair housing trouble, you’re better off focusing on the number of people who may occupy units, not the number of children you’d prefer to live there. HUD guidelines state that an occupancy policy that limits the number of children in a unit is less likely to be reasonable than one that limits the number of people per unit.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of a large rental home in Idaho agreed to pay $15,000 to settle allegations that they refused to rent the home to a married couple because they had more than four children. Specifically, the HUD charge alleged that the homeowners discriminated against a family attempting to lease their 2,600 square foot, four-bedroom rental home because they had seven minor children. When the couple met with the property manager about renting the home, he allegedly said that the owners had set a limit of four children for the home. The charge also alleged a policy restricting the number of children was written in the rental contract.

“Persons attempting to provide a home for their family should not have their housing options limited because they have children,” Farías said in a statement. “Today’s action will hopefully serve as a reminder to all housing providers of the importance of meeting their obligations to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #5

DO Be Careful About Applying Occupancy Standards When a Child Joins a Household

DON’T Penalize Residents for Having a Baby

Fair housing rules banning discrimination based on familial status apply not only to families with children under 18, but also to pregnant women and others who have or are in the process of adopting or obtaining custody of a child.

Consequently, it’s unlawful to discriminate against a resident who has a baby, adopts a child, or takes custody of grandchildren. As long as the unit is large enough for the family under applicable state and local occupancy limits, you could face fair housing liability if you evict them, refuse to renew their lease, or insist that they move to a larger unit.

Example: In September 2019, the Justice Department sued the manager and owners of a Missouri apartment complex for discrimination on the basis of familial status. The case began with a HUD complaint filed by a couple, who alleged that the owners and manager terminated their tenancy because of the birth of their second child. At the time, the couple said they and one minor child had been renting their one-bedroom unit at the community for more than a year. The complaint also alleged that the community’s application form, lease agreement, and correspondence with the couple stated an explicit “No children” policy.

Example: In August 2018, HUD charged the owners of a South Dakota community and their property management company with housing discrimination for refusing to let a couple and their newborn baby stay in their one-bedroom apartment because of the community’s occupancy policies. According to the charge, shortly after the new baby arrived, the mother allegedly asked agents of the property management company how long two adults could live in a one-bedroom unit with an infant and was told that they would have to move to a two-bedroom unit. The community claimed that the two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy was required by the city’s occupancy code. But HUD alleged that the city code was more flexible than that by allowing consideration of additional areas beyond bedrooms that may be considered for sleeping and occupancy purposes.

“Occupancy policies that exclude families with children or make it harder for them to obtain housing are unlawful and have no place in today’s often tight housing markets,” said Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Rule #6

DO Tell Prospects About All Units that Fit Their Needs

DON’T Engage in Unlawful Steering Based on Familial Status

Limiting a prospect’s housing choices because they have children under 18 in the household is a fair housing violation, commonly known as “steering.” In general, steering means guiding, directing, or encouraging prospects to live—or not live—at the community or in certain areas within a community based on familial status or other characteristics protected under fair housing law. Among other things, you may not restrict where families may live by making certain units, floors, or buildings off-limits to families with children.

When discussing vacancies with prospects, tell them about all available units that meet their stated requirements. Even if you believe it might be better for the children, you could trigger a discrimination complaint if you don’t tell families with children about available units on upper floors or near water features, such as a pond or pool.

Example: In December 2017, the owners and operators of a New Hampshire community agreed to pay $25,000 to settle fair housing case for discrimination based on familial status. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that a mother of an infant child visited the community to inquire about two-bedroom apartments but was told that the community had a policy of placing families with children under the age of 10 in first-floor units only, and that no first-floor units were available.

Rule #7

DO Adopt Child-Neutral Community Rules

DON’T Allow Rules to Unfairly Target Children

Rules governing residents’ behavior in common areas, such as hallways, parking lots, and outside spaces serve a legitimate purpose: to protect property and ensure safety. But you could trigger a discrimination claim if your rules unreasonably target children or limit their behavior.

As much as possible, avoid adopting rules that specifically target children’s behavior. Rules banning children from playing outside, unduly restricting their access to amenities, or requiring adult supervision of all children under 18 could lead to accusations that you’re treating families with children less favorably than adult households living at the community.

Example: In April 2018, the owner of a 44-unit California community agreed to a $25,000 settlement to resolve claims that the owner’s “house rules” discriminated against families with children. In a complaint filed with state officials, a family alleged that the owner had a number of rules discriminating against children who lived in the complex. According to the family, children were forbidden from using the swimming pool after 6 p.m., even though adults were free to use the pool until 9 p.m. The family also alleged that the rules prohibited children from riding bicycles, using skateboards, or playing with Hot Wheels, wagons, or balls in common areas—rules that were not applied to adults. Allegedly, the family eventually moved out of their unit due to the restrictions on where their child could play.

“DFEH is committed to ensuring that families with children are not discriminated against in housing,” Kevin Kish, Director of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said in a statement. “Discriminatory restrictions on children’s use of common areas are not only against the law, but make it difficult for families with children to find and stay in suitable housing.”

Coach’s Tip: Even if your community’s rules apply to all residents—not just children—you could still face a discrimination claim if you enforce the rule only against children. For example, singling out children for breaking the rules against noisy behavior in common areas—but ignoring similar transgressions by adults—could lead to a fair housing claim based on familial status.

Rule #8

DO Focus Advertising on Property, Not People

DON’T Suggest that Children Aren’t Welcome at Your Community

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to “make, print, or publish…any notice, statement, or advertisement,” that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on familial status and other protected characteristics. This rule applies to not only discriminatory advertising, but also all kinds of statements, including:

• What you say to prospects, applicants, or residents in person or over the phone;
• What you write in notes, text messages, emails, and perhaps even social media, as well as community rules and policies;
• What you put in your advertising and marketing materials—including words and graphics—in print, online, and other media.

Unlike other prohibited practices, liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. The test is whether an “ordinary reader or listener” would interpret the statement as indicating a preference for—or against—families with children. According to HUD guidelines, advertisements may not contain limitations on the number or ages of children, or state a preference for adults, couples, or singles.

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 refused to negotiate with fair housing testers posing as families with children, posted discriminatory advertisements indicating that children weren’t allowed, and made discriminatory statements to fair housing testers.

“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.”

Coach’s Tip: To avoid accusations of discriminatory advertising, focus on descriptions of the property available for rent, not the kind of people who may want to live there.

Rule #9

DO Abide by Legal Obligations Involving Lead-Based Paint

DON’T Deny Housing to Families with Children Due to the Presence of Lead Paint

Although lead-based paint was banned for residential use in 1978, HUD estimates that about 24 million older homes still have significant lead-based paint hazards. Lead-contaminated dust is the primary cause of lead exposure and can lead to a variety of health problems in young children; at higher levels, lead can damage a child’s kidneys and central nervous system and can even be deadly, according to HUD.

While an affected community may be tempted to avoid renting to those most at risk—young children—that practice is banned under fair housing law. Regardless of the presence of lead-based paint, you may neither exclude nor discourage families with young children from living there.

Example: In January 2019, a federal appeals court upheld a $43,500 jury verdict against a Massachusetts community. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that the owner of a four-unit rental property violated federal fair housing law when he refused to rent a unit to a family because they had children under 6 years old and the units had no lead certificate. According to the Justice Department, the jury found that the owner made an apartment unavailable to the family based in substantial part on their familial status and that the owner retaliated against them after they filed their HUD complaint.

Rule #10

DO Review Student Housing Policies Affecting Students with Children

DON’T Risk Fair Housing Trouble in Student Housing Based on Familial Status

Fair housing experts warn that student housing providers are risking fair housing trouble when it comes to housing decisions affecting students with minor children. If you rent to anyone, including students, it’s a violation of fair housing law to refuse to rent to a student with a young child on the same terms and conditions as you would to other applicants.

Example: In March 2020, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced a settlement agreement with the largest third-party property management company in the nation for campus living. NFHA reports that the agreement will open up access to 140,000 beds across 40 states and 77 cities to families with children.

The settlement resolves NFHA’s lawsuit alleging that the company violated fair housing law by discriminating against families with children. The complaint alleged that the company, although marketing itself as student housing, knowingly rented to non-students while enforcing policies that discouraged families with children, even when the parents were students.

NFHA also alleged that the company, which owns or manages hundreds of apartment buildings throughout the country, had a policy that no more than one person could reside in each bedroom. According to the complaint, the policy wouldn’t permit a mother and her 2-year-old child to live in a large one-bedroom apartment under one lease, so the student and her daughter had to sign two leases and pay double the rent.

Example: In September 2019, the Justice Department sued the owners and managers of residential rental housing in Hawaii, alleging that they violated fair housing law by refusing to rent to families with children. The lawsuit claimed that the three properties were operated as student housing for post-secondary students.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the communities discriminated against families with children by: (1) refusing to rent or to negotiate for the rental of the three properties on the basis of familial status; (2) steering prospective renters with children who inquired about housing away from the properties to a separate property management company; and (3) making discouraging and other discriminatory statements to potential renters with children who inquired about housing, including that the housing wasn’t “suitable” or the right “fit” for families with children. The complaint contains allegations of unlawful conduct; the allegations must be proven in federal court.

“Owners and managers of rental housing must ensure their housing is open to families with children,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Fair Housing Act requires it, and the Justice Department will continue both to enforce the Act vigorously and to seek relief for families victimized by unlawful discrimination.”

• ·       Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.

Last week, the Senate Banking Committee passed legislation to clarify that a manufactured housing retailer or seller is not considered a "loan originator" simply because they provide a customer with some assistance in the mortgage loan process.  This is a key tenet of S. 1751, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, which excludes manufactured housing retailers and sellers from the definition of a loan originator so long as they are only receiving compensation for the sale of a home.  

The language was passed as a part of S. 2155, the "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act," which is a package of reforms intended to improve the national financial regulatory framework and promote economic growth. S. 2155 was passed by the Senate Banking Committee by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 7. 

In opening the Committee's consideration of the bill, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Crapo (R-ID) said, "The reforms in this bipartisan bill help tailor the current regulatory landscape, while ensuring safety and soundness and relieving the burden on American businesses that are unfairly being treated like the largest companies in our economy."  

MHI worked closely with Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN), author of the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act (S. 1751) and long-time supporter of manufactured housing, to include this important consumer access provision in the package. The language, included in Section 107 of the package, amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to exclude from the definition of "mortgage originator" an employee of a retailer of manufactured or modular homes who does not receive compensation or gain for taking residential mortgage loan applications while maintaining consumer protections. 

U.S. Senator Joe Donnelly said, "For many hard-working Hoosiers and Americans, manufactured housing provides the most affordable option available when they look to buy a home. I'm pleased the bipartisan regulatory relief legislation that I helped craft and that passed the Senate Banking Committee includes a provision based on my Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. This measure would help prevent federal regulations from getting in the way of financing that families need as they step into homeownership."

The passage of S. 2155 by the Senate Banking Committee affirms MHI's longstanding position that it is inappropriate for a manufactured housing retailer or seller - whose business is to sell homes and who is not receiving any gain or compensation for minimally helping the borrower with the mortgage loan process - to be subjected to compliance requirements and potential liability for areas that are clearly designed to apply only to the actual entity making the mortgage loan. MHI will continue working with its champions as the bill moves through the legislative process.

The inclusion of this language in the Senate's financial regulatory relief package is the result of MHI's persistent efforts to ensure the needed changes contained in the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act are passed into law as soon as possible. In addition to the Senate regulatory reform package, H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured House Act, was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 1.  The language was also passed as a part of the House's financial reform package (H.R. 10) in June. In September, the House also passed the bill's provisions as a part of its Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations package. 

Answer: The tenant application process is one of the least understood by landlords and managers. This lack of familiarity can result in significant liability to park owners. Here is a short primer:

Screening Criteria. The manufactured housing section of Oregon's landlord-tenant law provides that any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser who will live in the community should be disclosed in the existing resident's rental or lease agreement.[1] Although those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal laws, there are no limitations or restrictions as to what criteria may be placed in the rental or lease agreement.

If you are changing your screening criteria for existing residents, you may be in violation of Oregon law, since those criteria are supposed to already be in the rental agreement, which, as you know, cannot be unilaterally amended by a landlord - subject only to specific exceptions.

MHCO's rental and lease agreement forms contain a number of criteria that landlords may impose, such as: (a) prior rental references; (b) unsatisfactory credit history or no credit history; (c) character references; (d) criminal history; (e) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly space rent and other expense obligations imposed by the rental or lease agreement; (f) the presence, number and size of pets; (g) age verification criteria if the park is a 55+ facility; (h) evidence of falsified or misleading material information; (i) refusal to sign a written lease or rental agreement; (j) additional occupants; and (k) adverse public record information.

Note that in 2013, the Oregon Legislature changed the law as it relates to "criminal history." Now, landlords and managers may not summarily reject a prospective tenant for "any" criminal history. Today, it is limited to:

• Pending criminal charges, or
• Prior criminal convictions, if they resulted from crimes that are:
  • Drug-related;
  • Against persons;
  • Sexual in nature;
  • Fraudulent in nature; or
  • That could adversely affect the property, health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of the landlord, landlord's agents, or tenants.

To remind landlords and managers, MHCO will be adding these clarifications to its rental and lease agreement forms. In the meantime, landlords and managers should adhere to the new limitations described above.

Although there may be other criteria that landlords and managers may wish to use when deciding whether to accept an applicant, the above list in the MHCO form is very comprehensive, and should be sufficient in imposing adequate guidelines when a resident wishes to sell their home on site. If you want to make a change by adding additional screening criteria, you may only do so for new residents coming into the community - not retroactively for existing residents.

Landlords and managers should become familiar with the criteria imposed in their rental agreements and rental application forms. Additionally, they should not rely upon the application information submitted to them without a thorough background check providing necessary verification. Although Oregon law imposes a 7-day or 10-day period[2] within which landlords have to respond to a submitted application, it does not prohibit landlords from imposing a longer period so long as the applicant agrees. Additionally, Oregon law expressly states that the 7-day or 10-day period does not commence if the application is incomplete or inaccurate. Accordingly, landlords and managers would be wise to immediately return any submitted application if it is incomplete - and upon discovering that the prospective tenant/purchaser provided inaccurate information, the application should also be returned. Accepting an incomplete application or continuing with the process after discovering that the applicant has provided incorrect information can result in an argument by the existing tenant or the new applicant that the landlord is intentionally delaying the process.

Conclusion. Landlords would have fewer tenant problems if they took more time during the screening process. This means resisting the temptation to fill a space quicker than the approval process actually takes. Unfortunately, the desire to have the rental flow commence quickly can result in the process becoming rushed. Landlords and managers should never allow the applicant to rush them. Nor should they ever permit an applicant to move into a home before the process has been completed and a new rental agreement signed. Lastly, fairness and uniformity in screening will help to avoid the ever-present liability that can occur under the federal and state Fair Housing laws when one applicant claims they were treated differently than another.

[1] Although the law provides that the screening criteria must be in the rental or lease agreement, they may also be found in the rules and regulations. While there is no problem with this, other than redundancy, landlords should be careful to make sure that the criteria are the same. Similarly, the criteria may also be put in the Statement of Policy, but similar caution should be exercised to make them consistent. My approach is however, to avoid the risk of inconsistency by not repeating the same requirements in multiple documents. If one document gets changed and the others don't there will be an inconsistency.

[2] The longer period exists if the tenant failed to give the landlord at least 10-days advance notice of intent to sell his/her home.

Question. We have a problem and I'm looking for guidance as to the proper way to handle it. Our well is going dry. Upon inspection, our well expert said we had only four feet of water. Although the system recovers overnight, there have been numerous occasions when the holding tank (2600 gallon capacity) is below 500 gallons. Fortunately, our pump has a system that prevents it from overheating or working when no water is available.

Our water system serves a community of 29 mobile homes and 41 RV spaces.

I have issued two notices informing residents of the water problem and requesting that they voluntarily conserve water use. Most have complied. Although the park owner is currently working with the local municipality to get our park on city water, this may not happen soon enough to avoid a serious water crisis.

I do not have the background to know what can legally be done to compel users to conserve. Can you point me in the right direction?

Answer. First, I will assume that you have confirmed the well is going dry - as opposed to other problems having to do with the pump.[1]

90.730(2) ("Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition") provides that community landlords have a duty to maintain the rented spaces, vacant spaces, and common areas in a "habitable condition". For purposes of your water supply, 90.730(3)(c) says a space is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks a '_water supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained so as to provide safe drinking water and to be in good working order to the extent that the water supply system can be controlled by the landlord."

My reading of this means that even though your system is failing in terms of providing an adequate supply of water, the spaces for residents owning their homes, are not "unhabitable" so long as it is safe and in good working order to the extent you can control the system.

As to your RV residents, your duties are not defined by the manufactured housing section of the landlord-tenant law, but by the general landlord-tenant law. See, ORS 90.320(1)(c). This statute imposes essentially the same obligation as that is contained in ORS 90.730.

One caveat: Your habitability obligation is subject to the extent you can control the water supply system. While you cannot "control" a failing well, you can explore the feasibility of (a) digging a new well, (b) digging the existing well deeper, or (c) making sure the water problem is not due to problems with the pump.[2] I can't tell from your question whether you've explored those possibilities.

Assuming that you are unable to do either (a) or (b), due to the current condition of the underground aquifers, or financial constraints, and (c) is not the problem, then it appears your only alternative is to continue working with the municipality to bring in city water - and hope a crisis can be avoided.

This brings me to your question, i.e. what can you do to "compel users to conserve"? Under the Oregon landlord-tenant law, I believe your options are limited. You could institute a water conservation regime for those owning their manufactured home through a rule change[3] - assuming not over 51% objected, and assess fines for the scofflaws. For RV tenants, you may institute the change anytime, although I suggest not less than 30-day notice.[4] Of course, enforcing this, would be difficult, since it would turn neighbor vs. neighbor.[5]

On the other hand, the threat of fines, may be sufficient to compel voluntary compliance. Education is the first step, i.e. making sure that everyone is water conscious. This would include providing information to residents about detecting and repairing leaks, and installing water saving devices.

Lastly, you need to prioritize your conservation efforts. Here is what I mean:

• RV tenants who come into the park should be informed of the situation, and told that if they don't conserve, they will be asked to leave with a 30-day notice. Before accepting them as tenants, you could require that they certify they have no leaks, and that they have installed certain water saving devices. In other words, the certification would be required as a condition of occupancy.
• Existing RV tenants already in the park who have been residents less than one year, can also be informed of the need to conserve, or they will be asked to leave with a 30-day notice. They too could be asked to certify they have undertaken the above-referenced conservation efforts.
• Existing RV tenants who have resided in the park over one year, should be informed of the need to conserve, or they will be asked to leave with a 60-day notice. They too could be asked to certify they have undertaken the above-referenced conservation efforts.
• For manufactured home tenants who come into the park, they should be informed of the situation and asked to certify they have no leaks, and that they have installed certain water saving devices.

For existing manufactured home tenants, you can ask, but can't require (short of a rule change) that they conserve, and certify having done so.

If the problem appears to be getting worse and residents leave, you should consider not filling the space - especially owners of manufactured homes - until you can get on city water.

[1] For a discussion of well water problems, see: http://wellwater.engr.oregonstate.edu/well-going-dry.

[2] I'm not an expert in this area of the law, so am limited as to what your viable options are. These issues are better left to your well driller and other experts in the area.

[3] See, ORS 90.610(3) - (7).

[4] The statute, ORS 90.262 allows rule changes "from time to time" which tells me you do not need advance notice. However, if some existing residents believed it worked a substantial modification of their bargain, they could object.

[5] Assessment of a fine should clarify that it is not a "charge" for the use of the extra water, but a "fine" for violation of the rule. The reason is that ORS 90.532(9) states that a landlord may not assess a utility or service charge for water unless the water is provided to the landlord by a: (a) Public utility; (b) Municipal utility; (c) People's utility district; (d) Cooperative; (e) Domestic water supply district; or (f) Water improvement district. Thus, since your water comes from a well, you must avoid the appearance of assessing a "charge" for the excess water use.

House Bill 3054A affects four sections of Oregon’s manufactured housing  laws. Below is a summary of the changes.

ORS 90.324 (Calculation of maximum rent increases). The text in bold print is new:

1.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage allowed for the followingcalendar year:

(a) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600(1)[1] in facilities with more than 30 spaces, assix percent.

(b) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600 (1) in facilities with 30 or fewer spaces or for tenancies subject to ORS 90.323,[2] as the lesser of: (A) Ten percent; or (B) Seven percent plusCPI.

2.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of AdministrativeServices shall publish the maximum annual rent increase percentages allowed under thissection, along with the provisions of ORS 90.323 and 90.600, in a press release.

3. The term “CPI” means the September annual 12-month average change in theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as most recentlypublished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

Comment: This change bifurcates rent caps for MHP month-to-month tenancies into those with more than 30 spaces and those with 30 or fewer spaces. For those with over 30 spaces, the rent cap is six percent (6.00%) and for 30 or less it is the lesser of 10.00% or 7.00% plus CPI.

///

///

///

ORS 90.545 (Fixed term tenancy expiration). The text in bold print is new:

A landlord’s proposed new rental agreement may include new or revised terms, conditions, rulesor regulations, if the new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations:***Are consistent withthe rights and remedies provided to tenants under this chapter, including the right to keep a petpursuant to ORS 90.530 and limits on rent increases under ORS 90.600 (1);

Comment: Prior to HB 3054, , the legislative drafters overlooked leases (i.e., “fixed term tenancies”). The result was that landlords using leases were not limited in their rent formulas (within reason at least) by the same caps as month-to-month tenancies. This new legislation eliminates that oversight, and subjects rental increases in leases to the same rental caps found in month-to-month tenancies.

Since the effective date of this Bill is September 1, 2025, landlords may wish to consider putting their new tenants on fixed term leases before then. This is not to suggest that the rent formulas should be open-ended without limits or guidelines. But a well- drafted rent formula based upon reasonable and objective criteria should survive attack. After all, before the caps, there were never any limits on rent increases (other than the existing good faith provision under ORS 90.130.)

ORS 90.600 (Increases in rent). The text in bold print is new:

A rent increase is not subject to [the rent cap for month-to-month tenancies] if:

***[It] is:

(A) For a facility with more than 30 spaces;

(B) Not greater than 12 percent;

(C) In lieu of and not in addition to a rent increase allowed within the 12-month period asdescribed [above];

(D) Occurring at least five years following a previous rent increase authorized under this paragraph, if any;

(E) Related to a significant project to add, replace, repair or upgrade infrastructure for thefacility;

(F) Approved by a written affirmative vote of 51 percent of the spaces in the facility that areoccupied by tenants on a vote that contains the signature and identifies the space of the voter;

(G) Approved by votes ***that are collected:

(i) At least 30 days after the landlord has provided in writing to each tenant the proposedinfrastructure project, a documented estimate of the cost of the project, an estimated timeline for the start and completion date for the project and the estimate of the rentincrease necessary to cover the cost of the improvement; and

(ii) At least 14 days after the landlord has met with the tenants to discuss the proposal; and

(H) Fully refunded to tenants by the landlord, without demand, less the maximumallowable rent increase under ORS 90.324, if the project is not substantially completed asdescribed [above] in the notice [described above] within 12 months of the estimatedcompletion date in the notice.

(4) A landlord that increases rent in violation of [this subsection] *** shall be liable to the tenant inan amount equal to three months’ rent plus actual damages suffered by the tenant.

Comment:  The purpose of this new text is self-explanatory. It provides an exception to the rent increase statute for communities with over 30 spaces to recover the cost of adding, replacing, repairing or upgrading park infrastructure.

ORS 90.680 (Sale of home on rental space). The text in bold print is new:

A landlord may not require that a selling tenant, prospective purchaser or purchaser consentto the inspection of the interior of the dwelling or home or obtain an inspection of theinterior of the dwelling or home by a third party, including as a condition of:

(a) Acceptance of the [required] notice of sale under subsection (8)(a) of this section;

(b) Approval of a sale under this section; or

(c) Approval of a new tenancy by the purchaser.

Comment: Not having been present during the negotiations of this Bill, I cannot explain its rationale. I will attempt to find out more. But since I participated in the (now discontinued)  landlord-tenant coalitions, I cannot resist the following observation: ORS 90.740(4)(c) imposes upon tenants the duty to “Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire.” (Emphasis added.) This is a required tenant duty to the landlord. So today when the home sells, if the owner had made dangerous non-code wiring alterations to its interior, those risks can be discovered by a required inspection upon transfer. Then the tenant and prospective purchaser can reach agreement upon bringing the wiring up to code and averting electrical fires.

It is for that reason that the current MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements provides that as a condition of landlord’s consent, the homeowner/seller must provide

“…a copy of a current written inspection report from an Oregon-certified and licensed Home inspector, verifying that as of the date of the inspection: (a) the Home, including, but not limited to all heating, cooling, and electrical systems and all appliances located therein, are safe from the hazards of fire; (b) the Home has one or more smoke alarms approved under applicable law, and, where applicable, one or more carbon monoxide alarms****The cost of this inspection shall be the responsibility of the TENANT, but may be negotiated with the prospective purchaser as part of the sale transaction.”

By prohibiting professional inspections upon resale, it would seem HB 3054 creates the risk that dangerous conditions such as defective wiring and resulting fire hazards will be perpetuated. Fire endangers not just the new purchaser but the entire community.

Going forward, landlords may wish to consider including an inspection advisory to all prospective purchasers emphasizing the importance of home inspections prior to closing a sale. While this cannot make inspections a condition of landlord’s consent to the sale, it can certainly encourage the practice.

The above information is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. MHCO Members should consult with their own attorney if they have any questions or concerns on the above legislation.

[1]  ORS 90.600(1) applies to tenancies that are governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

[2]  ORS 90.323 applies to tenancies that are not governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

Although not a true capital expenditure; computer hardware, software and peripherals do not last forever. Deciding when is the right time to replace them or upgrade is always a difficult decision. Will upgrading increase productivity? A new system can affect productivity in positive ways. In today's business environment many users have more applications open at one time and a new system with increased speed will have a positive effect on managing the time spent moving between applications. One of the obvious reasons to upgrade is your operating system is probably running Windows XP which was released to the market in 2001 and support for this system is no longer available. So not upgrading isn't even an option, it's a cost of doing business today. Advances in computers and software dictate that every few years you are going to need to make some upgrades. If you are eight years behind, this becomes a more formidable task and a larger learning curve. It's far better to continually upgrade your systems. The expense will be the same in the long run, but the result is that you will be more productive and ease into incremental training. These are all things to consider when determining a budget for your reserve account.

There are several capital improvements that can increase the value of your MHC. Filling vacant manufactured home sites is one. A vacant home site is costing you money to keep the lawn mown, the weeds removed and lot to be cleaned, not to mention the loss of revenue. It also can cause your residents angst having an unsightly empty lot next door. Putting together a strategic plan for filling your vacancies is proactive and critical. Be creative. For example, consider looking at a vacant single wide site that may be able to fit a double wide home by setting the home back and installing a front load driveway. Another is submetering water, sewer and passing through the garbage service expense. By installing water meters at each manufactured home and billing the resident's back for water, sewer and passing through the garbage you are in effect increasing your bottom line. This is one of the most equitable ways to pass on expenses to the residents as they only pay for what they use. Commonwealth can discuss with you how to install submeters with zero investment from you, the owner. Other ideas to add value is to increase curb appeal in your community and install new and attractive signs at the entrances. Maintain adequate energy efficient lighting to save on your electric bills while also promoting safety in the community. If you have vacant land, consider developing more MH sites, RV storage or storage units. All of these are things to consider when you're reinvesting into your community.

Tom Petitt
Vice President

Article provided by Tom Petitt, Vice President for Commonwealth. Tom joined Commonwealth Real Estate Services in July, 2012 and will oversee the Oregon Property Management Division and work closely with all other aspects of our company helping us further develop and grow our existing business as well as managing a portfolio of properties. Tom attended Western Oregon State University where he majored in Business and Marketing, he has over 15 years' experience in the manufactured housing industry working in property management, retail sales management, operations, and property development. Tom is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Oregon. In his spare time Tom enjoys spending time with his family, coaching youth sports in his local community, and volunteering for special events and organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. Also Tom is actively involved in multiple committees at Commonwealth Real Estate Services. Learn more about Tom and the rest of the Commonwealth team here!

Answer: I think the first order of business would be to research the different types of security cameras, and their range of use. You need to know what features they all have.

I do not know what you mean when you say that you "have always told the residents that we do not provide security... ." It's one thing to remind residents of their own responsibility to protect their property, and another to have posted signage saying so. You should develop a written policy, circulate it and post it.

Also, you don't say whether you have a separate storage charge for use of the RV storage lot. Nor do you say whether access is limited, e.g. through a gate. Generally, when one (e.g. a landlord) provides separate storage facilities, you can expect some degree of liability to attach unless access is controlled, e.g. by a security fence.

My initial reaction to the idea of security cameras is generally good, subject to the following caveats:

- If it is not monitored, tenants should know that, so they do not have unrealistic expectations of the system's efficacy.

- Make sure that the system is visible with warning signs; I would expect that most security camera companies provide such signage.

- Make sure the tenants understand the limitations of the surveillance; I would want to have written disclaimers to all residents that they store their RVs at their own risk.

- I would even have a short written and signed agreement of understanding with tenants before allowing them to use the facilities.

This area of the law is known as "bailments", i.e. when someone provides storage of personal property to another. Think of places where you can check your hat or coat. Even the little ticket they give you has visible disclaimers. And even thought the bailment is free, it can create liability for the bailee (the one storing the property) unless adequate precautions are taken, and there is - or is not - a written disclaimer that is given to the bailor (the one delivering the property).

Lastly, consider this; you are now on notice that thefts can occur from the storage area, even with good lighting. Perhaps you might consider installing additional surveillance not only around the storage area, but elsewhere in the park (with appropriate signage) as well. Residents should be vigilant and notify management if they see suspicious activity or strangers.

Answer: I assume you are referring to a sale where you carry back the security obligation (as opposed to the buyer paying cash or securing third party financing). In this respect, you are correct, subject to several limitations. MHCO worked extensively with the Oregon Department of Finance and Corporate Securities ("DFCS") and others to develop an exemption to the Oregon law that would permit park owners to engage in the sale of formerly abandoned homes to purchasers for the purpose of a primary residence without having to use a broker (referred to as a "Mortgage Loan Originator" or "MLO" under the new law). Here is a summary of the new exemption law which will be found in ORS 86A.203. - Here are the rules for those licensed as a manufactured structure dealer under ORS 446.691. _ They may offer or negotiate the terms of the loan three or fewer times in a 12 month period; _ They must use a written sale agreement that complies with certain requirements, or with DFCS rules . _ The dealer may not hold more than eight residential mortgage loans without securing a MLO license under ORS 86A.203(1). [Presumably, this means "at one time."] - Here are the rules for those licensed as a limited manufactured structure dealer under ORS 446.706. _ They may offer or negotiate terms of the loan five or fewer times in a 12 month period: _ They must have an ownership interest in a manufactured dwelling park; _ They must use a written sale agreement that complies with certain requirements, or with DFCS rules. _ They may not hold more than twelve residential mortgage loans without securing a MLO license under ORS 86A.203(1). [Presumably, this means "at one time."] But here's the rest of the story: Just because you are exempted from the MLO licensing requirements for a limited number of sales, does not mean that you are free from the tentacles of the Dodd-Frank Act. No, indeed. In fact, there are two new rules that still will apply. 1. Ability-to-Repay ("ATR") Rules. A creditor is prohibited from making a residential loan (this includes your sale of the formerly abandoned home) unless it first makes '_a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for "qualified mortgages." [See CFPB Summary, here.] In complying with the ATR rules, you must consider and verify the following borrower information: a) Current or reasonably expected income or assets [other than the value of the home that secures the loan]; b) Current employment status; c) Monthly payment on the mortgage loan; d) Monthly payment on any simultaneous mortgage loan that the creditor knows or has reason to know will be made; e) Monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations [e.g., insurance, taxes, assessments]; f) Current debt obligations; g) Monthly debt-to-income ratio, or residual income; and h) Credit history. In making the loan you will be required to calculate the mortgage loan payment based on: - The fully indexed rate or any introductory interest rate (whichever is greater); and - Substantially equal monthly installment that will fully amortize the loan amount over the loan term. At first blush, perhaps these requirements don't seem so burdensome, since one would think any smart lender would follow these protocols anyway. But remember, back in the easy money days, lenders were not keeping most of their loans on their own books; instead, the loans were "securitized", i.e. bundled and sold as securities to investors all over the world. This meant that circa 2004 - 2008, the originating banks that funded these residential loans were quickly repaid by investors and were never going to have to deal with them if and when they failed. Hence, bank underwriting was virtually nonexistent back then - except, of course, for those loans the banks were going to keep on their own books (sometimes referred to as "portfolio loans"). 2. Qualified Mortgages. The Dodd-Frank Act has established a term, "Qualified Mortgage," or "QM," that provides a safe harbor for lenders. That is, if the loan is a QM, there is a legal presumption that the lender complied with the ATR underwriting rules, and therefore the penalties for non-compliance are either eliminated or substantially reduced, as discussed below. If a presumption is "conclusive," no amount of evidence to the contrary will defeat it. But if a presumption is "rebuttable," the party opposing the presumption has an opportunity to rebut it by introducing evidence to the contrary. For a mortgage to be a "Qualified Mortgage," it must meet the following requirements: - All of the "Non-Traditional" Loan Features Must be Removed - This refers to features that we saw in the past, e.g. negative amortization, interest-only payments, and certain balloon payments.[5] - The loan may not exceed 30 years. - If the loan is for $100,000 or more, it cannot have points or fees greater than 3% of the total loan amount. There are different and stricter limits for smaller loans. Certain "bona fide discount points" for prime loans are not included in these limits. - There is an Income Verification and Monthly Debt-to-Income Ratio Cap; The borrower's total monthly debt-to-income ratio (i.e. all housing and non-housing expenses, such as food, automobile, child care, etc.) can be no greater than 43%. - Monthly payments must be based on the highest payment that will apply during the first five years of the loan. The presumptions afforded to lenders making QM loans gives lender protection as follows: - Safe Harbor QM loans - Conclusive Presumption. These are prime loans that (a) Meet the ATR compliance rules including the underwriting requirements above; (b) Are secured by a first lien on the residence; and (c) Carry an interest rate that is less than 1.5% higher than the average prime rate available.[7] The presumption of ATR compliance is conclusive. It is a complete safe harbor. - Higher-Priced QM Loans - Rebuttable Presumption. Here, the presumption of ATR compliance is rebuttable. These loans include first-position liens with an interest rate of equal to or greater than 1.5% over the available prime rate. Essentially, these loans are "higher priced" because the borrowers' credit is less than prime, i.e. the loan is, in the vernacular, "sub-prime." Noncompliance with the ATR Rules. Violations of the ATR rules are harsh, and likely to stifle any types of loans that hint of non-compliance. If a material violation is established, the borrower would have the ability to recover back all of the finance charges and fees paid, plus actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiff's bar and the class action bar must be sharpening their knives. There is a three year statute of limitations from the date the violation occurred. Conclusion. I marvel at the complexity of these laws which have been implemented to "protect" consumers by confusing creditors - especially small creditors, such as park owners selling formerly abandoned homes to fill a space and provide affordable housing. If these small transactions caused the credit and housing crisis of 2008 and the ensuing Great Recession, perhaps I could understand. But they didn'. What we're are seeing is a huge net of bureaucratic regulation that has been cast over even the smallest of transactions under the guise of consumer protection. Going forward into 2014, my suggestion is for park owners to decide if: (a) They want to handle these transactions without the use of a MLO (which will add several hundred dollars to each sale) or (b) Go it alone, with knowledge that they will still be expected to comply with the ATR and QM rules. If the latter, my suggestion is to create the simplest of paper transactions, with a market rate interest, no adjustable rates, and a balloon that is not less than five years.

Answer: This may be a habitability issue which you will have to address. Here is what the statute says about the landlord's habitability duties in a manufactured housing park:

90.730 (Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition.) provides:

(2) A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition. The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home. A landlord's habitability duty under this section includes only the matters described in subsections (3) to (5) of this section.

(3) For purposes of this section, a rented space is considered uninhabitable if it substantially lacks:

(e) At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;" (Underscore mine.)

This would seem to suggest that from a habitability standpoint, as long as the space was in good shape at the commencement of the tenancy, you no longer have any further duty to the resident. I think that conclusion would be a mistake.

Here, the condition of the space has deteriorated due to the proximity of the stream. Inasmuch as you own the ground, and the ground is failing, I would suggest that relocating the home is your responsibility. Alternatively, if the stream is on a part of the park property, you may want to explore stabilizing the lateral support of the side of the stream.

Look at it this way: If you do nothing, and the subsidence continues to the point of damaging the tenant's home, he or she will have a damage claim against the park. If you relocate the home or properly fix the stream bank, further risk of damage is greatly reduced if not eliminated.

If you do pay to relocate the home, make sure that you have a professional address the issue of any further erosion from the stream. You don't want to have to address this problem again a few years down the road.