Search

Detecting Elder Abuse in YOUR Community

Terry R. Dowdall

Detecting Elder Abuse in Your Park  

By Terry R. Dowdall, Esq.

UPSHOT:

     –For every reported case of elder abuse, there are more than 24 undetected cases never reported (according to an East Coast study). 

 

     – Almost all victims are in a private residence behind closed doors. 

     – The number of 65+ people increases by 10,000 daily; 8,000 more retire each day.

     – Greedy predator care-givers in California cannot take from the deceased. The Care-giver is disqualified. Cannot be a beneficiary of the estate, even if named in the will of the deceased resident!

 

     Elder abusers.Who are they?Most frequently, family members(grown kids: chronically unemployed, unemployable, parolees, deeply indebted, thieves, grifters).  All need money, a bed, an address. These are their prime opportunities for taking over grandpa’s house, then neglecting, abusing, ignoring, abandoning, or stealing— all undetected, behind closed doors, away from any danger signs. Until it is too late.


     

 

According to the American Psychological Association, “Don't let your fear of meddling in someone else's business stop you from reporting your suspicions. You could be saving someone's life. . . ”

 

You can help. You do not need to evict. You can help your abused resident oust the abusive caregiver immediately.  You can report, help with “move-out” orders, “stay-away” orders, and other relief for your abused residents in your parks. 

 

■ California Mobilehome Residency Law’s 

Absence of Protection for Seniors Can be 

Supplemented with Management Help (E.g., 

Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection

Act (EADACPA), Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)

 

     The common wisdom is that evicting an abusive co-occupant, even a criminal, is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. But the elder subject to an abusive caregiver, or other abusive household members, can seek an order to oust them by court order and without notice. The California Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code §§798, et seq.) (“MRL”) is no help here. The MRL is a prime enabler of elder abuse by its “hands off” policy to any occupants, and its unintended consequences welcome every predatory opportunist who cajoles his or her way into a senior’s coach. This while management is handcuffed from interceding with prevention, remedies, or even effective detection. But if we choose, we can do plenty to help the resident once we know.

 

     Evictions take forever.  Management must always wait for a 60 day notice to expire (once prepared and served) to even file suit to evict the abuser. That 60 day period enables the abuser to intimidate, terrify and coerce witnesses not to testify. Horrified, residents take shelter, lock themselves in and become prisoners in their homes. When WMA introduced legislation to evict such violent criminals, the State Senate Judiciary Committee killed the bill: not enoughreason to give management this remedy. So, the park owner’s hands remain tied for 60 days after notice of termination of possession based on outrageous abuse or even dangerous felonies (all on a “substantial annoyance” grounds) if anyone will testify as to the annoyance. But an at-risk elderly frail resident can go to court nowand obtain a “move-out” order without notice. We, as management, can educate and help.

 

     Move-Out Order Issue NOW- Without Notice.  In summary, management can assistthe abused or harassed senior and help get to court and get the abusive caregiver out NOW. Many residents cannot afford a lawyer, and often, it is the family that is responsible for the abuse. Management can do more than report. Maybe senior protective services will respond, maybe not. But court forms are designed for non-lawyers. We can help with these preprinted forms–and attend court with the resident, offer to be a witness, and also report to the police, County agencies and other family. As for courts, there are no filing fees or service costs.

 

     As the numbers of elder victims climbs, understanding management options will become a customary “best” management practice: a sign of good quality management, and a reflection of care and concern for frail and vulnerable residents. Actively enhancing lifestyle and atmosphere has always been a hallmark of the manufactured housing industry. 

 

     We can help end pain and misery to elder abuse victims of caregivers, family and deceitful predators. There are ways to bring immediate relief to desperate, life-threatening situations which usually are never detected, and which the Mobilehome Residency Law does not allow a park owner to initially prevent.

 

■ The Scope of the Mushrooming Epidemic:

For Every Reported Elder Abuse Case, 24 More are Unreported.

 

     The New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study found that for every case known to programs and agencies, 24 were unreported. Another reports that 1 in 10 older adults report emotional, physical, or sexual mistreatment, or neglect. Often, physical, emotional or psychological abuse accompanies financial abuse. Neglect and abandonment, for example, when the kids get a power of attorney and ability to withdraw money. 

 

     For about 40 years now, from 55+ to “all-age” parks, owners and management bring me problems that they observe or their residents bring to them. This is because of genuine concern, not out of sense of legal duty or obligation.  Because they care.       

 

 

■ Warning Signs and Indicators of Caregiver Elder Abuse.

 

     Watch for the following from your residents. There are signs that elder abuse may be occurring at the hands of the caregivers residing on the space. Bear in mind that the homeowner may not be capable of telling us of the abuse. The elder may also be ashamed, fearful of retaliation or punishment, or somehow assuming some of the blame for his or her own condition. 

     

     Who are The Exploitive and Abusers?  They May be Closer Than They Appear.

 

■        Family members, abusive children, nieces, nephews, past or present paramours, homeless 

■        Caretaker/caregiver/care custodian - any person who has the care, custody, or control of or who stands in  position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.

■        Banks, mortgage brokers, lenders

■        Insurance companies and their agents

■        Financial advisors and life agents

■        Trust mills

■        Real estate agents, title and escrow companies

■        Attorneys (and others holding themselves out as having legal expertise–tax preparers, paralegals, assistants, J.D. graduates)

■        Scams – lotteries, sweepstakes

■        Home repair, unsolicited work

■        Sweetheart scams

 

SUMMARY OF SIGNS OF ELDER ABUSE

 

Physical Abuse

■ Unexplained signs of injury such as bruises, welts, scars, broken bones or sprains

■ Report of drug overdose or apparent failure to take medication regularly

■  Signs of being restrained, such as rope marks on wrists

■  Caregiver's refusal to allow you to see the person alone

■ Physical or chemical restraints for caregiver's convenience 

■ Repeated unexplained injuries

 

Emotional Abuse

■ Threatening, belittling, or controlling caregiver behavior that you witness

■ Behavior from the elder that mimics dementia, such as rocking, sucking, or mumbling

■ Uncommunicative and unresponsive

■ Unreasonably fearful or suspicious 

■ Lack of interest in social contacts

■ Evasive or isolated 

■ Unexplained or uncharacteristic changes in behavior

■ Unexplained venereal disease or genital infections

■ Torn, stained, underclothing

 

Financial Exploitation

■ Significant or unauthorized withdrawals from the elder's accounts

■ Sudden changes in the elder's financial condition

■  Items or cash missing from the household

■ Suspicious changes in mobilehome title, legal owner, wills, power of attorney, titles, and policies

■ Addition of names to the elder's signature card

■ Unpaid bills or lack of medical care, although the elder has enough money to pay for them

■ Financial activity the elder couldn't have done, such as an ATM withdrawal by a bedridden account holder

■ Unnecessary services, goods, or subscriptions

■ New caregiver cars in the driveway; new high frequency of deliveries

■  Evidence of inadequate care when bills are paid in full

 

Elders May Contribute to Abuse, Secreting of Abuse, Fail to Recognize or Report

■  May lack cognitive ability to recognize abuse and/or their rights to safety and protection 

■ May be in denial; distorted view of treatment

■ May not have functioning neuro-pathways; not feeling normal pain, discomfort

■ May be incapacitated– unable to message out

■ Are often reluctant to report or prosecute

■ “Report me and I will put you in a home”

■ Afraid of removal from home

■ Fear of retribution

■ Dependence on others to assist with activities of daily living and personal care;

■  Communication or physical impairments which may limit ability to verbally or physically defend against a perpetrator and disclose abuse

 

 FIVE (5) IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO CONSIDER NOW:

 

  CONTACT FIRST RESPONDERS: USUALLY, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

       

                        ■             Adult Protective Services (“APS”) can provide investigations, needs assessments, remedial and preventative social work activities, food, transportation, emergency shelter.

■          Cross report to police for criminal restraining orders.

■          State mandates that each County establish a 24/7 emergency response adult protective services program to take and investigate reports of abuse of an elder or a dependent adult. Cal. W&I Code §15763)

■          “Protective services” include investigations, needs assessments, remedial and preventive social work activities; the necessary tangible resources such as food, transportation, emergency shelter, and in-home protective care; the use of multi-disciplinary teams; and a system in which reporting of abuse can occur on a 24- hour basis. (Cal. W&I Code §15760).

Keep Adult Protective Services Honest–Insist They Do Their Jobs: Mandatory Effort to Investigate

■          When an allegation of abuse of an elder or dependent adult is reported; and,

              The agency social worker has reason to believe an elder or dependent adult has suffered or is at substantial risk of abuse pursuant to  Cal. W&I Code §15630; 

■          The social worker is required to attempt to obtain consent to:

–          enter and meet privately with the elder or dependent adult in the residence or dwelling in which the elder or dependent adult resides, 

–          without the presence of the person's caretaker, attendant, or family or household member, unless the person requests the presence of the attendant, care giver, or family member, or refuses to meet with the social worker. (Cal. W&I Code §15762)

■          APS action requires victim consent unless a Penal Code violation has been alleged. Cal.  W&I Code § 15636)

■          If the victim is incapacitated and cannot legally give or deny consent to protective services, APS may initiate a petition for temporary conservatorship.

  HELP RESIDENT GET ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY OUST THE ABUSER. 

 

The courts make the applications, declarations and orders available as consumer friendly forms. No lawyers needed. Lawyers may be helpful in many circumstances. But do not let the absence of a lawyer stop a valid  application to the court from being made. 

Help the resident obtain a Move-Out Order (“Elder Abuse Restraining Order”) under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Originally, the Elder Abuse Act was designed to encourage the reporting of abuse and neglect of elders and dependent adults and continues to be a major component of the Elder Abuse Act as it stands in its current form today.

            The Elder Abuse Act now permits and even requires certain heightened remedies subject to statutory criteria and limitations, including attorney's fees, punitive damages, pain and suffering damages even after the abused elder's death, and fees for a conservator who successfully brings an elder abuse claim.

■          EADACPA allows a court to issue an order protecting an elder or dependent adult from further abuse by an individual including ordering a move-out from the property.  Cal. W&I Code §15657.03(c) provides that an order may be issued with or without notice, to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of abuse, if a declaration shows, to the satisfaction of the court, proof of a past act or acts of abuse of the petitioning elder or dependent adult. 

The evidence of past abuse is sufficient even without a particularized showing of evidence or risk that  wrongful acts will continue or be repeated.

■          Does Your Resident Qualify? In order to obtain an Elder Abuse Restraining Order, or EARO, the person requesting the order:

■          Must be an elder or dependent adult;

■          Must have suffered abuse.

               An “Elder” is one who is 65 years of age or older.

■          For a Move Out Order, Must be a Legal or equitable Owner, and Defendant cannot be sole owner. 

■          Also included is the “Dependent Adult”, defined as a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict the person's ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights.

■          If the Resident hires counsel, there is an entitlement to attorney’s fees. No reason park owner cannot supply counsel with reimbursement agreement. There is a right to recovery of attorney’s fees.

■          Does Your Resident Qualify for a Move Out Order?  The court may issue a restraining order excluding the abusive caregiver (including family members) from the resident’s home on a showing of the following:

■          Proof that the resident has a right of possession.

■          Proof that the abusive caregiver assaulted or threatens to assault the resident or other named family or household member including a conservator.

■          Proof that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the person to be protected.

■           After the restraining order is issued (without notice), the court may issue, after notice and hearing, an order excluding a person from a residence or dwelling if the court finds that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the petitioner, other named family or household member of the petitioner, or conservator of the petitioner.

■          An order excluding the abusive caregiver from the dwelling is permitted, except not if legal or equitable title to, or lease of, the residence is in the sole name of the abuser, or is in the name of the party to be excluded and any other party besides the petitioner. Cal. W&I Code §15657.03 (b) (3) (B).

The courts provide pre-printed forms. This makes it easier to go to court and get the orders. The courts are familiar with the forms and often provide relief with the right language. Of course, management can assist in the preparation of the papers, if the resident is unable to do so in a winning fashion. 

The law states that (Cal. W&I Code §15657.03(d)) on filing a petition for protective order, “the petitioner may obtain a temporary restraining order.” The law says that an injunction is available without notice if:

■          It appears that great or irreparable injury will result before the matter can be heard on notice. 

■          The resident or his or her attorney certifies one of the following: 

–          That within a reasonable time prior to the application the applicant informed the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney at what time and where the application would be made. 

–          That the applicant in good faith attempted but was unable to inform the opposing party and the opposing party's attorney, specifying the efforts made to contact them. 

–          That for reasons specified the applicant should not be required to so inform the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney.

Note, that the court may grant a an elder abuse restraining order on a preponderance of the evidence.

         HELPKICK-OUT THE ABUSER!!

(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT– DVPA). 

         

Your resident may seek a DVPA “move-out” order to immediately oust the abusive, dangerous or harassing caregiver. The “kick out” order forces an ouster of an abusive caregiver.  An order can be issued to restrain contact either directly or indirectly:

■         By mail or otherwise, 

■         Coming within a specified distance of, or

■         Disturbing the peace of the other party.  Cal.Family Code §6320, 6211.

            The law provides that a court may issue an order, without notice, to exclude a party from the family dwelling, the dwelling of the other party, the common dwelling of both parties, or the dwelling of the person who has care, custody, and control of a child to be protected from domestic violence. “Domestic violence” is abuse perpetrated against spouses, co-habitants, children and blood relatives within the second degree.  But the order may issues regardless of the owner of the property. 

            Types of “domestic violence protective orders” includes an order enjoining specific acts of abuse (Cal.Family Code §6320), excluding a person from a dwelling (Cal.Family Code §6321) and enjoining other specified behavior. (Cal.Family Code §6322).

■         For an order excluding a party from a dwelling, the following proof is required:

--         The resident has a right to possess the mobilehome; 

--         The resident’s spouse or significant other has assaulted or threatened to assault the abused resident,  child, or any person that is under the resident’s care, custody, and control;

--         If the exclusion order were not granted, physical OR emotional harm would otherwise result. 

While title ownership is not required, still, the relationship to the victim is a requirement must be established.  The resident must reasonably show that if the order were not granted, that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the other party, to any person under the care, custody, and control of the other party, or to any minor child of the parties or of the other party. (Cal.Family Code §6321)

■   What is  “Abuse”within the meaning of the DVPA? (Cal.Family Code §§6203 (a), (b), (c), (d).)

--         Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; or

--          Sexual assault; or

--         “Reasonable apprehension” of imminent serious bodily injury to person or

 another; or

--         Engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined

 (Cal. Family Code  §6320).

Thus, the requisite “abuse” need not be actual infliction of physical injury or assault.

         HELPGET A HARASSMENT INJUNCTION!! 

CAL. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §527.6

 

Civil injunctive scheme has a separate procedure to prevent civil harassment to prevent unlawful violence, threats of violence and suffering of emotional distress. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §527.6).

■   Court forms are available: ttp://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ch100.pdf

■   Civil injunction requires demonstrating imminent irreparable harm, probability of success on the merits and a balancing of equities. An elder who has suffered financial abuse may seek a protective order, including a TRO:

            --         Enjoining someone from abusing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, or harassing the petitioning elder,

            --         Preventing the destruction of the elder’s personal property, and

            --         Excluding someone from the elder’s home.

            ■   Family members residing in the home with the elder and caregivers can be added as protected parties to receive the full protection of the temporary restraining order.

         HELPARREST A “SHORT TERM” ABUSER, GET JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION FOR LONGER TERM ABUSER (CAL. CIVIL CODE §1946.5)

 

              If there is a single lodger in the home:  Your resident can seek to oust the abusive occupant, boarder, lodger or caregiver.  Cal. Civil Code §1946.5 applies, only, if requirements are satisfied.

            --         The mobilehome must also be occupied by the resident; 

            --         The resident retains a right of access to all areas of the mobilehome and have overall control; 

            --         The abusive person is the sole, other, occupant, and 

            --         The abusive person must have contracted either for room, or room and board.

 

            ■         If all of the above conditions apply, the law prescribes an expedited procedure to bring about the removal of the lodger.The resident may terminate tenancy by serving written Notice of termination. The length of time must be equal to the tenancy period (e.g., 30 days for a month-to-month).  Note the occupant has no tenancy rights and is not subject to the MRL. 

 

            ■         At the expiration of the required Notice period, the resident must file an action for unlawful detainer. For short term occupants, the occupant can also be arrested if required conditions are met. A private person's arrest is authorized, on condition, for violation of Penal Code §602.3 (an infraction). 

 

            ■         In summary, if the situation involves a single occupant, the resident can make a private person arrest for Cal. Penal Code §602.3 in lieu of proceeding through the eviction process.  Penal Code§602.3 states:

 

  (a) A lodger who is subject to Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code and who remains on the premises of an owner-occupied dwelling unit after receipt of a Notice terminating the hiring, and expiration of the Notice period, provided in Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code is guilty of an infraction and may, pursuant to Section 837, be arrested for the offense by the owner, or in the event the owner is represented by a court-appointed conservator, executor, or administrator, by the owner's representative. Notwithstanding Section 853.5, the requirement of that section for release upon written promise to appear Shall not preclude an assisting peace officer from removing the Person from the owner-occupied dwelling unit.

(b) The removal of a lodger from a dwelling unit by the owner pursuant to subdivision (a) is not a forcible entry under the provisions of Section 1159 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Shall not be a basis for civil liability under that section.

            * * * 

            (f) This section applies only to owner-occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. Nothing in this section shall be construed to determine or affect in any way the rights of persons residing as lodgers in an owner-occupied dwelling where more than one lodger resides.

 

              No “Good Samaritan” standing:  Management is not entitled to be a party to assist the resident. But we may be of assistance and help save a life. 

 

There is no “Good Samaritan” standing to help an abused senior escape elder abuse. A park owner cannot assert claims directly for residents. Management can report claims and keep up the pressure to insist on positive and prompt action. As revealed by various cases of recent elder abuse, not even the agencies touting their dedication to ending elder abuse take any action in very clear cases. 

 

There are limits as to who may have standing to bring an elder abuse action on behalf of an alleged victim during the elder’s lifetime.

 

            The EADACPA supports third-party standing for certain representativesto bring an elder abuse claim on behalf of an abused elder while he or she is still alive. Such as conservators. But not many others, including concerned family members. There is also no “Good Samaritan” standing, which would allow concerned persons to intercede and seek relief.

 

         YOUR RESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND RETURN OF PROPERTY

WRONGFULLY TAKEN–ITSELF AN ACT OF ELDER ABUSE1

 

         The elder or a “representative of the elder” may demand the return of real or personal property from a person or entity who took, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained, or assisted in those acts when the elder or dependent adult lacked capacity or was of unsound mind.

■        The failure to return the property on demand gives rise to a separate claim for financial elder abuse, even if the original taking was not financial elder abuse within the meaning of EADACPA.

 

        DEFINITIONS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, FURTHER INFORMATION 

              ■  What is Elder Abuse??  

 

Cal. W&I Code§15600 et seq.defines elder abuse as physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction or other treatment resulting in physical harm or pain or mental suffering, or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. This definition applies to elders and dependent adults. Cal.W&I Code§15610.63:  

 

As defined by Penal Code“physical abuse” includes: 

 

■  Assault, battery, sexual assault, battery or rape, 

 

■  Prolonged or continual deprivation of food or water,

 

■  Use of physical or chemical restraints for punishment,

    convenience, or without or beyond the scope of the doctor's order.

 

■  What Is “Neglect” And “Self-Neglect”?

        

“Neglect”means either of the following:

 

■ The negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.

 

■  The negligent failure of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of self care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.

 

■  Neglect includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

 

■  Failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision of food, clothing, or shelter.

 

■  Failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs.

                                                                        

■  Failure to protect from health and safety hazards.

 

■  Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.

■ Failure of an elder or dependent adult to satisfy the needs specified in paragraphs (1) to (4) for himself or herself as a result of poor cognitive functioning, mental limitation, substance abuse, or chronic poor health.

 

         ■  What is “Isolation” ? 

 

“Isolation”means any of the following:

 

■ Acts intentionally committed for the purpose of preventing, and that do serve to prevent, an elder or dependent adult from receiving his or her mail or telephone calls.

 

■  Telling a caller or prospective visitor that an elder or dependent adult is not present, or does not wish to talk with the caller, or does not wish to meet with the visitor where the statement is false, is contrary to the express wishes of the elder or the dependent adult, whether he or she is competent or not, and is made for the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from having contact with family, friends, or concerned persons.

 

■ False imprisonment, as defined in Section 236 of the Penal Code.

 

■ Physical restraint of an elder or dependent adult, for the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from meeting with visitors.

 

         ■  What is “Financial Elder Abuse”?

            

“Financial abuse”of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:

 

■  Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

 

■ Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

 

■ Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence.

 

■ A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.

 

■ A person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.

 

  Watch for “Powers of Attorney”  as Another Form of Elder Abuse

 

Powers of attorney are a frequent tool of abuse. These are low cost, easy to execute, can grant very broad powers and available on the internet without the need for legal counsel. The “POA” often grants the agent the same broad general powers of a Trustee but, unlike revocable trusts, generally lack provisions defining duties owed by the agent to the principal.  Because general POAs are not tied to particular assets, there may be multiple conflicting instruments empowering multiple agents.

 

  Care-Giver Cannot Take from Estate of Deceased Resident 

 

California  law prohibits bequests to caregivers–they are barred from receiving anything from a homeowner.   A caregiver cannot move in with the hope of convincing residents to give them property after death. Cal. Probate Code §§21360 -21392. A caregiver, or "care custodian,"  means any ". . . person providing health services or social services. . . " Cal. W&I Code §15610.17(y). Fraud or undue influence is presumed if a bequest is made. Cal. Probate Code §21380(a)(3). The bequest is invalid.

Caregivers Can Steal Our Residents Blind (and do). Do they try to be signed on title for a "quick flip" of the mobilehome? Nothing stops that. And management must approve the buyer and not interfere with a sale. 

 Conclusion: Make A Difference 

The expansive rights of “care-givers” and “companions” is a product of a pro-mobilehome-resident legislature that actively prevents park owners from ejecting even serious criminals. Moreover, the potential for resident abuse is drowned out by claims that owners will abuse such a remedy. So, the needy continue to suffer for sake of appeasement of tenants, who oppose anythinga park owner proposes. Usually, we do not evict without resident support. 

Plainly, the probability of resident abuse increases as the numbers of retirees grows in leaps and bounds. These people live in your parks. The additional occupant has an open invitation for interloping, domineering, and controlling the frail resident.  All these visitors–usually abusive family--are empowered to quash the free will of your frail resident, take the check book and lock them away. And the MRL provides no management rights to approve, affect or detect elder abuse. Management has no ability to intervene even if requested by a resident.

Watch for signs of elder abuse. Report it. You could be saving someone's life. Remember: The resident has five (5) options which can be pursued as soon as discovered.

Management’s powers of observation are therefore needed to report and persistently complain if needed. When objective evidence tells your instincts that something is “just not right,” report it and ask questions. Legally, is there a duty to do so? Absolutely not. But that is not us. We are in business to serve.

 

1 Cal. W&I Code§15657.6.

Become a Community Member

Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon (MHCO) is the largest organization in Oregon representing owners of manufactured housing communities in Oregon.

As a member of MHCO you will have access for over 50 forms drafted by MHCO's attorney.These forms cover nearly all the issues you face as an owner or manager of a manufactured home community in Oregon. Additionally, MHCO offers a landlord/manager hot line to answer a wide variety of questions you may have regarding the operation of your community. As a member of MHCO you will be able to attend landlord-tenant training seminars at a reduced "member" rate. MHCO also provides members with a wide variety of information - from Fair Housing Issues to the latest developments in the Oregon Legislature that directly impact your ability to operate your community in Oregon.  MHCO's is the community owner's watch dog and advocate in the Oregon Legislature.

MHCO's strength is in numbers. Become a member today and join the hundreds of other communities in Oregon who trust MHCO to advocate for manufactured home community owners in Oregon.

Register online to become a community member.

Download the current community membership application here.

Legislative Update: Senate Action on Coalition Bill and a PROPOSED Rent Control Amendment

This morning the Oregon State Senate passed the 2015 Landlord-Tenant Coalition Bill on a vote of 29-0 with one Senator absent.  The bill now moves on to Governor Kate Brown's desk for signature. 

 

MHCO is THRILLED that a long standing legislative goal - the ELIMINATION of the requirement that landlords pay the back taxes on an abandoned home in their community when the landlord purchases the abandoned home is well on it's way to becoming Oregon law.  This portion of the legislation will become effective January 1, 2016.  MHCO along with Phil Querin have already created initial drafts of the forms necessary to comply with the new law.  Those forms will be reviewed and available to members on-line later this year.  We will also have an extensive article by Phil Querin available for the MHCO membership later this year as well.  Other issues contained in this legislation will be addressed at the annual MHCO Conference at the end of October.  Stay tuned for details!

 

This is a major win for Oregon community owners and will impact every community owner in the state.  Special thanks to Dale Strom, Adam Cook and Phil Taylor who dedicated an enormous amount of time negotiating on behalf of community owners in the landlord tenant coalition.   MHCO also thanks Diane Belt with the Oregon Tax Assessors Association for her expertise and willingness to resolve this issue. 

 

There have also been some less than satisfactory developments in Salem this week.

 

Yesterday the Oregon Senate Committee on Human Services and Early Childhood held a public hearing on HB 2564.  This is the inclusionary zoning" bill that passed the Oregon House earlier this session.  It is also the bill that Representatives in the House alluded to the as needing a rent control amendment during the floor debate in the Oregon House last month.

 

At yesterday's public hearing an amendment (the dash 5 amendment) was introduced that would chip away at the statewide preemption on rent control.  

 

Here is Phil Querin's analysis of the proposed amendment:

 

"When the bill attempts to exclude the application of ORS 91.225 (which prohibits rent control)

Phil Querin Q&A: Landlord vs. Tenant Responsibility For Condition of Grounds

Phil Querin

Answer: As to whether you or the resident is responsible for the condition of the ground upon which the home sits, it depends on whether the infestation existed at the time of commencement of the tenancy. If "yes," the it's your responsibility to abate; if "no" then it's the tenant's responsibility. Here is a summary of the applicable statute. I have highlighted that portion of the law which applies to your issue: ORS 90.730 [Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition.] provides in relevant part: - A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling 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 includes only the following: _ A sewage disposal system and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the sewage disposal system can be controlled by the landlord; _ If required by applicable law, a drainage system reasonably capable of disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water, approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order; _ 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; _ An electrical supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the electrical supply system can be controlled by the landlord; _ 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; _ Except as otherwise provided by local ordinance or by written agreement between the landlord and the tenant, an adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish in clean condition and good repair at the time of commencement of the rental agreement, and for which the landlord shall provide and maintain appropriate serviceable receptacles thereafter and arrange for their removal; and _ Completion of any landlord-provided space improvements, including but not limited to installation of carports, garages, driveways and sidewalks, approved under applicable law at the time of installation. - A rented space is considered unhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree as required by ORS 90.727. - A vacant space in a facility is considered unhabitable if the space substantially lacks safety from the hazards of fire or injury. - A facility common area is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks: _ 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; _ Safety from the hazards of fire; _ Trees, shrubbery and grass maintained in a safe manner; and _ If supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord to a common area, a water supply system, sewage disposal system or system for disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the system can be controlled by the landlord. - Note that the landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant is to perform specified repairs, maintenance tasks and minor remodeling only if: _ The agreement of the parties is entered into in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord; _ The agreement does not diminish the obligations of the landlord to other tenants on the premises; and _ The terms and conditions of the agreement are clearly and fairly disclosed and adequate consideration for the agreement is specifically stated. The term "vermin" is defined as: "Small insects and animals (such as fleas or mice) that are sometimes harmful to plants or other animals and that are difficult to get rid of." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vermin] That's a pretty broad definition, and I'm going to assume that "vermin" include ants. So the question is, was this condition one that existed at the commencement of the tenancy? If the resident had been at the space for years and never complained until now, I suspect they [or their exterminator] would have a tough time establishing when the problem first occurred. As you know, pests come and go; they could be seasonal, weather related, food related, hygiene related, etc. Chances are that if one resident has ants, others may as well. Had the resident come to you before hiring the exterminator, I would have suggested that you find out how widespread the problem was, and if it was prevalent throughout the community [or a specific area within the community] perhaps work out some cost-sharing arrangement along with a periodic maintenance schedule to eradicate the problem. That was not done here. However, good community relations suggests that you find out the breadth of the problem, and if it affects several residents, discuss a solution with all of them that works for your pocketbook, and the residents' budget. Whether you pay for the exterminator for one resident, might set a bad precedent, since it could encourage others to do the same. That's why you want to find out the scope of the problem.

Mediation

Editor's Note:  As we start the count down to the next full Oregon Legislative Session (2019) one of the biggest issues our industry faces is how to resolve conflict between residents and landlords.  Mediation is one of the answers and one that MHCO strongly encourages ALL owners and managers of manufactured home communities to pursue.  Today MHCO is introducing a new ad promoting mediation along with a long term commitment to providing quality articles and information on mediation.  The ad  provides a click thru to important information such as how to access mediation.  Mediation is FREE and should be one of the first tools you turn to when conflict arises in your community - whether it is between resident and resident or resident and landlord.  

 

Mediation: Tips for Effective Communication

 

1. Talk Directly. Assuming that there is no threat of physical violence, talk directly to the person with whom you have the conflict. Direct conversation is more effective than sending a letter, banging on the wall, or complaining to others.

 

2. Choose a good time. Plan to talk to the other person at the right time and allow yourselves enough tie for a thorough discussion of the issue. Don't start talking about the conflict just as the other person is leaving for an appointment, after you've had a terrible day, or right before you make dinner. Try to talk in a quiet place where you can both be comfortable and undistributed for as long as the discussion lasts.

 

3. Plan ahead. Think out what you want to say ahead of time. State clearly what the problem is and how it affects you.

 

4. Don't blame or name call. Don't blame the other person for everything or begin the conversation with your opinion of what should be done. Use responsible language (I statements such as I feel"

Lessons From a $76,000 Fair Housing Settlement

By Jo Becker, Education/Outreach Specialist, Fair Housing Council Serving Oregon and SW WashingtonIn May 2013, Connecticut complainants were awarded over $76K (before attorneys' fees) by the courts in The U.S.A v. Hylton. This is a rental case but the ruling holds several important legal lessons for any housing provider.The complaint alleged that the Hyltons, a Black married couple, violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow a mixed-race couple, the Bilbos, to sublet their unit to a Black woman with children because they did not want "too many Blacks" at the property.The decision awarded the following damages:o $31,750 to Mr. And Mrs. Bilbo because their landlord made discriminatory statements to them about being a mixed-race couple, and about the race of their prospective subtenant refusing to allow them to sublet the home to an African American woman and her children because of race. o $10K of this sum was awarded for emotional distress.o Because Ms. Wilson, the prospective subtenant, was denied the home she sought and was qualified for, she continued to live in a racially concentrated area of poverty. Her damages were awarded at $44,431.05o As part her damages, the court awarded Ms. Wilson $20K for compensation for the lost opportunity to live in a neighborhood of lower crime, higher educational opportunities, and greater upward mobility. o Nearly half of the judgment, before attorneys' fees, was for punitive damages.o An additional $37,422 in attorneys' fees brings the total judgment against the defendants to over $113K.Details of the case can be found online.o A summary of the case is available on the HUD site: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_adv… A summary of the ruling is posted on the DOJ's site: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/Press2013/20130812.html (DOJ). o The court's decision can be read at http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3… Hyltons were independent rental owners managing their own property. They initially rented to the Bilbos; however, the Bilbos found that their personal circumstances required them to move and to break the lease agreement. The Bilbos agreed to find a suitable renter to sublease to. When they did the defendant asked if the person is white. When told she was Black, Hylton stated that he did not want too many Blacks at the property" and that "the neighbors would not want to see too many Blacks there." The defendant also told the Bilbos the only reason they were rented the house was because his wife is white and it was "a good mix."There are several salient points in this case

Miner Minute: Fees for “Additional Occupants” or “Extra Vehicles” May Be Problematic

Bill Miner

 

 Fees for “Additional Occupants” or “Extra Vehicles” may be problematic. Rental agreements sometimes contain a space for “extra vehicle fees” or “extra occupant fees.” These fees may be problematic considering the limitations found in ORS 90.302.

Specifically, ORS 90.302 states that, “a landlord may not charge a fee at the beginning of the tenancy for an anticipated landlord expense and may not require the payment of any fee except as provided in this section. A fee must be described in a written rental agreement.” ORS 90.302 then states that a landlord may charge a fee for: a late rent payment, pursuant to ORS 90.260; a dishonored check; removing or tampering with a smoke alarm, smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm (which would be applicable in a park owned home); a violation of a written pet agreement or of a rule relating to pets in a facility, pursuant to ORS 90.530); or the abandonment or relinquishment of a dwelling unit during a fixed term (also more likely to be applicable in a park owned home). 
 
ORS 90.302(3)(a) and (b) does allow a landlord to charge a tenant a fee for specific non-compliance of rules relating to a late payment of a utility or service charge, failure to clean up pet waste, failure to clean up the waste of a service or companion animal, failure to clean up garbage, rubbish and other waste, parking violations, improper use of vehicles, smoking in clearly designated non-spoking areas of the premises or keeping on the premises an unauthorized pet capable of causing damage. The specific applications of those fees are governed by ORS 90.302 and prior to charging them, a landlord must first exhaust several steps. Regardless, nowhere in ORS 90.302 is there an allowance of a fee for “additional occupants” or “extra vehicles.” 
 
With that said, ORS 90.302(7) states that the section does not apply to “Charges for improvements or other actions that are requested by the tenant and are not required of the landlord by the rental agreement or by law, including the cost to replace a key lost by a tenant.”  Is an “additional occupant” or an “extra vehicle” an improvement or other action requested by the tenant? Perhaps, but the best bet is to just deal with it through increases in rent rather than fees.
 
Installments of Miner Minute will appear every other week through 2022. If you have a question you would like clarification on, or have experienced something you would like addressed, please email MHCO. The above should not be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship.

Rent Control Hearing Monday, Februay 4th at 3 PM Hearing Room 'B'

  The Oregon Legislature has scheduled a public hearing on SB 608 (Rent Control - Elimination of No Cause Eviction) for Monday, February 4, 2019 at 3 PM at the Oregon State Capitol, Hearing Room 'B', Oregon Senate Committee on Housing.This is an "all hands on deck" for owners of manufactured housing communities.  This legislative proposal has the potential to make grave changes to Oregon Landlord/Tenant law and is by far the most serious threat we have faced in the last two decades. SB 608 limits rent increases to an annual 7% +CPI and it would also eliminate 'no cause evictions'.We need manufactured home community owners to be involved - either by attending or testifying and sending written testimony to the Senate Committee members.  Please plan on attending even if you are not testifying.  No one else is going to stand up for YOUR rights and YOUR livelihood.  Testimony will be limited to 2 minutes.  There will be a sign up sheet in Hearing Room 'B'.  Chuck will be either in the Hearing Room or hallway outside the hearing room and will be happy to point you in the right direction.  Erica will be at the Capitol Information Kiosk between the Capitol rotunda and hearing rooms.  She will have tags for you to wear to indciate you are an opponent of the bill.Written Testimony:  Over the years we have found the most effective testimony against bad legislation is to simply tell your story - the sacrifice and challenges you face in providing affordable housing.  Please send emails to the Senators listed below and to the committee public record (the last e-mail listed below).  Finally, be sure to include "SB 608 - Oppose" in the title of your email.Senate Members of the Senate Housing Committee:Senator Shemia Fagan - Chair 
Democrat - District 24 - Portland
Email: Sen.ShemiaFagan@oregonlegislature.govSenator Fred Girod - Vice Chair
Republican - District 9 - Stayton
Email: Sen.FredGirod@oregonlegislature.govSenator Jeff Golden
Democrat - District 3 - Ashland
Email: Sen.JeffGolden@oregonlegislature.gov

Senator Tim Knopp
Republican - District 27 - Bend
Email: Sen.TimKnopp@oregonlegislature.gov

Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson
Democrat - District 25 - Gresham
Email: Sen.LaurieMonnesAnderson@oregonlegislature.gov

To submit your testimony or exhibits for the public record (strongly recommended) please send to:  shous.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov   Note: Please use discretion with your personal information in written testimony (i.e., do not add personal information you do not want the public to see). All meeting materials, including your name and any personal information contained in the submitted documents, are posted to the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS) and are accessible to all major search engines, including Google, Bing, and Yahoo. If you have any questions or concerns please contact the MHCO Office at 503-391-4496.

Mark Busch RV Question & Answer: Nonpayment Problems with RV Tenants

Mark L. Busch

 

This article is informational only and is not intended as legal advice.  Always consult with a competent attorney before undertaking any legal action.

Question: Our park has some manufactured homes and some RV spaces. We are having problems with some of our RV spaces and late payments.  Can we use the “3-strikes” rent nonpayment rule?  If not, what can we do to avoid having to constantly deal with late paying RV tenants?

 

Answer:  Unfortunately, Oregon’s “3-strikes rule” only applies to mobile home park tenants who own their homes.  It allows parks to issue a non-curable, 30-day eviction notice to mobile home tenants if they accumulate three or more 10-day nonpayment notices within a 12-month period.  The rule does not apply to RV tenants or to tenants in park-owned homes.

 

There is a “modified” 3-strikes rule that might work, but it requires the park to enter into fixed-term rental agreements with RV tenants instead of the typical month-to-month agreements.  Under ORS 90.427 (7), a fixed term tenancy can be terminated and does not become a month-to-month tenancy at the end of the term if the tenant commits three or more violations within the preceding 12 months (i.e., receives three or more 10-day notices).  However, this option requires the landlord to issue written warnings with specific statutory language each time the tenant commits a violation.  It also requires a 90-day termination notice correlating with the end of the fixed term.  Since this “modified” 3-strikes rule requires fixed-term tenancies, considerable paperwork, and special forms, it is not the ideal option.

 

A better option is to use month-to-month rental agreements and never allow any RV tenant to stay in the park for more than 12 months.  Since RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day,

no-cause termination notice during their first year of occupancy, this gives you the option of giving a 30-day notice if the tenant starts falling behind on rent.  Conversely, it also requires you to issue 30-day notices to anyone approaching 12 months living in the park.  This might be contrary to your park’s business model if you rely on keeping long-term residential RV tenants rather than short-term tenants.

 

(CAVEAT: The cities of Portland, Eugene, and Milwaukie require 90-day notices within the first year of occupancy, not 30-day notices.  Portland and Eugene also impose “relocation assistance” payments to tenants.  Consult an attorney before issuing no-cause notices in these cities.)

 

For RV tenants who have lived in the park for more than one year, the park’s options are limited.  The best you can do is regularly issue 10-day nonpayment notices every month to keep tenants paying rent on time.  If they don’t pay by the 10-day deadline, file in court and try to get them to agree on a stipulated court move-out agreement at the 1st court appearance hearing.  If that doesn’t work, keep issuing 10-day nonpayment notices every month.  Also keep up the pressure by issuing 30-day notices every month for nonpayment of late fees and utilities (MHCO Form 205).

 

 

Mark L. Busch, P.C., Attorney at Law, Cornell West, Suite 200, 1500 NW Bethany Blvd., Beaverton, Oregon 97006; Phone: 503-597-1309; Web:  www.marklbusch.com

Legislative Update - Tenant Rights Bills Moves Out of Key House Committee

We are now approaching the halfway point in the 2016 Oregon Legislative Session. We are starting to get a much better sense of what legislative proposals are moving forward and which ones will likely remain in committees and not see the light of day until perhaps the next legislative session in 2017.

The "tenant rights" bill HB 4143A passed out of the Oregon House Rules Committee late yesterday afternoon with the "dash 14A" amendment which addressed MHCO's last issue - the extension to 90 days for "no cause" evictions. This amendment returns "no cause" evictions to 60 days for tenancies over 1 year. With the adoption of this amendment manufactured home communities in Oregon will face NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES from this legislative session. There will be no rent control or rent justificiation. The one year limit on rent increases will impact only apartments - NOT manufactured home communities. HB 4143A heads to the House floor for a vote then on to the Senate. MHCO does not expect any "anti-landlord" language to be added as we head over to the Senate chamber.

The other legislation MHCO is watching is SB 1533 the "inclusionary zoning" bill. This bill is up for a public hearing tomorrow in the Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue. Since it is only scheduled for a public hearing the bill will not move out of committee until possibly later this week. Time is starting to run out on this legislative session and there is little room for bills to stall.

This has turned out to be a very successful legislative session for community owners in Oregon. It is the first Oregon legislative session in 20 years to not have any signficant legisaltive changes impacting community owners. We still have a couple weeks to go - but things are looking good. MHCO will keep you up to date as we head into the final weeks of the 2016 Oregon Legislative Session.