Search

Vicki Coons is with Complete Mobile Home Sales and generously agreed to share this article with MHCO Members.  Her contact information is listed below.  MHCO is always excited to showcase an MHCO Associate Member.

At some point, you'll feel ready to settle down and start a family. Though it's an exciting new chapter in your life, you have to consider a lot of things first, from career plans to personal goals. You also have to take into account adjusting to the married life and eventually becoming a parent.

One of the most important preparations you have to think about is where to live. You want a decent place to raise your family - somewhere that you can truly call your home. Many young households today don't have a clear idea of where to settle down. Usually, they'd go for anything that's not pricey or isolated.

Manufactured houses are great options for young families. For the past few years, mobile homes have gained widespread popularity. From one end of the country to the other, you can find communities of pre-fabricated homes, particularly in places like Oregon.

If you are thinking about settling down or looking for a quality property to move into, take a look at the following to know why manufactured homes in Oregon are a great choice:

Pre-fabricated homes are affordable

Compared to brand new modern homes, manufactured housing is an affordable alternative for young families. You get more value for your investment. From the actual construction of the structure to maintenance and upgrades, the cost is significantly less than what you'd spend on a stick-built house. For a starting household, this is a great selling point.

Mobile homes are all about quality living

Affordability doesn't equate to inferior living standards. In fact, families are better off with mobile homes because they offer just the solutions they need. With the number of options available, they can choose the house that suits their situation. Mobiles homes in Oregon, for instance, vary in design and function. From elaborate floor plans to simple yet elegant house design, you can certainly find one that matches your preferences.

Green Living

Another less obvious yet equally striking benefit of mobile homes is green living. Builders don't waste a lot of materials during construction because they have complete control over the quality. The materials themselves are made of sustainable, eco-friendly components. As they are built with having a minimal impact to the environment in mind, in a way, you are giving back to nature. Residing in a mobile home can kick start your family's green living.

You belong to a community

No place is better for raising a family than in the safety of a community. Many mobile homes are located in communities and RV parks. Our listed manufactured homes in Oregon, for instance, are located in some of the prime spots in the country.

More financing options

There are also more financing options available for mobile homes. Here at Complete Mobile Homes, we work closely with local and national lending institutions. You can easily get the financing resource you need, so you can finally move into your manufactured house. You may consult with our team of manufactured home professionals to know more about your financing options.

Starting a family is a major decision, so is choosing a place to live. With all the benefits of living in a manufactured home in Oregon, deciding is now much easier to do. If you want the best for your family, a mobile home is for you.

Vicki A. Coons 

4741 Hillcrest Rd

Medford, OR 97504

Phone: 541-951-6953

Fax: 541-772-3938

Email: vickicoons9@gmail.com

Website: www.complete-mobilehomes.com

Answers to Questions Nos. 1 and 2. Under the Fair Housing Act ("the Act") landlords are required to make reasonable accommodations to the rented facilities and common areas, if so requested by a handicapped tenant or their legal occupant. This law applies to the use of assistance animals.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a reasonable change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice or service that will enable a handicapped person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rented facilities and common areas. There must be an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the person's disability. Landlords are not required to make requested accommodations if doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon them or fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's operations. In order to address the request, Landlords are entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate it for a reasonable accommodation. With respect to a person, a "handicap" means: (a) one with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) one with a record of such impairment; or (c) one who is regarded as having such an impairment. Juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances and those with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to others, or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, are generally not protected under the Act. If the landlord refuses a requested accommodation, the requester is encouraged to have a discussion with the landlord concerning an alternative accommodation. This is a summary only and not intended to constitute legal advice. For more information, landlords, tenants and legal occupants of tenants are encouraged to consult with their attorney or a Fair Housing expert if they have any questions regarding their rights and responsibilities.

Note: MHCO has Form No. 15 which permits residents to make reasonable accommodation requests.

I think my first step (which may have already occurred prior to the rule changes, is determine the extent of the problem for emergency vehicles along the narrow streets. Does a single car slow or restrict access to emergency vehicles? In short, how problematic is it for a single car to be parked along the street? Does it create any danger to the community, its drivers, or the emergency vehicles? Once you have that baseline, you will have a sense about the safety of making a reasonable accommodation by permitted on-street parking.

Secondly, if I were to permit anyone to park on the street (assuming the safety issue is properly vetted), I think I would insist that they have a handicapped parking permit. That way, anyone parking on the street without a permit would be easier to spot. (Although you should consider whether the permit is expired or being abused, or in the name of the car's owner.)

The handicapped caretaker is not your direct responsibility - she was hired by your resident. I do not believe convenience is the litmus test here - it's whether the rule prevents her from performing her tasks, and coming and going to the site. I think the biggest problem, and one you've not mentioned but certainly are thinking, is this could become a slippery slope. The more cars you permit to park on the street, the more others will try the same thing. At this point, I believe I'd take the position that if the parking area can accommodate two cars, then that's where they should park - even if it means shuffling them around, handicapped or not.

I do not believe handicapped caretaker has standing to request a reasonable accommodation, since he/she is not a tenant or occupant of the home. But I have not research this issue; you should verify this with your own attorney.

As for the non-handicapped caretaker, a little walk to and from the guest parking is not the end of the world. "Convenience" for a non-handicapped person is not a basis for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, Fair Housing law, or common sense.

Answer. Before addressing your question directly, it is important to understand what state and federal law say about 55+ communities. Besides several qualifying requirements, a legally established 55+ community must have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units.

This 80/20 rule is critical. Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification. Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children? The answer is "No." In fact, a 55+ community may strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over. Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older? Again, the answer is "No."

If desired, a community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years. Similarly, a community may impose a more restrictive minimum age requirement than 55. In order to maintain this exemption from the Fair Housing laws which prohibit discrimination against families with children, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements are properly reflected in the community's Rules and the Statement of Policy - and be consistently applied.

So, technically, assuming that your community demographic is well above the 80% floor, there is nothing per se' illegal with the situation you describe.[1] Say, for example, the resident was not ill, but wanted her sister and child to live in the home with her, you could - but are not required - to grant permission. Under those circumstances, if the resident subsequently became ill and was hospitalized, thus leaving the sister and her child in the home on a temporary basis, I view that as an acceptable situation, and not a violation of the law. Even though the resident is not "occupying" the home while she is in the hospital, she is the lawful occupant, and would return to that home upon her recovery.

There is, metaphorically speaking, another 80/20 rule: ORS Chapter 90 is, like most laws, 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. Your situation raises issues that while not technically addressed under the law, it is close enough, and one rather simple to justify.

• It is not a violation of the state and federal law;
• It does not endanger the health, safety or welfare of others in the community; and
• Despite some grumbling from a few residents, permitting them to stay on a temporary basis is the right thing to do, even though it may not fall directly under the temporary occupant statute. (ORS 90.275)

However, in order to avoid setting some sort of "precedent" and perhaps to quell a few complaints, you should consider having a written agreement with the sister, saying something to the effect that she and her daughter are permitted to live at the home, with the understanding that she is doing so on a temporary basis and with the knowledge and consent of the hospitalized resident; that she will abide by the community rules; and that the rent will continue to be paid on time.

You should, of course, continue to monitor the situation, making sure the agreement is being honored, and that there are periodic updates on the health of the resident. If it begins to appear that the resident may not be coming back to the space, you will have to address a sale of the home to another qualifying resident.

[1] Your question did not address whether there is a second-person age requirement. But even if there was, and the 5-year old was in violation, my answer would be the same, i.e. this is more of a charitable response to a difficult situation. And since you are the landlord - with the power to enforce violations - you can, under these circumstances, choose not to enforce the technical violation of the second-person age limit.

Answer:  This is a very broad question, which is why the answer will have to be general. What follows are some of the major issues that occur. In all cases, the best protection for Management is to make sure these issues are addressed either in the Rental Agreement or the Rules – and then make sure they are enforced in a timely manner.

What Does the Rental  Agreement Say?  The MHCO Rental Agreement provides that a tenant may not “erect additional structures (attached or detached), including but not limited to fencing, steps, or decks, to the exterior of the Home or anywhere upon the Space (hereinafter “Construction”) without LANDLORD’S prior written approval.”

This imposes a duty on management to be vigilant. If an unpermitted fence goes up and is allowed to remain without oversight, it could result in waiver issues for the landlord.

Management must be proactive and require that any recently unpermitted fences be vetted in accordance with Section 7 of the MHCO Rental Agreement (Improvement to Rental Space or Home).  They should either be made to conform to all applicable laws and codes or removed.

Preexisting Fences/Structures. Again, vigilance is the watchword. Before permitting an owner to sell their home, landlord should make sure that there are no structures out of conformance with all codes and laws. This can be reasonably easy to do, especially if it is covered in the Park Rules dealing with obtaining landlords consent to sell. Using ORS 90.632 (Termination/Deterioration of Home) unfortunately, does not directly apply because it pertains only to homes.

However, landlords can craft a rule change that would accomplish the same result for all fences or other structures on the space which were either installed by the tenant or existed at the time of purchase of the home. Like ORS 90.632, the notice could be made transferable and imposed upon the new tenant/buyer if he/she agrees. This would then be  something the existing homeowner could negotiate with the new buyer as a part of the sale. In this manner noncompliant fences, etc. can be corrected.

What About Pre-existing Fences at Time of Park Purchase?  In my opinion, this is a due diligence item for Park purchasers to attend to. Unfortunately, I have seen many instances of where it is not done; thus the problem gets ignored until something occurs, such as an argument between tenants as to who has the duty to maintain.  Is the fence even located where it should be? Upon park purchase, landlords should consider vetting the issue between the tenants who border the fence.  Who maintains? What do the Rules say?

Going forward, this is a significant issue for landlords to consider when amending their rules. In a perfect world, the new rule should address maintenance responsibility. The easiest solution is a shared liability between bordering tenants – assuming that the fence was there when all tenants purchased their homes. If one tenant unilaterally installed a fence (benefiting both adjoining tenants) the issue becomes whether the tenant who did not construct or ask for the fence should have to pay. (Note to Landlord: This is what happens when the new fence construction is ignored and allowed to remain without resolving the issue at or before construction.)

This might be something that mandatory mediation under ORS 90.767 could address.

Park Installed Fences. Clearly, these are the landlord’s duty to maintain, even if they were installed before Park purchase. One issue, however, is that Park purchasers should make sure the preexisting fences are on or near the correct boundary lines. Tip: The older the fence, the greater the likelihood it needs to be surveyed as a condition of purchase.

Tree Damage to Fences. Tenants are, by statute, required to maintain and water trees, includingcleanup and removal of fallen branches and leaves, on the rented space - except for hazard trees. “Maintaining a  tree” means removing or  trimming a  tree  for  the  purpose  of eliminatingfeatures of the  tree  that  cause the  tree  to  be hazardous, or  that  may  cause  the  tree tobecome hazardous in  the  near  future. “Removing a tree”  includes felling it, removing it, and  grinding or removing the stump of the tree.

But for damage to fences, ultimately the issue goes back to whose fence it is and who has maintenance and repair duties. This may not be addressed in the rental agreement or rules. But it could be by a rule change.

The Take-Away. As a rule of thumb, the landlord is in the best position to deal with these issues proactively. This can be done by a good rental agreement such as the MHCO form, plus implementing rules to address fences. Oregon law permits amending the rules even if they alter the bargain at the inception of the tenant’s tenancy. (Check with your lawyer first!)

But the bottom line is that in the event a fence has been allowed to remain between tenants’ spaces with no landlord involvement, the damaged fence should be repaired. If the tenants cannot or will not agree, it will likely become management’s responsibility, because it could have been addressed originally, but was  not.

We are now well into the second half of the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session.   There finally is some good news - most of the bad legislative proposals that MHCO has been tracking have been defeated.  There are four remaining bills - two that MHCO supports and two that MHCO opposes that are still in play at this point in the legislative session.  The two bills supported by MHCO are the result of significant work and represent compromises that the MHCO worked on in order to keep more detrimental legislation from moving forward.  In a perfect world where the the legislative process is more business friendly these compormises would not have been necessary.  Sadly, that is not the legislative environment we are currently dealing with this session.

HB 2008 - this lengthy bill originally proposed everything MHCO has been fighting against over the past twenty years - from 'enforcement' to 'rent justification' and much longer timelines notifying residents when the community is to be sold.  All of HB 2008 was deleted and replaced with an amendment that addressed three items:

1. Increase park closure reimbursements form $5000/$7000/$9000 to $6000/$8000/$10000 for single/double/triple when a community is CLOSED.  Also eliminated a proposal that the community owner pay up to $20,000 in relocation costs per home when the community closes.
2. Addresses cooperatives (communities owned by residents).   Owner (resident in a cooperative) is not required to remove the home if the cooperative agrees with the owner to waive or extend the deadline by which the buyer or subsequent buyer must remove the home or store the home in the space for a specific period of time.  This only applies to homes in communities owned by the residents.
3. Upon sale of a manufactured home community the following information will be provided to residents:
   1. The number of vacant spaces and homes in the      community
   2. The final sale price of the community
   3. The date the conveyance became final

HB 2008 passed out of the House Committee on Human Services and Housing on Tuesday, April 18th with a vote 7-2 in favor.

SB 277 - This bill is the landlord-tenant coalition bill that was negotiated over several months by landlord and resident organizations.  This is the result of the controversies this past summer over disrepair and deterioration issues in communities that had received extensive media coverage.  The proposal increases the time residents have to make improvements from 30 to 60 days.

 The legislative proposal also clarifies disrepair and deterioration and addresses aesthetic" issues which are different from "deterioration" and "disrepair."  For example

Answer: In a word - No. Or, to be more precise, as discussed below, if you do not renew the lease, it will automatically become a month-to-month tenancy on the same terms as the lease. In other words, your non-renewal will not result in forcing the tenant to vacate the space.

When this law was first being discussed, this issue was addressed. Prior to enactment, there was an open question whether fixed term tenancies [i.e. leases - those with definite start and ending dates] were even legal. From the tenants' perspective, under the manufactured housing landlord-tenant laws, since a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy "without cause," a lease that expires without renewal is the same thing i.e. termination without cause. Accordingly, ORS 90.545 was enacted, which provided protections to tenants against the possibility of unilateral nonrenewal.

Is this unfair to a landlord, such as yourself, when an applicant is approved, ostensibly based upon a satisfactory application, who then becomes the "Tenant From Hell?" Some would say that the landlord's best protection is at the front end of the business relationship, since he/she is given a full and complete opportunity to set out all screening criteria and performing a thorough vetting of the applicant's financial, rental, and criminal background. But once the landlord approves the applicant - presumably because he/she passed the vetting process - they have the right to remain at the space, so long as they don't commit certain material violations, such as nonpayment of rent, breach the rules, rental agreement, state law, or commit certain actions outrageous in the extreme.

Here is how the fixed term tenancy law, found at ORS 90.545 and 90.550, works:

• At least 60 days prior to the ending date of the lease term the landlord must provide to the tenant a proposed new lease, together with a written statement that summarizes any new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations.
• The new rental agreement may include new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations, if:
• They fairly implement a statute or ordinance adopted after the creation of the pre-existing lease; or
• They are the same as those offered to new or prospective tenants at the time the new proposed lease is submitted to the tenant and for the preceding six-months prior to submission period;
• If there have been no new or prospective tenants during the six-month period, the new lease terms must be same as are customary for the rental market; and
• They are consistent with the rights and remedies provided to tenants under ORS Chapter 90; and
• Do not relate to the age, size, style, construction material or year of construction of the manufactured dwelling [or floating home] contrary to ORS 90.632 (2) (Footnote 1); and
• Do not require an alteration of the manufactured dwelling [or floating home] or alteration or new construction of an accessory building or structure.
• The tenant may accept or reject a landlord's proposed new rental agreement at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.
• Note that if a landlord fails to submit a proposed new rental agreement as allowed, the tenancy renews as a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms as the prior lease, except that the landlord has the right to increase the rent unilaterally, pursuant to ORS 90.600.
• If the tenant fails to accept or unreasonably rejects a landlord's proposed new rental agreement, the fixed term tenancy terminates on the ending date without further notice and the landlord may take possession through the eviction process, assuming the tenant does not vacate the space and remove the home.
• However, if the tenant surrenders possession of the space prior to the filing an eviction, he/she has the right to enter into a written storage agreement with the landlord, and then has the same rights and responsibilities of a lienholder during an abandonment, i.e. pay storage fees, maintain the space, and sell the home within six months [rather than 12 for lienholders]. See, ORS 90.675 (19).

Conclusion. My suggestion is that if your tenant is continually causing problems, paper your file thoroughly, showing the efforts you've made to work with that person. If there are complaints from other residents, document them. Eventually, the tenant will slip up - doing something that gives you the basis for an eviction. If he is a chronic late payer, consider using the three strikes law, found in ORS 90.630(8). Then find a good landlord attorney and discuss the best method to evict the tenant. You will then be armed with good evidence for the judge or jury to show that you walked the extra mile with this person, but they simply refused to cooperate. And remember that although there are restrictions on the contents of the new lease you offer, it may contain provisions that will give you a better foundation for the eviction. Good luck!

Footnote 1: This specific protection was important to the tenant lobby, since until it was enacted, there was an open question as to whether landlords could impose as a condition upon accepting an applicant who was purchasing an older home, that it must be removed upon subsequent resale. In addition, ORS 90.632 was enacted which permits landlords to expressly require that homes be repaired due to damage or deterioration.

Why Submeter?

One of the largest expenses for a mobile home park is utilities. It is also an expense item that continues to increase over time. There are three major reasons for this:

- Rate Increases - The cost of energy (gas and electric) production and acquiring clean water has outpaced inflation for the past decade.

- Increases in Occupancy - Due to the economic environment more people are living with extended families. Higher occupancy leads to higher utility usage.

- Wasteful Usage - Residents are often less conservative with their utility usage when they are not aware of their individual consumption or do not have an incentive to save.

Studies have shown that once residents become aware of their utility usage, the total consumption will go down, on average around 22%. According to a 2007 Santa Clara Water District study, Water Submetering in Mobile Home Parks, "Tenants who are individually metered can benefit by being able to monitor and control their water use - with submetering, they only pay for what they use, not what others use . . . the four mobile home parks examined shows an annual water savings of from 15 to 30%."

Submetering makes economic sense for both the association and the residents. The water, gas and/or electric can be billed back to the residents thus reducing the overall association's expenses. Without submetering, associations and property owners may be forced to pass the increased expenses evenly to all residents. This would unfairly increase costs for residents who are already conscious of their utility usage. The residents will benefit because they are now in control of their utility expenses.

Submeters and Automatic Meter Reading Systems (AMR)

There are many types of submeters that will accommodate any mobile home. In areas where water pipes can freeze, you need to take measures to prevent the meters from freezing. For these applications there are meters with freeze plates or heat tape with insulation jackets. There are also a variety of gas and electric meters suitable for any environment. Submeters were once read by a "meter reader" who came to the property once a month to read the meters either manually or with a variety of handheld devices. This outdated way of reading meters only provided the meter readings once a month, so if there were a leak on the property or a running toilet, hundreds of gallons of water would have already been wasted before the resident received their next bill. The current way of reading submeters is through an Automatic Meter Reading System or (AMR). AMR's have a small transmitter connected to each meter that sends the meter reads wirelessly to a data collector located on the property. The meter readings can then be downloaded daily and used to notify a property manager or resident if there is a sudden or steady increase in water usage. The devices can pinpoint the exact meter and time the increased usage started so the leak can be resolved within days, not months. Many submetering and billing companies can provide a web-based system with daily meter reads with their services.

How does it Work?

It is best to select a reputable submetering and billing company in the beginning to ensure you are getting the appropriate meters and AMR system for your property. These companies will typically handle all of the details, from the design and installation to the resident billing so you can start saving immediately. Following are some typical steps for a new installation:

1. A complete property analysis is completed to determine the best submetering products for the desired application.

2. Notices are issued to inform residents of the new submetering system.

3. Equipment is ordered and depending on state and local regulations may be sent to a government office for inspection and testing. The meters would then be installed along with the AMR system.

4. Resident information along with their meters is uploaded to a billing system and ready for processing.

5. Meter information is read via (AMR) wireless transmitters and receivers and transmitted back to a billing company. Individual meter readings are then imported into a billing system and individual utility bills are created.

6. Utility bills are sent directly to residents via U.S. Mail and/or electronically to e-mail addresses.

7. The billing company will typically collects payments via multiple payment methods including check, money order, eCheck or major credit card. Online and phone payments are often accepted as well.

8. A monthly utility reimbursement check is then sent to the owner, manager or association.

Multifamily Utility Company offers both code-compliant submetering systems and customized Ratio Utility Billing Systems (RUBS) for mobile home parks. Multifamily Utility Company handles everything from the system design and installation to monthly meter reading and billing. With more than 20 years of experience, Multifamily Utility is committed to being an industry leader in submetering and billing.

For more questions please contact Multifamily Utility Company at: 800.266.0968 or view their website at www.mobilehomeutility.com or www.multifamilyutility.com

Among other things, the ADA requires public accommodations to make new public use facilities fully accessible, to remove physical barriers for older ones (built before January 23, 1993) to the extent "readily achievable," and to make any "alterations" to existing public use facilities accessible to the "maximum extent feasible."

Many park operators mistakenly believe that none of the park is a public accommodation. Many also incorrectly assume that they are "exempt" from the ADA's requirement because their leasing office and parking lot facilities are very old. As a result, they fail to make the leasing office and parking lot accessible, and make themselves vulnerable to ADA complaints or lawsuits.

An existing public use facility that was built before January 23, 1993 must remove physical barriers to entering and using the facility, such that it can be navigated by a disabled person, when "readily achievable." Whether changes are "readily achievable" will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in light of the resources available to a public accommodation. Thus, a park owned by a large company with substantial resources will clearly be expected to have removed most physical barriers to entry into the leasing office and to use of the parking lot (and any other areas of the park to which the public is invited). A small mom and pop mobile home park may be expected to at least have taken all of the relatively inexpensive steps to make the leasing office and parking lot (and any other areas of the park to which the public is invited) accessible.

Examples of "readily achievable" barrier removal items include (but are not limited to): installing ramps; making curb cuts at sidewalks and entrances; rearranging tables, chairs, vending machines, etc. so that disabled persons can access the public area; widening doorways; and installing grab bars in toilet stalls if a public bathroom is offered.

When an existing, older public accommodation decides to start working towards barrier removal, it should keep four priorities in mind. Most importantly, the first priority should be to make changes to ensure that disabled persons will be able to get "in the front door." For example, a mobile home park would need to remove stairs that a person must navigate to enter the leasing office so that someone with a mobility impairment could access it. The second priority should be to provide access to areas where goods and services are available. The third priority should be to provide access to restroom facilities. And, finally, the fourth priority is to take any "other measures" necessary to provide access to the public accommodations' goods, services, and advantages.

Public accommodations should keep in mind that when working on barrier removal, they must comply with the alterations requirements of the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines. Those Guidelines set forth specific ways that curb cuts, parking areas, grab bars, etc. must be installed. If it is not "readily achievable" to fully comply with the Guidelines, a public accommodation must take steps that are "readily achievable." For example, if a doorway cannot be widened quite enough to comply with the Guidelines, the public accommodation would still be required widen the doorway as much as possible.

If a public accommodation builds a new public use facility, that facility must be made readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. The new pubic use facility must follow the ADA Accessibility Guidelines' architectural standards. Similarly, if a public accommodation makes "alterations" to its pubic use facilities, those alterations must be accessible to the "maximum extent feasible." For a mobile home park, if the park remodels its leasing office, the leasing office would need to comply with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines as much as possible. If undertaking a remodeling project in any part of the mobile home park that is open to use by the general public, the park should consult with a contractor well-versed in ADA compliance.

Again, RV parks with short-term (daily and weekly) rentals are particularly affected by these laws. Generally, such an RV park will probably be considered a public accommodation as a whole. Therefore, RV parks with short-term rentals should consult with contractors well-versed in ADA compliance to determine what can be done to make the park ADA compliant. "Readily achievable" steps to remove architectural barriers will need to be taken. Many RV parks are aware that several groups have been filing lawsuits targeting RV parks that do not comply with the ADA. Some of these lawsuits have focused on parking lots, but others have focused on the facilities as a whole-for example, whether the park has a pool lift. Some of the groups filing such lawsuits have "testers" who will make a phone call to the park and ask whoever answers the phone questions about whether the facility has certain ADA accessible features. It may be wise to simply invite those individuals to take a look at the park rather than answering any specific questions about accessible features. It is unwise to say that you do not have a pool lift or that your bathrooms are not accessible.

A final note of importance for both mobile home and RV parks: the pool. A pool may or may not be a public use facility depending upon who has access to and use of the pool. In a mobile home park or an RV park only doing monthly and longer leases, if the pool is only open to park residents, their visitors and guests, it is probably not a public use facility. If the park, however, holds regular parties or events at the pool to which the public is invited, it probably will be treated as a public use facility and the pool is required to have a permanent pool lift or pool lifts meeting accessibility criteria. RV parks with daily and weekly rentals are required to have a pool lift.

To enforce the ADA, private parties may file lawsuits to obtain court orders to stop discrimination. While monetary damages are not available in such lawsuits, reasonable attorneys' fees may be awarded to the plaintiff if he or she prevails. Additionally, individuals may file complaints with local enforcing agencies, like the Arizona Attorney General's Office (or in Oregon, the Oregon Attorney General's Office). They will investigate complaints and, if they determine that a park violated the ADA, they are empowered to file suit. In lawsuits brought by the AG's Office, monetary damages and substantial civil penalties may be awarded to the prevailing party.

Melissa A. Parham

Williams, Zinman & Parham P.C.

7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

Scottsdale, AZ 85251

(480) 994-4732 (phone)

(480) 946-1211 (fax)

Melissa@wzplegal.com

http://wzplegal.com

10 Essential Rules for Avoiding Fair Housing Trouble

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

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

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

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

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

FOLLOW 10 ESSENTIAL RULES

TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #5: Don’t Discriminate Based on Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #6: Don’t Discriminate Based on Disability

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #7: Carefully Consider Reasonable Accommodation and Modification Requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #8: Abide by Rules Banning Discriminatory Advertising

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

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

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

Rule #9: Watch Out for Potential Retaliation Claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer:  In a word – No.  Or, to be more precise, as discussed below, if you do not renew the lease, it will automatically become a month-to-month tenancy on the same terms as the lease.  In other words, your non-renewal will not result in forcing the tenant to vacate the space.

When this law was first being discussed, this issue was addressed.  Prior to enactment, there was an open question whether fixed term tenancies [i.e. leases - those with definite start and ending dates] were even legal.  From the tenants’ perspective, under the manufactured housing landlord-tenant laws, since a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy “without cause,” a lease that expires without renewal is the same thing i.e. termination without cause.  Accordingly, ORS 90.545was enacted, which provided protections to tenants against the possibility of unilateral nonrenewal.

Is this unfair to a landlord, such as yourself, when an applicant is approved, ostensibly based upon a satisfactory application, who then becomes the “Tenant From Hell?”  Some would say that the landlord’s best protection is at the front end of the business relationship, since he/she is given a full and complete opportunity to set out all screening criteria and performing a thorough vetting of the applicant’s financial, rental, and criminal background. But once the landlord approves the applicant – presumably because he/she passed the vetting process - they have the right to remain at the space, so long as they don’t commit certain material violations, such as nonpayment of rent, breach the rules, rental agreement, state law, or commit certain actions outrageous in the extreme.   

Here is how the fixed term tenancy law, found at ORS 90.545 and 90.550, works:

• At least 60 days prior to the ending date of the lease term the landlord must provide to the tenant a proposed new lease, together with a written statement that summarizes any new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations.
  •  The new rental agreement may include new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations, if:
    • They fairly implement a statute or ordinance adopted after the creation of the pre-existing lease; or
    • They are the same as those offered to new or prospective tenants at the time the new proposed lease is submitted to the tenant and for the preceding six-months prior to submission period;
    • If there have been no new or prospective tenants during the six-month period, the new lease terms must be same as are customary for the rental market; and
    • They are consistent with the rights and remedies provided to tenants under ORS Chapter 90; and
    • Do not relate to the age, size, style, construction material or year of construction of the manufactured dwelling [or floating home] contrary to ORS 90.632 (2);[1] and
    • Do not require an alteration of the manufactured dwelling [or floating home] or alteration or new construction of an accessory building or structure.
• The tenant may accept or reject a landlord’s proposed new rental agreement at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.
• Note that if a landlord fails to submit a proposed new rental agreement as allowed, the tenancy renews as a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms as the prior lease, except that the landlord has the right to increase the rent unilaterally, pursuant to ORS 90.600.
• If the tenant fails to accept or unreasonably rejects a landlord’s proposed new rental agreement, the fixed term tenancy terminates on the ending date without further notice and the landlord may take possession through the eviction process, assuming the tenant does not vacate the space and remove the home.
  • However, if the tenant surrenders possession of the space prior to the filing an eviction, he/she has the right to enter into a written storage agreement with the landlord, and then has the same rights and responsibilities of a lienholder during an abandonment, i.e. pay storage fees, maintain the space, and sell the home within six months [rather than 12 for lienholders].  See, ORS 90.675 (19).

Conclusion.  My suggestion is that if your tenant is continually causing problems, paper your file thoroughly, showing the efforts you’ve made to work with that person. If there are complaints from other residents, document them. Eventually, the tenant will slip up – doing something that gives you the basis for an eviction.  If he is a chronic late payer, consider using the three strikes law, found in ORS 90.630(8). Then find a good landlord attorney and discuss the best method to evict the tenant.  You will then be armed with good evidence for the judge or jury to show that you walked the extra mile with this person, but they simply refused to cooperate.  And remember that although there are restrictions on the contents of the new lease you offer, it may contain provisions that will give you a better foundation for the eviction.  Good luck!

[1] This specific protection was important to the tenant lobby, since until it was enacted, there was an open question as to whether landlords could impose as a condition upon accepting an applicant who was purchasing an older home, that it must be removed upon subsequent resale. In addition, ORS 90.632 was enacted which permits landlords to expressly require that homes be repaired due to damage or deterioration.