Search

Answer: Domestic violence is a defense to eviction, but only under the proper circumstances. I have set out the law in its entirety below. As you can see, the law presumes there has been a violent act for which the landlord is evicting everyone in the space, i.e. the villain and the victim. The domestic violence law says you cannot evict the victim for the violent act. But it also says the villain and the victim are still responsible for rent. It also requires a valid third-party affirmation to the event. In short, based on your question, it does not sound as if the domestic violence statute will provide a defense to an action for nonpayment of rent. You should tell the victim that you do not believe the domestic violence law applies in these circumstances (i.e. nonpayment of rent) and that if her attorney believes otherwise, he must call you immediately and explain why. Is she is a serial late pay for which you have to issue multiple non-payment of rent notices, you might consider a 3-strikes notice under ORS 90.630(8). DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT OR STALKING 90.445 Termination of tenant committing criminal act of physical violence. (1) If a tenant perpetrates a criminal act of physical violence related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking against a household member who is a tenant, after delivery of at least 24 hours' written notice specifying the act or omission constituting the cause and specifying the date and time of the termination, the landlord may: (a) Terminate the rental agreement of the perpetrating tenant, but may not terminate the rental agreement of the other tenants; and (b) If the perpetrator of the criminal act of physical violence related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking continues to occupy the premises after the termination date and time specified in the notice, seek a court order under ORS 105.128 to remove the perpetrator from the premises and terminate the perpetrator's tenancy without seeking a return of possession from the remaining tenants. (2) A landlord that terminates the tenancy of a perpetrator under this section may not require the remaining tenants to pay additional rent or an additional deposit or fee due to exclusion of the perpetrator. (3) The perpetrator is jointly liable with any other tenants of the dwelling unit for rent or damages to the premises incurred prior to the later of the date the perpetrator vacates the premises or the termination date specified in the notice. (4) The landlord's burden of proof in a removal action sought under this section is by a preponderance of the evidence. [2007 c.508 _3] 90.449 Landlord discrimination against victim; exception; tenant defenses and remedies. (1) A landlord may not terminate or fail to renew a tenancy, serve a notice to terminate a tenancy, bring or threaten to bring an action for possession, increase rent, decrease services or refuse to enter into a rental agreement: (a) Because a tenant or applicant is, or has been, a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. (b) Because of a violation of the rental agreement or a provision of this chapter, if the violation consists of an incident of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking committed against the tenant or applicant. (c) Because of criminal activity relating to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking in which the tenant or applicant is the victim, or of any police or emergency response related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking in which the tenant or applicant is the victim. (2) A landlord may not impose different rules, conditions or standards or selectively enforce rules, conditions or standards against a tenant or applicant on the basis that the tenant or applicant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a landlord may terminate the tenancy of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking if the landlord has previously given the tenant a written warning regarding the conduct of the perpetrator relating to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and: (a) The tenant permits or consents to the perpetrator's presence on the premises and the perpetrator is an actual and imminent threat to the safety of persons on the premises other than the victim; or (b) The perpetrator is an unauthorized occupant and the tenant permits or consents to the perpetrator living in the dwelling unit without the permission of the landlord. (4) If a landlord violates this section: (a) A tenant or applicant may recover up to two months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained by the tenant or applicant, whichever is greater; (b) The tenant has a defense to an action for possession by the landlord; and (c) The applicant may obtain injunctive relief to gain possession of the dwelling unit. (5) Notwithstanding ORS 105.137 (4), if a tenant asserts a successful defense under subsection (4) of this section to an action for possession, the tenant is not entitled to prevailing party fees, attorney fees or costs and disbursements if the landlord: (a) Did not know, and did not have reasonable cause to know, at the time of commencing the action that a violation or incident on which the action was based was related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking; and (b) Promptly dismissed tenants other than the perpetrator from the action upon becoming aware that the violation or incident on which the action was based was related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. [2007 c.508 _4; 2011 c.42 _9] 90.453 Termination by tenant who is victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking; verification statement. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Immediate family member" means, with regard to a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, any of the following who is not a perpetrator of the domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking against the tenant: (A) An adult person related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, as defined in ORS 106.310, or as defined or described in similar law in another jurisdiction; (B) A cohabitant in an intimate relationship; (C) An unmarried parent of a joint child; or (D) A child, grandchild, foster child, ward or guardian of the victim or of anyone listed in subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of this paragraph. (b) "Qualified third party" means a person that has had individual contact with the tenant and is a law enforcement officer, attorney or licensed health professional or is a victim's advocate at a victim services provider. (c) "Verification" means: (A) A copy of a valid order of protection issued by a court pursuant to ORS 30.866, 107.095 (1)(c), 107.716, 107.718 or 163.738 or any other federal, state, local or tribal court order that restrains a person from contact with the tenant; (B) A copy of a federal agency or state, local or tribal police report regarding an act of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking against the tenant; (C) A copy of a conviction of any person for an act of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking against the tenant; or (D) A statement substantially in the form set forth in subsection (3) of this section. (d) "Victim services provider" means: (A) A nonprofit agency or program receiving moneys administered by the Department of Human Services or the Department of Justice that offers safety planning, counseling, support or advocacy to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking; or (B) A prosecution-based victim assistance program or unit. (2)(a) If a tenant gives a landlord at least 14 days' written notice, and the notice so requests, the landlord shall release the tenant and any immediate family member of the tenant from the rental agreement. (b) The notice given by the tenant must specify the release date and must list the names of any immediate family members to be released in addition to the tenant. (c) The notice must be accompanied by verification that the tenant: (A) Is protected by a valid order of protection; or (B) Has been the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking within the 90 days preceding the date of the notice. For purposes of this subparagraph, any time the perpetrator was incarcerated or residing more than 100 miles from the victim's home does not count as part of the 90-day period. (3) A verification statement must be signed by the tenant and the qualified third party and be in substantially the following form: ______________________________________________________________________________ QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION ______________________ Name of qualified third party ______________________ Name of tenant PART 1. STATEMENT BY TENANT I, ________(Name of tenant), do hereby state as follows: (A) I or a minor member of my household have been a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, as those terms are defined in ORS 90.100. (B) The most recent incident(s) that I rely on in support of this statement occurred on the following date(s):_________. ___The time since the most recent incident took place is less than 90 days; or ___The time since the most recent incident took place is less than 90 days if periods when the perpetrator was incarcerated or was living more than 100 miles from my home are not counted. The perpetrator was incarcerated from ____________ to____________. The perpetrator lived more than 100 miles from my home from ___________ to___________. (C) I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty for perjury. ______________________ (Signature of tenant) Date: ________ PART 2. STATEMENT BY QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY I, ________(Name of qualified third party), do hereby verify as follows: (A) I am a law enforcement officer, attorney or licensed health professional or a victim's advocate with a victims services provider, as defined in ORS 90.453. (B) My name, business address and business telephone are as follows: ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ (C) The person who signed the statement above has informed me that the person or a minor member of the person's household is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, based on incidents that occurred on the dates listed above. (D) I reasonably believe the statement of the person above that the person or a minor member of the person's household is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, as those terms are defined in ORS 90.100. I understand that the person who made the statement may use this document as a basis for gaining a release from the rental agreement with the person's landlord. I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty for perjury. ______________________ (Signature of qualified third party making this statement) Date: ________ ______________________________________________________________________________ (4) A tenant and any immediate family member who is released from a rental agreement pursuant to subsection (2) of this section: (a) Is not liable for rent or damages to the dwelling unit incurred after the release date; and (b) Is not subject to any fee solely because of termination of the rental agreement. (5) Notwithstanding the release from a rental agreement of a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and any tenant who is an immediate family member of that tenant, other tenants remain subject to the rental agreement. (6) A landlord may not disclose any information provided by a tenant under this section to a third party unless the disclosure is: (a) Consented to in writing by the tenant; (b) Required for use in an eviction proceeding; (c) Made to a qualified third party; or (d) Required by law. (7) The provision of a verification statement under subsection (2) of this section does not waive the confidential or privileged nature of a communication between the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and a qualified third party. [2003 c.378 _4; 2007 c.508 _9; 2011 c.42 _9a] 90.456 Other tenants remaining in dwelling unit following tenant termination or exclusion due to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Notwithstanding the release of a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, and any immediate family members of that tenant, from a rental agreement under ORS 90.453 or the exclusion of a perpetrator of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking as provided in ORS 90.459 or 105.128, if there are any remaining tenants of the dwelling unit, the tenancy shall continue for those tenants. Any fee, security deposit or prepaid rent paid by the victim, perpetrator or other tenants shall be applied, accounted for or refunded by the landlord following termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession by the remaining tenants as provided in ORS 90.300 and 90.302. [2003 c.378 _6; 2007 c.508 _10; 2007 c.508 _11; 2011 c.42 _9b] 90.459 Change of locks at request of tenant who is victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. (1) A tenant may give actual notice to the landlord that the tenant is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and may request that the locks to the dwelling unit be changed. A tenant is not required to provide verification of the domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking to initiate the changing of the locks. (2) A landlord who receives a request under subsection (1) of this section shall promptly change the locks to the tenant's dwelling unit at the tenant's expense or shall give the tenant permission to change the locks. If a landlord fails to promptly act, the tenant may change the locks without the landlord's permission. If the tenant changes the locks, the tenant shall give a key to the new locks to the landlord. (3) If the perpetrator of the domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking is a tenant in the same dwelling unit as the victim: (a) Before the landlord or tenant changes the locks under this section, the tenant must provide the landlord with a copy of an order issued by a court pursuant to ORS 107.716 or 107.718 or any other federal, state, local or tribal court that orders the perpetrator to move out of the dwelling unit. (b) The landlord has no duty under the rental agreement or by law to allow the perpetrator access to the dwelling unit or provide keys to the perpetrator, during the term of the court order or after expiration of the court order, or to provide the perpetrator access to the perpetrator's personal property within the dwelling unit. Notwithstanding ORS 90.425, 90.435 or 90.675, if a landlord complies completely and in good faith with this section, the landlord is not liable to a perpetrator excluded from the dwelling unit. (c) The perpetrator is jointly liable with any other tenant of the dwelling unit for rent or damages to the dwelling unit incurred prior to the date the perpetrator was excluded from the dwelling unit. (d) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the landlord may not require the tenant to pay additional rent or an additional deposit or fee because of the exclusion of the perpetrator. (e) The perpetrator's tenancy terminates by operation of law upon an order described in paragraph (a) of this subsection becoming a final order. [2003 c.378 _5; 2007 c.508 _11]

One of the measuring sticks of great managers, as well as great regional managers, is their ability to be friendly while at the same time, keeping their eyes firmly upon the objectives of the community. The responsibilities of property management are immense and sometimes thankless. It is hard to believe that any of us could add another thing to our schedules to strive for better resident relations. But we must, and we must go at it with an eager, devoted, and intense passion to be successful. The only way to achieve this and still maintain the quality of the community is great organizational skills, resident, participation and the initiative to be creative.

No matter how large or small a community and its budget, the following simple steps will bring a community to its peak performance and create strong resident relations.

Get the Residents Involved

Make photo albums or scrapbooks of residents enjoying their community or community activities. Seniors enjoy donating photos from their past and the fun time they've had with neighbors or friends. Residents can form a photography club to take pictures of all community events, funny resident situations and neighbors helping one another. Photo clubs are a good source for pictures submitted by residents. Volunteers can help with the collection of photos and putting together the album. Display the album(s) proudly in the activity center or community lounge area for all to enjoy. Managers should look through the books from time to time to ensure quality content.

Encourage residents to write positive letters or stories about the community. Resident writings can be collected in an attractive album, which is also to be displayed in the community activity center. When the letters have been submitted, ask if they may be used in the community newsletter. Pick one letter a month to exhibit in an attractive picture frame under the caption, "Letter of the month" or "Why we enjoy living in this community."

Create a journal to pass around the community (it may be a spiral notebook) for all residents to write in. A note stating the topic should be firmly attached on the outside of the journal for all to read before inserting thoughts. The note may ask for how long the resident has lived in the community and a short biography. Encourage the use of photos or themselves, their families and/or pets. The final instruction should be "When you are finished with your thoughts, please pass this on to your neighbor. If you do not wish to be a part of this project, please call the community office, and we will pick it up." The notebook should be placed inside a weatherproof cover and given to the first home in the community. Many 55+ communities have seasonal residents. You might want to wait to start until they return, so all may participate.

If your community activity center has a television set and VCR, you can host movie matinees on adverse weather days. Rent a latest release (within the confines of movies seniors love), make popcorn for all (no salt or butter) and offer a non alcoholic beverage. Make sure the television is placed where everyone may comfortably view it, such as a stage as or the center of the room, and make the viewing room dark. What other thoughtful task can one do for less than $20 that gives joy to so many residents?

Everyone loves to show off their pets, especially seniors. Host a pet show. Purchase certificates and first, second, third place ribbons to award. Volunteers may acquire donations from local pet stores or other businesses to be awarded as prizes. Use an outside volunteer to pick the winners based on show, grooming, posture and training. Participants of local pet shows may be willing to volunteer their time to judge.

The same idea can work for a car show. Many residents have classic cars of which they are very proud. You may want to look in your local auto trader magazines for people who host car shows professionally. Many communities are looking for locations to hold their shows, complete with DJs, prizes, emcees and media. Use the same ideas from the pet show for great results.

Consider opening your clubhouse to local hobbyists. Most cities have model train clubs, remote-control airplane clubs, coin collectors and other hobbyists who are always looking for new places to meet and show off their labors of love. This effort provides seniors a pathway back to their childhood.

Keep yourself involved

In 55+ communities, residents are more interested in local government and have the time to help coordinate and change issues of concern. Some merely need the leadership and backing of the property owners or managers and the knowledge of who to contact to start the ball rolling. Cooperation of managers and residents can create great things and bond them together for the common good of everyone.

Perhaps the very best resident relations trick is getting outside the comfortable walls of the community to make changes that affect all the residents. If there are local or state issues of concern to manufactured housing communities or their residents, they need to get involved. Our government works for us, and is more likely to listen than it is often credited as being. One method toward such change is finding a government official who truly cares or is up for election. Their voters live in our communities. Working with the government takes patience and dedication. Although this kind of dedication may be very time consuming, in 55+ communities it is just as valuable as anything else a property manager does.

Start by reading every government mailing received. Items come up for vote on a regular basis that often negatively affect seniors and are addressed in a public forum prior to election. These forums are great opportunities for retirees and managers to give input toward change. Retired residents have the knowledge, spirit and time to investigate, preparing everything it takes to help present ideas in public forums.

Read all the fine print on every utility bill. Rates may increase and go unnoticed. If the utility companies are approached when proposing these changes, very often they may be overturned. It is not hard to present options to officials devising change. For example, in 1992 the managers of a small senior community discovered the water department offered water-leak rebates for site-built homes, but did not offer any solution to water leaks in manufactured housing communities with master meters sub-metered by the community.

With little effort this issue was approached, and the property managers found the city water department to be very cooperative in helping to resolve this problem. Today, a program is in place for all the residents in the city under these conditions, to receive rebates when residents have water leaks.

The same situation happened in a large Florida county. Residents in mater-metered communities also could not receive water leak rebates. Given the equation for determining sewer rates, when residents had leaks, the charges were exorbitant. This seriously affected the fixed-income seniors in the county. In 2000, because of a cooperative effort between water department, community management, and the homeowner's association of a 55+ community, this oversight was resolved. The effort only took a few phone calls, two meetings, a couple of faxes and the designing of a form that would work for the county and the community. Within 30 days of the community's first request, a program was in place for the entire county making it possible for all residents to receive rebates on water leaks.

In 1997, a county water department implemented an ideal way to dispose of waste water by a unique filtering system, then piped the filtered water throughout the county to be used for irrigation (reclaimed water). The process cost the county millions of dollars in construction. The county water department proposed a lengthy, complicated billing system to its customers, in the form of a "base rate." The proposed rate would have a devastating effect to senior residents in manufactured housing communities under the same metering conditions as described above because the master-metered system is considered "commercial".

Many phone calls were made by two community managers, in an attempt to find someone in the water department willing to explain the complex proposal, and willing to work with the communities to lower the billing rate. This six-month process required many meetings with the water department and a dedicated effort to get all the affected communities involved in the process. Today, as a result of this effort, all of the manufactured housing communities in that county now have a new category for billing commercial at residential rates. This new category lowered residents' base rate more than half of the original proposed increase. This lower rate was a big help to set-income seniors.

Keeping the media involved

Local TV media and newspaper reporters are always looking for human-interest stories. Every time a manager discovers a resident who has done something extraordinary, the media needs to be alerted. This includes Senior Olympics medalists, golfers who shot holes in one, shuffleboard champions and bowlers with a 300 game or a high series. Press releases should be sent to local papers to thank residents for special things they do in the form of "Volunteer of the Month" or "Hero of the Month." You might also want to invite the media to special events, such as National Night Out or other unique activities. Not only does the media coverage give residents a terrific boost, it is the best free advertising available.

These ideas and the examples above prove dedication and cooperative efforts between managers, residents, government officials and media to preserve and enhance the lifestyle seniors worked tirelessly to earn. What better way to thank the people who shaped our world, than to work passionately to help preserve the lifestyle for which they worked so hard. Home is where they should feel safe, respected, cared for and appreciated. Home is what we are to provide.

Reprinted from MHCO "Community Management"

Answer: The submetering statutes, ORS 90.531 - 90.539 are complex and confusing. As most owners and managers know who have explored converting to submeters, the concept is relatively simple. But the devil is in the details, i.e. the statutes. The basic concept is that for communities with utilities [e.g. water and sewer] that are buried in the base rent, they may extract those charges from base rent, and pass them through to the residents directly for payment. The "quid pro quo" for this is that the residents' base rent is reduced in a commensurate amount, so in theory, there is no initial net difference to landlord or tenant. But when utilities are increased, it becomes the residents' immediate responsibility to pay the increased charge - the landlord no longer has to raise the rent via a 90-day notice to recover the increase. Your question specifically pertains to one of the "devilish details' of this conversion process, i.e. passing through the utility cost for common areas. Specifically, you are referring to subsection (5) of ORS 90.537 ("Conversion of billing method for utility or service charges"). That statute provides that a landlord who has previously included utilities and services in their base rent [called "the rent billing method"] and converts to the "submeter billing method" may unilaterally, and at the same time as the conversion to submetering, begin billing for common areas to a "pro rata billing method" [i.e. where the residents' cost of the utility is charged and paid separately from the rent in an amount determined by apportioning on a pro rata basis the provider's charge to the landlord as measured by a master meter]. This common area charge must be included in the 180-day notice to residents that precedes the submeter conversion process. This means that the landlord would charge each resident a prorata portion of the master meter readings attributable to common area costs. Obviously, master meter readings do not distinguish between utility services provided to residents, versus those provided to common areas. For purposes of determining the amount of the offset the landlord should check with the utility provider to find out the cost of its service to the common areas. If the provider cannot provide the landlord with an accurate cost for service to the common areas, the landlord "shall assume the cost of serving the common areas to be 20 percent of the total cost billed." Note: Only if the landlord continues use the rent billing method for the cost of utilities to the common areas may the landlord may obtain an offset against the total rent reduction given to residents. This is because if the common area utility cost is still buried inside the base rent. It would be unfair to the landlord to require a dollar-for-dollar rent reduction for all utilities, since those attributed to the common areas are not passed directly through to the tenants for separate payment. In other words, the right of offset '_is not available if the landlord chooses to bill for the common areas using the pro rata method." If the cost of the utility service to the common area is apportioned on a prorate basis and passed through to the residents, there will be no need for offset against the rent reduction as a part of the conversion to submeters. In those cases, the landlord may only apportion the common area utility cost on a prorata basis. For purposes of determining the pro rata charge per resident, ORS 90.534 ("Allocated charges for utility or service provided directly to space or common area") clarifies the protocol to be followed: - A utility charge that is assessed to residents on a pro rata basis must be allocated among them '_by a method that reasonably apportions the cost among the affected tenants and that is described in the rental agreement." - Methods that reasonably apportion the cost among the residents include, but are not limited to, methods that divide the cost based on: _ The number of occupied spaces in the facility; _ The number of residents or occupants in the home compared with the number of residents or occupants in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service; or _ The square footage in each home compared with the total square footage of occupied homes in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service. - A utility or service charge to be assessed to a resident for a common area must be described in the written rental agreement separately and distinctly from the utility or service charge for the tenant's space. - A landlord may not: _ Bill or collect more money from residents for utilities or services than the provider charges the landlord; _ Increase the utility or service charge to a resident by adding any costs of the landlord, such as handling or administrative charges. See, I said the devil was in the details! ~PCQ

Answer. Let's brush up on Oregon's hazard tree law as it relates to landlord-tenant responsibilities:

1. Definitions.

• "DBH" means the diameter at breast height, which is measured as the width of a standing tree at four and one-half feet above the ground on the uphill side.

• "Hazard tree" means a tree that:
  • Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;
  • Measures at least eight inches DBH; and
  • Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, to pose an unreasonable risk of causing serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property in the near future. (Italics and underscore mine.)

1. Resident Duties re Trees Located on Space. A resident shall maintain and water trees, including cleanup and removal of fallen branches and leaves, on the rented space for a manufactured dwelling except for hazard trees.

• "Maintaining a tree" means removing or trimming a tree for the purpose of eliminating features of the tree that cause the tree to be hazardous, or that may cause the tree to become hazardous in the near future.
• "Removing a tree" includes:
  • Felling and removing the tree; and
  • Grinding or removing the stump of the tree.

1. Landlord Duties re Hazard Trees.

• Landlord shall maintain a hazard tree that was not planted by the current resident if the landlord knows or should know that the tree is a hazard tree;
• Landlord may maintain a tree on the rented space to prevent the tree from becoming a hazard tree;
  • Landlord must provide residents with reasonable written notice and reasonable opportunity to maintain the tree themselves.
• Landlord has discretion to decide whether the appropriate maintenance of a hazard tree is removal or trimming.
• Landlord is not responsible for:
  • Maintaining a tree that is not a hazard tree; or
  • Maintaining any tree for aesthetic purposes.
• A landlord must comply with the access provisions of ORS 90.725 before entering a resident's space to inspect or maintain a tree. [Generally, 24-hour notice. - PCQ]
• Subject to the preceding, a resident is responsible for maintaining the non-hazard trees on the resident's space at the resident's expense.
  • The resident may retain an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture to inspect a tree on the resident's space at the resident's expense;
  • If the arborist determines that the tree is a hazard, the resident may:
    • Require the landlord to maintain the tree as a hazard tree; or
    • Maintain the tree at the resident's expense, after providing the landlord with reasonable written notice of the proposed maintenance and a copy of the arborist's report.

The first question is whether this is a "hazard tree"? You say it is not, but based upon measurement, it is. Note that the statutory definition above says it is a hazard tree if it poses '_ an unreasonable risk of causing serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property in the near future."

My take is that this is a hazard tree, since it meets the physical specs, and not only is capable of causing serious damage, but its root system already has. At the risk of oversimplification, botanically speaking, the tree is the entire plant, not just the above-ground portion. While it is does not sound like it is in danger of toppling on anyone or anything, it does sound as if its root system is interfering with the resident's sewage system.[1]

Again, at the risk of oversimplification, I don't believe the issue is who actually owns the resident's lateral sewer line. Why? Because I suspect that the sewer system was not installed by the resident - it was likely installed at the time the park was developed. It is in the ground, and the ground is owned by the landlord.

Moreover, I believe ORS 90.730 (Landlord's habitability duties) applies in this case. It provides:

(2) A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition. The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home. A landlord's habitability duty under this section includes only the matters described in subsections (3) to (6) of this section.

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

(a) 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; (Emphasis added.)

The roots of the tree are interfering with the operation of the resident's sewer system, and you as a landlord have a maintenance obligation '_to the extent that the sewage disposal system can be controlled by the landlord."

And if the tree is deemed to be a hazard tree because of the damage to the lateral servicing the resident's space, then ORS 90.730(4), would arguably apply, which provides that the failure to maintain it can constitute a separate habitability violation by the landlord.

Conclusion. Unfortunately, it appears to me that: (a) Absent some language in the hazard tree statutes indicating an intent to exclude that root systems, and (b) your statutory habitability duty to maintain the sewage disposal system, a strong case could be made that remediating the damage caused by the tree roots (regardless of whether it's a "hazard tree" and regardless of whether the resident technically "owns" the lateral - which I doubt) the cost of keeping the system clear of tree roots, is on your shoulders.

[1] Since I was involved with John VanLandingham and others in the drafting of this legislation, I can only speak for myself, but admittedly, it seemed our focus was on the above-ground risks, e.g. toppling trees or branches falling on residents, their homes and automobiles.

History

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted The Fair Housing Act ("FHA") to prohibit housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The FHA was amended in 1988 to expand its coverage to prohibit discrimination based on disability or family status, meaning the presence of a child under the age of 18 and pregnant women. Because the creation of families as a protected class clashed with the operation of retirement or adult communities, the 1988 amendments included exemptions for housing developments that qualified as housing for persons over the age of 55. Because there was an inherent conflict between protected family status and the exemption for older persons, Congress responded with The Housing For Older Persons Act of 1995 ("HOPA") which fine tuned the exemptions and is now the definitive authority for owners of such housing. (You should also be aware that municipalities can have ordinances prohibiting discrimination for categories broader than the Civil Rights Act. Examples of common ordinances gaining popularity are discrimination in housing on the basis of HIV/AIDS status, sexual orientation. Such ordinances are not addressed in this article.)

Occupancy Requirement to Qualify for Exemption

HOPA maintained the requirement that at least 80% of exempt housing must have one occupant who is 55 years of age or older. It also still required that the exempt hosing publish and follow policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be housing for persons 55 and older. Significant in terms of capital costs, HOPA eliminated the requirement that 55 and older hosing had to maintain "significant facilities and services" designed for the elderly. (Communities that are occupied solely by persons who are 62 and older are also exempt from the prohibition against family discrimination under Section 100.303.)

"Wiggle Room" Factor

At first blush, the 80% requirement appears to give a property owner some "wiggle room" to comply with the exemption. HOPA specifically allows a 55 and older community to be "exempt" from the preference for families if, after September 13, 1988, 80% of the units are occupied by at least one person age 55 years or older. Units occupied by employees of the housing facility or community who are under the age 55 do not count against the 80% as long as the employees perform substantial duties related to the management or maintenance of the community. Likewise, units occupied by persons who are disabled and require a reasonable accommodation, also do not count against the 80%.

However, the 80% requirement can also be a property owners' pitfall if it is achieved improperly. The 80% requirement does not mean that the property owner can manipulate the remaining 20% of units occupied by persons under the age of 55. The 80% occupancy requirement is coupled with an additional requirement that the facility or community adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to be a 55 or older facility. A manager cannot merely choose to rent to "good" non-seniors or families just because the facility is over 80% senior.

One provision of HOPA which, on the surface, appears troublesome is Section 100.305(h) which provides that each housing facility may determine the age restriction for units that are not occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. On its face, this provision appears to allow a community to set any age requirement it wishes for the twenty percent (20%) of spaces which are not required to be occupied by a person 55 years of age or older, including requiring the occupants of the remaining twenty percent (20%) of spaces to be adults. However, this would appear to be contrary to the general intent of the FHA to prohibit discrimination on the basis of "family status". A more likely interpretation is that the housing provider need not apply any age restriction on occupancy of the remaining twenty percent (20%) of rental units. This interpretation seems likely, not only in view of the general intent of the FHA, but in view of Section 100.306(d) which provides that a housing facility or community may allow occupancy by families with children as long as it meets the intent requirements of Sections 100.305 and 100.306(a).

An argument could well be made that a community must allow up to twenty percent (20%) of the spaces to be occupied by persons who do not otherwise satisfy the community's minimum age requirements. The problem is that a park which "uses up" its twenty percent (20%) allotment may find itself below the 80% requirement if a space which was previously occupied by a person 55 years of age or older ceases to be so occupied. This could occur as a result of an older tenant dying or moving out of the community.

It has been our experience that HUD has, from time to time, interpreted the "twenty percent" allowance as a "fudge factor" in order to avoid hardship where, for example, an older tenant dies, leaving a widow who does not satisfy the community's minimum age requirements. This interpretation was bolstered by the requirement that the housing be intended for persons 55 years of age or older and that the properties have rules that limit residency to persons meeting the age requirements. Deliberately allowing persons under the age of 55 to move into the community seems contrary to this intention.

**Tip: In many states the law requires that mobile home parks owners uniformly enforce all published rules. To allow some households to avoid the requirement could run afoul of such laws leaving the door open for a disgruntled tenant to sue on a claim that the management is not uniformly enforcing its own rules.

Published Procedures & Policies of Intent

In addition to requiring that at least 80% of the occupied units be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older, HOPA requires that the housing be "intended and operated" for person 55 years of age or older, and that the housing facility "publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent" to qualify for the 55 or older exemption. Section 100.306(a) sets forth a non-exclusive list or relevant factors in determining whether the park "demonstrates" this "intent":

(1) The manner in which the housing facility is described to prospective residents;
(2) And advertising designed to attract prospective residents;
(3) Lease provisions;
(4) Written rules and regulations;
(5) The maintenance and consistent application or relevant procedures;
(6) Actual practices; and
(7) Public posting in common areas of statements describing the facility as housing for persons 55 years of age or older;

These requirements bolster the "common sense" approach to a community demonstrating its intent to be housing for older persons. Specifically, without limitation, the parks' residency documents need to clearly state the age restrictions on residency, and the age restrictions need to be consistently enforced.

Unscrupulous attempts by property owners to manipulate the intent to remain senior housing have resulted in adverse judgments. In a 2003 federal case in California, Housing Rights Center et al. v. Galaxy Apartments, et al., the apartment complex and management company was sued for allegedly telling an expectant mother that it would not accept families with children because it was a "seniors only" complex. The Housing Rights Center sent "testers" to the building and learned that childless adult testers of all ages were accepted and only testers with children or who were expecting children were told that the complex was seniors only. Obviously, the apartment owner was not complying with the "intent" of the over 55 exemption and was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $51,000 and enter into a two year fair housing training program.

Some states require that housing intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older register with state agencies. You should consult your legal counsel for the applicable registration and renewal process in your state.

Age Verification

HOPA provides specific guidelines for "age verification". To protect your property, these procedures should be followed to the point that, at any given time in the past, you should be able to demonstrate, the percentage of units that were occupied by at least one person age 55 or older.

Section 100.307(d) provides that the following documents are considered "reliable" documentation of the age of the occupants:

(1) Driver's license;
(2) Birth Certificate;
(3) Passport;
(4) Immigration card;
(5) Military identification;
(6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability, or
(7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older.

This last provision is useful in those cases where tenants who are believed to be over 55 years of age fail or refuse to provide proof of age to the park by allowing any other adult member of the household to sign a statement to the effect that the person in question is, in fact, at least 55 years of age.

**Tip: Make it a policy to obtain a written application for tenancy from every household and keep those applications for the length of the tenancy.

Section 100.307(g) further provides that: "If the occupants of a particular dwelling unit fail to comply with the age verification procedures, the housing facility or community may, if it has sufficient evidence, consider the unit to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older." This section goes on to provide that such evidence may include government records or documents, such as a census; prior forms or applications; or a statement from an individual who has personal knowledge of the age of the occupants. In the latter case, the individual's statement must set forth the basis for such knowledge. Compliance with this provision most probably would be met by a park employee statement as to their opinion of the age of a tenant, based upon the tenant's appearance and, if applicable, the apparent age of the tenant's adult children.

A typical pitfall for owners of such properties is the HOPA requirement that the age verification information must be updated at least every two years, pursuant to Section 100.307(c).

**Tip: In addition to keeping the tenant's application, the management should consider developing a form which it distributes to all spaces at least once every two years, asking residents to confirm the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home. This is probably good policy in any case, since a record of what adults are actually occupying a home is useful in other situations (e.g., naming all adults occupants in an unlawful detainer complaint.)

MHCO has a number of forms specifically designed for use in a "55 and Older Community". Form are available for MHCO members at MHCO.ORG

Reprinted from MHCO "Community Update" March/April 2005

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Section 3604(f)(1)(B) of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination against rental applicants, tenants, or the people associated with them, such as a tenant’s child, because of their disability. It’s also illegal (under Section 3604(f)(3)(B)) to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces, or to fulfill their program obligations” (if they’re in federally assisted housing). Examples:

• A community that doesn’t assign parking spaces makes an exception so that a mobility-impaired tenant will always be able to park near the building entrance;
• A community that requires tenants to pay their rent in person each month makes an exception for a tenant with a mental disability that makes her afraid to leave her apartment; and
• A community with a no-pets policy makes an exception allowing a sightless tenant to keep a seeing-eye dog in his apartment.

DEEP DIVE:

Reasonable Accommodations vs. Reasonable Modifications

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) of the FHA also bans refusing to allow “reasonable modifications of existing premises.” Like reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications are reasonable changes necessary to afford a disabled applicant or tenant “full enjoyment” of the premises, but with two key differences:  

• A reasonable modification is a structural change made to the property, while a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service; and
• More significantly, tenants are responsible for the costs of modifications while landlords must pay for accommodations. 

You may also have to comply with more stringent accommodations requirements under other laws, including:

• If you open all or part of your community to the public, you must make “reasonable modifications” and ensure it’s designed, constructed, and maintained to be fully accessible to the disabled under federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements;  
• Section 504 of the of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which imposes stricter discrimination rules on landlords that participate in HUD housing and other federal assistance programs; and
• State and local fair housing laws, which are often much stricter than the FHA.

10 STEPS FOR PROPERLY HANDLING

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS

Complying with your FHA duty to provide reasonable accommodations is one part substance and one part process. The first and most obvious challenge is to determine whether a requested accommodation is reasonable; the part that often gets overlooked relates not so much to the actual decisions you make but how you make them. Accordingly, the game plan below incorporates both challenges.

Step 1: Ensure Requestor Is (or Is Acting on Behalf of) a Disabled Person

Remember that while the FHA bans housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability, entitlement to reasonable accommodation applies to just one group: persons with disabilities. In other words, protection from fair housing discrimination doesn’t necessarily equate to the right to accommodation.

DEEP DIVE:

Are Other Protected Classes Entitled to Accommodations?

Although the FHA doesn’t expressly provide it except in the context of disabled persons, the argument has been made that reasonable accommodations are also required when necessary to allow a person protected by the law equal opportunity to “use and enjoy” housing. A notable case testing these principles involved a Chicago condo community whose tenants included the Blochs, a family of strong Jewish faith that posted a religious symbol called a Mezuzah on their door post. For over three decades, nobody said a word about the Mezuzah. But after a repainting, the condo board adopted a new rule banning tenants from posting any mats, signs, or other displays on their door posts. The Blochs requested a religious exemption allowing them to keep their Mezuzah, but the board said no.

The result was years of litigation, culminating in a U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit ruling denying the board’s motion to dismiss and allowing the Blochs to take their religious accommodations lawsuit to trial [Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009)].

What “disability” means: The FHA defines “disability” broadly as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more “major life activities.” Protection against discrimination and entitlement to accommodation extends to a person who:

• Actually has such a disability;
• Is perceived as having such a disability, even if that perception is wrong, such as where a landlord rejects an applicant that it wrongly believes has HIV; and
• Has a record of such an impairment, such as a recovered drug addict.

What “major life activities” are: “Major life activities” are those of central importance to daily life, such as walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and speaking. Conditions that substantially limit mobility are deemed disabilities, regardless of whether they’re plain to see or due to physical or mental conditions that aren’t readily apparent, such as heart disease, muscle weakness, or breathing ailments.

Step 2: Don’t Reject an Accommodation Because of How or When It’s Requested

You don’t have to make accommodations unless they’re specifically requested. On the other hand, you can’t make a big deal over the timing and formalities of a request. There’s no rule saying that requests must be in writing. Nor do requestors have to use the words “reasonable accommodation,” “fair housing,” “disability,” or any other magic language. All they need to do is make it clear that they’re requesting an accommodation. Note also that an accommodation request can come from either the rental applicant/tenant or a person acting on his or her behalf. According to HUD/U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Guidelines (which we’ll refer to as the “Guidelines”), a landlord is on notice “that a reasonable accommodation request has been made if a person, her family member, or someone acting on her behalf requests a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability.”

Other key things to keep in mind:

• Accommodation requests can be made by rental applicants as well as tenants at the start or at any time during their tenancy;
• You can ask requestors to put their requests in writing, but you can’t require them to do so; and
• While a family member, guardian, or other third party may request a reasonable accommodation on a disabled person’s behalf, a third party can’t demand an accommodation solely for his or her own benefit, such as an assigned parking space.

Tip: HUD recommends that landlords create forms and procedures that people can use to submit written requests for accommodations. This can facilitate and speed up the processing of requests and “prevent misunderstandings regarding what’s being requested, or whether the request was made.” However, the Guidelines add, landlords “must give appropriate consideration to reasonable accommodation requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the [landlord’s] preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.”

Step 3: Promptly Respond to Accommodation Requests

Don’t ignore an accommodation request, no matter how baseless and frivolous you think it is. While there’s no specific deadline, the Guidelines make it clear that landlords and other housing providers must provide a “prompt response” to a reasonable accommodation request. “An undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be deemed to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation,” according to HUD/DOJ.

Step 4: Engage Your Accommodation Process

Engage in an interactive process with the requestor to gather the necessary information about the request and disability (which we’ll discuss under Step 5) and discuss ways to accommodate it. Recognize that failure to reach agreement on an accommodation request is tantamount to a denial. Result: The requestor can file a disability discrimination complaint with HUD or the equivalent state or local fair housing agency, which will then perform an investigation to determine whether there’s “reasonable cause” to believe you violated your accommodation duties. If so, you’ll end up having to defend yourself in a federal court or HUD Administrative Law Judge proceeding.  

Example: A Missouri landlord had to shell out $44,000 for denying a tenant’s request to transfer to a unit with fewer stairs to accommodate her mobility-impaired daughter. The landlord flatly refused the request, saying it had no apartments available. In dishing out the fine, the federal court cited the landlord’s failure to even engage the tenant, evaluate the daughter’s medical needs, and explore ways to accommodate them [United States v. Dunnwood, (E.D. Mo.) July 16, 2020].  

Strategy: Although the FHA doesn’t expressly require it, HUD recommends that landlords implement formal rules and procedures for handling accommodation requests. Advantages of having a formal accommodations process include:

• Ensuring that all accommodations requests get a prompt response and that no requests fall through the cracks;
• Enhancing the likelihood of agreement and preventing misunderstandings and miscommunications that can lead to complaints and investigations; and
• Generating a paper trail documenting the proper consideration you gave to the request, setting up your legal defense in case complaints and investigations do occur.

Caveat: The Guidelines warn that you can’t refuse to consider a reasonable accommodation request just because the requestor won’t follow your formal procedures or use your preferred forms.

Step 5: Properly Verify the Requestor’s Disability and Need for Accommodation

Let’s turn to how to actually make decisions on particular accommodation requests. The first step is to verify the need for the requested disability accommodation. Normally, you’re not allowed to ask applicants or tenants if they’re disabled or about the nature and extent of their disability. However, the Guidelines give landlords some leeway to gather information about a person’s disability in response to a reasonable accommodation request to the extent the information is necessary to determine three things:

1. The person meets the FHA definition of disability—that is, has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
2. Exactly what accommodation is being requested; and
3. Whether there’s a “nexus,” or relationship, between the disability and the need for the requested accommodation.  

Example: A tenant requested an assigned parking space as an accommodation for his Alzheimer’s Disease. The landlord said no. The California federal court dismissed the tenant’s failure-to-accommodate complaint because of the lack of evidence showing the link between Alzheimer’s and parking and how having an assigned parking spot was an accommodation necessary to “ameliorate” the disease’s effects [Elliott v. QF Circa, Case No. 16-cv-0288-BAS-AGS, June 18, 2018].  

Beware: There are limits on what information you can and can’t ask for, depending on what you already know or can easily surmise.

Rule 1: If the person’s disability and need for the accommodation is obvious, or otherwise known to you, you can’t request any additional information about the disability or disability-related need for the accommodation.

Rule 2: If the disability is known or readily apparent to you, but the need for the accommodation is not, you may request only information that’s necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the accommodation.

• OK to request verification: A rental applicant in a building without elevator service wants a ground-floor apartment, claiming she can’t climb steps due to asthma or some other respiratory ailment. Since the claimed disability isn’t readily apparent, the landlord would be justified in asking for verification of the ailment and why she needs a first-floor apartment to accommodate it.
• Not OK to request verification: Same scenario but instead of a respiratory ailment, the applicant uses a wheelchair. Since the physical disability (that is, a mobility impairment) and disability-related need for the requested accommodation are both readily apparent, the landlord can’t require the applicant to provide any additional information about the disability or need for a ground-floor apartment.

Strategy: You may be able to get the information you need to verify that the person meets the FHA definition of disability directly from the requestors themselves, such as in the form of credible statements from the individuals, or the fact they have government-issued disability license plates or placards on their vehicle or receive Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits despite being under age 65.

If necessary, the Guidelines say landlords may also seek verification from a doctor or other medical professional, peer support group, non-medical service agency, or reliable third party in a position to know about the individual’s disability. However, they must limit the request to only the information needed to verify the disability and need for the accommodation. 

Step 6: Determine If Requested Accommodation Is Reasonable

You need only grant requested accommodations that are reasonable. According to HUD, a request for an accommodation is reasonable if it:

• Doesn’t cause landlords to incur an undue financial and administrative burden;
• Doesn’t cause a basic or fundamental change in the nature of the housing program available;
• Won’t cause harm or damage to others; and
• Is technologically possible.

These criteria are critical, so let’s look at them more closely.

Financial and administrative burden. You can’t deem a requested accommodation unreasonable simply because it costs time and money to provide. The burden must be “undue,” based on the accommodation’s costs, the landlord’s financial resources, the benefits to the requestor, and the availability of cheaper, easier alternatives that would effectively meet the requestor’s needs. Examples of accommodations for disabilities that would impose undue financial or administrative burden would include making structural changes to common areas or completely paving over and reconstructing the entire parking lot for the sake of one tenant.  

Fundamental alteration. Accommodations require “fundamental alterations” when they alter the essential nature of a landlord’s operations.

Example: A tenant with a severe mobility impairment asks his landlord to transport him to the grocery store and help him with his grocery shopping. The request wouldn’t be a reasonable accommodation to the extent that the landlord doesn’t provide any transportation or shopping services for any of its tenants, according to the Guidelines.

Harm or damage to others. You don’t have to make accommodations that would endanger the health and safety of others or pose the risk of unreasonable damage to property, such as by making an exception to a no-pets policy to allow a tenant to keep a full-grown elephant or camel in her apartment as a “therapy animal.”   

Detrimental to other disabled persons. Accommodations aren’t reasonable if they require you to deprive other disabled applicants or tenants an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their own apartments. For example, you don’t have to force one mobility-impaired tenant to vacate a ground-floor apartment or give up a reserved accessible parking space in favor of another tenant who’s “more disabled.” If resources are limited, create a waiting list for granting requests as things open up in the order you receive them based on which disabled tenant has been waiting the longest.

Technologically impossible. Accommodations aren’t reasonable if they’re technologically impossible. Thus, for example, the owner of a three-story prewar urban brownstone building wouldn’t have to—and probably wouldn’t be able to—install an elevator just so a mobility-impaired tenant could continue living on the third floor.   

Strategy: It’s a good idea to consult an attorney for advice before notifying the requestor of your decision if, for whatever reason, you determine that a requested accommodation is unreasonable.

Step 7: Consider Alternative Accommodations If Request Is Unreasonable

The accommodations process shouldn’t end simply because you conclude that a requested accommodation is unreasonable. Before you reject the request, dig deeper and ask yourself this question: Is there some other change you can make or action you can take that would enable the requestor to more fully use and enjoy his or her home?

Example: Let’s go back to the example above where a disabled tenant’s request that a landlord drive him to the grocery store would be deemed an unreasonable accommodation to the extent such services aren’t offered to any tenants. Even though the landlord can deny the request, it should consider alternatives that would meet the tenant’s needs without forcing a fundamental alteration of operations. For example, maybe it can alter its parking policy to allow a local volunteer to park her car close to the tenant’s apartment so she can drive him to the store and help him shop for groceries.

You can also offer easier or cheaper alternatives to those who make reasonable requests. However, if an accommodation is reasonable, the requestor isn’t obligated to accept any of your suggested alternatives.

Step 8: Don’t Charge Accommodation Request Fees or Deposits

The Guidelines state that you can’t make individuals with disabilities pay extra fees or deposits as a condition for receiving a requested accommodation. That includes charging an administrative fee for processing an accommodation request. If an accommodation is reasonable, you must pay the associated costs out of your own pocket and not charge the requestor a fee or deposit to defray the associated expenses.  

Example: A Pennsylvania seniors housing provider had to shell out $80,000 to settle discrimination claims brought by mobility-impaired tenants and fair housing agencies, including for allegedly charging disabled tenants as much as $350 for designated parking spaces necessary to make their apartments accessible [Clover Group, May 2020].

Similarly, if an accommodation is reasonable, you must provide it without imposing financial or other conditions, such as by requiring tenants to pay “pet deposits” or carry extra insurance coverage for their service animals.

Example: A Minnesota apartment community paid $35,000 to settle claims of placing undue conditions on a tenant’s request for a service animal by requiring her to:

• Buy an insurance policy covering the dog and listing the landlord as a co-insured;
• Make the dog wear a special emotional support animal vest at all times outside the apartment; and
• Sign an “indemnification and hold harmless waiver” covering the landlord against any harm the dog caused [United States v. Brooklyn Park 73rd Leased Housing Assoc., LLC, (D. Minn., Jan. 22, 2016)].

Step 9: Don’t Retaliate Against Persons for Requesting Accommodations

You can’t evict, reject, or take any other adverse action against any person for requesting a reasonable accommodation. You can be liable even if retaliation is just one motive for a decision—for example, evicting a tenant for not paying rent and for requesting an accommodation.

Example: A Tennessee landlord evicted a disabled tenant after he requested reasonable modifications (removal of a concrete parking bumper) and accommodations (two assigned parking spaces). The tenant filed a complaint with HUD, claiming the eviction was retaliatory. Rather than risk a trial, the landlord paid $52,500 to settle the claims [United States v. Fairfax Manor Group, LLC, (W.D. Tenn., March 19, 2018)].

Step 10: Keep Requestor’s Personal Information Confidential

The personal information you collect to process an applicant or tenant’s request for a disability accommodation is protected by privacy laws. Result: You must keep the information confidential and secure, use it only for purposes of processing the accommodation request, and not disclose it to others except when you’re legally required to do so, such as when  a court issues a subpoena requiring you to disclose the information. These privacy obligations apply regardless of whether you ultimately grant or deny the accommodation request.

Answer. There is a critical difference between fixed term leases (i.e. those having a definite commencement date and expiration date) and periodic tenancies (i.e. month-to-month tenancies that continue month after month, and only terminate if the tenant gives not less than 30-days' written notice, or the landlord terminates for cause).

Fixed term tenancies may only be for a term of two years or more. Rent is set in the lease, and (hopefully) the landlord has built into the document a rent increase formula (e.g. a "base" amount plus a percentage increase tied to some recognized index, e.g. the CPI, or Consumer Price Index). Not less than 60 days prior to the expiration of the lease term, the landlord must give written notice of the terms of the new lease (including rent), and may include new rules, etc., so long as they are all consistent with the terms of the leases and rules given to new incoming residents. See, ORS 90.545.

Rent for periodic tenancies, such as month-to-month, can only increase through a 90-day notice, pursuant to ORS 90.600. Note that this statute limits its application to "month to month tenancies", so a landlord with a fixed term tenancy cannot use that statute to increase rent for a fixed term tenancy.[1]

Question No. 2. Can a landlord raise rent in the first year of the lease, or does he/she have to wait a year? Is there a way around the first year limitation on rent increases if the resident is on a lease?

Answer. Section 2 of House Bill 4143 (2016) provides as follows:

(2) If a tenancy is a month-to-month tenancy, the landlord may not increase the rent:

(a) During the first year after the tenancy begins.

(b) At any time after the first year of the tenancy without giving the tenant written notice at least 90 days prior to the effective date of the rent increase.

(3) The notices required under this section must specify:

(a) The amount of the rent increase;

(b) The amount of the new rent; and

(c) The date on which the increase becomes effective.

(4) This section does not apply to tenancies governed by ORS 90.505 to 90.850. (i.e. manufactured housing communities) (Emphasis mine.)

So in regards to your question, the one-year limitation only applies to month-to-month tenancies for homes that are not under the law governing manufactured housing communities, i.e. ORS 90.505 - 90.580.

However, note that RVs are not considered manufactured homes, so if you had them in your community and they were on month-to-month tenancies, you would be subject to the one year limitation on rent increase.

And there is no one-year prohibition against rent increases for homes on leases, either inside or outside manufactured housing communities, because, as noted above, it is assumed a rent increase protocol was already built into the lease at the time it was signed by the landlord and tenant. The state law cannot interfere with that contractually agreed-upon arrangement. So you don't have to figure out a work-around for leases - just build in a good formula to cover the years of the lease term.

Question No. 3. What about rent increases in the Portland metro area? What are the limitations?

Answer. Originally, the Portland rent increase law as it applied to rental homes, apartments, and RVs, contained the one year limitation discussed above. But in 2016, HB 4143 was enacted, which expanded the one-year limitation statewide. So the rent increase law for Portland and the rest of the state is the same with one major exception:

If a rent increase in the city of Portland is 10% or more,[2] the tenant may opt to vacate, and the landlord is required to pay for their relocation assistance. The details are contained in the Portland City Code 30.01.085 (Portland Renter Additional Protections) here.

Question No. 4. Other than leases in the Portland metro area - what are my rights and responsibilities of raising rent in an Oregon manufactured home community.

Answer. There are only two types of tenancies - fixed term (e.g. leases for two or more years) and periodic (e.g. weekly and monthly). As discussed above, the regime for increasing rent for fixed term tenancies is contained in the body of the lease; no statutes or ordinances control.

As for month-to-month tenancies, rent increases are governed by ORS 90.600, which requires not less than 90-days' written notice (plus at least three days for mailing) '_prior to the effective date of the rent increase specifying the amount of the increase, the amount of the new rent and the date on which the increase becomes effective."

Even though the statute does not place any limitations on the frequency or amount of rent increases in manufactured housing communities, there are indirectly some common sense limitations: e.g. what are other parks charging in the area with the same or similar amenities?

Question No. 5. Finally, what about rent increases in RV parks - are the terms the same for RV parks as manufactured home communities?

Answer. As noted above, rent increases for RVs on periodic tenancies, inside or outside of parks, are treated the same as for tenants in rental homes and apartments; the law requires not less than 90 days' written notice, and prohibits increases until after the first year of the tenancy. The big exception is for the city of Portland, in which increases of 10% or more have some rather harsh financial consequences to landlords.

Advance notice of increase requirements or rent increase limitations do not apply if the tenant is on a lease (unless provided in the lease itself), since both parties agreed, in advance, to the rent formula in the written document.

[1] However, notwithstanding the limited application of ORS 90.600, I personally believe that a landlord may (with assistance of competent counsel) include in a lease, a program, not unlike that contained in ORS 90.600, providing that the rent may be increased, say annually, with 90-days' notice, in an amount not to exceed X% of base rent, thus giving the landlord the ability to vary rent increases not tied to an index, but rather to the landlord's business needs.

[2] Be careful here! The percentage increase applies to "Rent" and "Associated Housing Costs" which are defined in the ordinance.

HUD also found that the problem exists in both the home buying and rental markets. Specifically, the report found that, as compared to white renters who contact a rental agent:

• African Americans are told about 11 percent fewer units and shown 4 percent fewer units;
• Latinos/Hispanics are told about 12 percent fewer units and shown 7 percent fewer units; and
• Asian Americans are told about 10 percent fewer units and shown 7 percent fewer units.

Surprised? How can this continue to happen in a country where housing discrimination and segregation have been illegal since 1968, you may wonder.

Part of the answer is that while overt discrimination has become relatively rare, more subtle forms of discrimination continue to thrive. And as they continue over time, they perpetuate institutional segregation. Of course, these subtle forms of discrimination are every bit as illegal as the overt kind. The problem is that they’re also much harder to detect and root out. And because these forms of discrimination are so subtle, it’s easy for property owners, managers, and leasing agents who are otherwise committed to equal housing principles to engage in them unintentionally and inadvertently.  

This month’s lesson deals with one of the most widespread and pernicious forms of subtle discrimination: steering. First, we’ll explain what steering is and how it occurs. And then we’ll set out seven rules to ensure that your leasing agents don’t engage in conduct that constitutes steering. We’ll finish up the lesson with the Coach’s Quiz so you can see how well you learned the material.   

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap (disability), familial status, or national origin. (To avoid having to list these traits over and over again, we’ll refer to them collectively as “protected characteristics”). Also keep in mind that federal FHA requirements are minimum standards and that many states have adopted their own fair housing laws that extend protections to other protected characteristics, which may include:

• Sexual orientation;
• Gender identity;
• Source of income;
• Criminal record;
• Political belief;
• Creed; and/or
• Military status.

Forms of unlawful discrimination include, among other things:

• Refusing to sell, rent, or negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make available, or deny housing to a person on the basis of protected characteristics [FHA, Section 3604(a)];  
• Offering different and less favorable terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of housing due to a person’s protected characteristics [FHA, Section 3604(b)];
• Making notices and statements or engaging in advertising for the sale or rental of housing that indicate a preference on the basis of protected characteristics [FHA, Section 3604(c)]; and
• Making discriminatory misrepresentations about the availability of housing [FHA, Section 3604(d)].

Steering may run afoul of any one or combination of Sections 3604(a), (b), (c), and/or (d), depending on the situation. It occurs when a landlord tries to influence rental prospects’ choice in housing based on their protected characteristics. Steering is illegal because it limits prospects’ choices and denies them the opportunity to buy or rent the housing they choose. Practiced on a wider basis, steering also maintains or creates segregation across apartment communities, neighborhoods, towns, cities, and wider communities.

Part of what makes steering so widespread is how easy it is to conceal. And those very same qualities make it easy to commit accidentally. Nobody would object to the principle that housing providers refrain from trying to influence a person’s housing choices on the basis of protected characteristics. But applying this no-influence principle to real-life situations is very tricky. After all, aren’t leasing agents supposed to provide prospects with information about the apartment so they can decide whether it’s suitable for them?

Steering is all about balancing these competing dynamics. Nobody is suggesting that leasing agents be banned from providing information and answering questions about a property so that prospects can decide whether renting it is right for them. The key to avoiding steering is ensuring that leasing agents don’t carry out these information-sharing responsibilities in a way that influences the prospect’s decision on the basis of his or her particular race, color, etc. And that’s easier said than done. The seven lessons below will enable you to help your leasing agents steer clear of steering.   

7 RULES FOR HELPING LEASING AGENTS AVOID STEERING

Rule #1: Don’t Tell Prospects Where to Rent Based on Protected Characteristics

Steering isn’t always subtle. Sometimes it’s as obvious as a punch in the face. The two most common forms of overt steering:

• Making verbal remarks like “we don’t lease to Black people” or “we don’t have anything suitable for kids or people with disabilities”; and
• Displaying apartments on the basis of protected characteristics such as not showing any units on “adults-only” floors to prospects with young kids.

While these things are enough to make any fair-minded landlord cringe, regrettably, they still happen. And rest assured that if any of your leasing agents were to engage in that kind of conduct, fair housing testers will eventually catch them. At that point, you’ll be looking at not just liability but also potential punitive damages running into six- or even seven figures.

Example: An Atlanta real estate firm and its leading agent had to pay $160,000 to settle steering charges for showing white testers homes in predominately white neighborhoods and Black testers homes in Black neighborhoods. The smoking gun: The agent allegedly told one tester, “I wasn’t sure where to take you because I couldn’t tell over the phone whether you were white or Black.”

Rule #2: Don’t Try to Influence Prospects’ Choices Based on Protected Characteristics

A more common form of steering is to say things to discourage prospects from renting from you (or where in the building to rent from you) or encouraging them to rent from somebody else on the basis of their protected characteristics. Examples of things leasing agents should never say (all of which come from actual HUD cases where landlords were found guilty of steering):

• “I think there are other apartment communities in town that cater more to kids”;
• “We have a few apartments in the back of the building for people with wheelchairs”; and
• “I wouldn’t be comfortable renting in this neighborhood if I were a young single woman.”

Rule #3: Don’t Tell Prospects Where They’d Be “Comfortable”

Notice the word “comfortable” in the last bulleted example above. One of the most common forms of steering is seeking to influence prospects’ choices based on where they’d be most comfortable. The problem is what the word “comfortable” implies.

The critical assumption that’s dangerous to make and even more poisonous to act upon is that people are more “comfortable” and “compatible” with people of their own race, color, etc. Accordingly, telling prospects that they’d be uncomfortable in your community or more comfortable somewhere else suggests that you’re trying to influence them on the basis of their protected characteristics. This conduct constitutes illegal steering even when leasing agents genuinely believe they’re acting in the prospects’ best interests.

Another variation on the theme is seeking to protect residents from discriminatory neighbors, for example, by deliberately not telling a Jewish family about an otherwise suitable vacancy to protect them from the virulently antisemitic neighbor next door. Giving bigots, racists, anti-Semites, and the like veto power over who can lease from you makes you a co-conspirator in discrimination.  

Rule #4: Don’t Answer Discriminatory Questions or Heed Discriminatory Demands

In some cases, the impetus for steering comes not from the leasing agent but the prospect considering the property. One form of this is when a prospect asks questions about, say, the race or color of residents in the community—for example, where a white prospect asks, “Are there any Black people living here?” A more subtle way to pose the question is for prospects to ask a leasing agent, “Do you think I’d be comfortable (there’s that word again) in this community?”

Prospects who ask these kinds of questions are probably either: (1) testers sent to monitor your community’s compliance with the FHA; or (2) genuine racists or bigots. In either case, make sure that leasing agents don’t take the bait. Specifically, make sure they understand that discussing the protected characteristics of other residents with a prospect is a form of illegal steering, even when the prospect brings up the topic.

Note that the same principles apply when a prospect makes discriminatory demands, such as insisting on being shown only units on floors where none of the residents are of a particular race, color, etc.

The best practice for these situations is to have the leasing agent politely decline to answer the discriminatory question or heed the discriminatory demand and tell the prospect of your community’s commitment to fair housing and refraining from discrimination. It’s also a best practice to script the leasing agent’s “we-don’t-discriminate” reply. Language to consider:

“I’m sorry but I’m afraid I can’t answer that question. Please understand that ABC Community is an equal housing opportunity provider committed to complying with all federal, state, and local fair housing laws. ABC does not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, disability, or [other personal characteristics protected by state or local fair housing law].”

In some cases, the leasing agent may even be able to explain why the prospect’s question or demand is discriminatory and persuade him or her to rephrase or retract it.   

If instead of a direct question about a protected class, prospects ask whether they’d be comfortable renting from you, instruct leasing agents to turn the question around and ask the prospect what he or she means by “comfortable.” If the prospect’s response is nondiscriminatory and not based on the characteristics of the people in the community or neighborhood, the leasing agent can proceed to answer the question. But if the prospect’s response suggests any discriminatory biases, such as, “I’m comfortable with young people” or “I’m uncomfortable around kids,” they should refuse to answer and recite the above statement.  

Rule #5: Don’t Limit Prospects’ Choices Based on Their Kids’ Safety

Leasing agents must understand that it’s not their responsibility to try to talk prospects out of making unsound decisions about where to rent. This instinct of leasing agents to want to protect prospects against themselves is most likely to manifest itself when prospects want to rent apartments that would be unsafe for their young children—for example, units located on an upper floor or right next to a pool with no lifeguard.

A 1992 in-house legal memorandum from HUD’s Fair Housing Division clearly states that denying or trying to discourage families with children housing on the basis of safety is illegal steering. According to the memo, the FHA requires “housing providers to make all units, including units on upper floors and units with balconies, available to families with children.” It also bans the practice of making families with children sign waivers of liability not required of other residents.

Example: In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accused the owner and operator of a New Hampshire community of using the safety argument to steer the mother of an infant child away. According to the complaint, the community had a safety policy of placing families with children under the age of 10 in first-floor units only. And since no first-floor units were available, they turned the mother away rather than showing units that were available on the upper floors. Rather than risk a trial, the owner and operator agreed to shell out $25,000 to settle the case.

While ruling out the practice of not showing apartments to families with children on the basis of safety, the HUD memo goes on to say that it’s okay for housing providers to make “factual statements about perceived hazards of their property,” as long as:

• Those statements are “truthful and not misleading”;
• The statements don’t indicate a “preference, limitation, or discrimination” based on familial status; and
• An “ordinary listener” wouldn’t interpret the statements as discouraging families with children from deciding to live in the apartment community or building.

Coach’s Tip: The 1992 HUD memo also clarifies that the FHA doesn’t ban housing providers from imposing “reasonable health and safety rules designed to protect minor children in their use of facilities associated with the dwellings,” such as requiring adult supervision of young children using a swimming pool without a lifeguard.

DEEP DIVE

Steering & Schools

While it might seem like the most natural and innocent thing in the world, discussing neighborhood schools with rental prospects can be a steering liability minefield. That’s because phrases such as “a school with low test scores” or “communities with declining schools” have become code words for racial and other differences to the extent there’s a correlation between the quality of the schools and the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood. Similarly, praising the schools in one neighborhood while discretely saying nothing about the schools in another may have the same steering effect.

With this in mind, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has devised best practices for avoiding steering when discussing schools. And while the recommendations are targeted to real estate brokers, many of them also work for leasing agents on how to avoid steering when talking to prospects about the quality of schools in the neighborhood, including:

• Offer facts, not opinions or personal judgments;
• Keep a list of websites and other sources of objective information about the schools in your area to which you can refer prospects so they can make their own judgments; and
• Ask prospects to clarify their criteria; for example, if they ask whether the schools are “good,” have them describe the standards they believe makes a school good so you can point them to appropriate sources of information.

Rule #6: Don’t Exaggerate a Property’s Drawbacks

Another common way to exert improper influence is to draw attention to or exaggerate the drawbacks or flaws of your property. Such behavior, which runs contrary to the leasing agent’s mission to make your community look good, is powerful evidence of a motive not to rent to the prospect. And when that prospect has one or more protected characteristics, it strongly suggests that discrimination is the driving force behind that motive.

Example: The owner of an Arizona community is determined to maintain a peaceful and quiet “adult” community to attract retirees. Recognizing that categorically refusing to rent to prospects with children is illegal, the owner comes up with a plan to discourage them from doing so by creating a list of all the things that make the property unsuitable for young children. It then instructs leasing agents to go through the list with all prospects that have young kids. Result: The owner—and leasing agents who actually implement the plan—have committed illegal steering.  

Rule #7: Don’t Direct Prospects to Particular Buildings or Areas Based on Protected Characteristics

One particularly egregious, institutional, and still common form of steering is to assign prospects or residents to a particular section of a community or floor of a building because of a protected characteristic. Examples can range from limiting all residents with wheelchairs and/or families with children under a particular age to the ground floor to actual segregation and maintaining separate buildings for Black and white residents. If you don’t believe these things actually happen nowadays, we can cite literally dozens of cases to persuade you otherwise. Here are just a couple of recent examples:

Example: In May 2020, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against a Georgia management company for allegedly steering elderly and disabled African-American rental prospects away from Cedarwood Village, a predominantly white housing complex for elderly persons and persons with disabilities, and to Cedartown Commons, a predominantly Black general occupancy complex.

Example: In January 2021, the DOJ charged a Massachusetts housing authority of steering African-American prospects away from three overwhelmingly white properties that it manages and steering white applicants from two of its disproportionately Black properties in an effort to keep all of these communities racially segregated [United States v. J & R Associates (D. Mass.)].

TIME OUT!

Give Your Marketing Materials an FHA Audit

You may be engaging in steering without realizing it by including language or images in your marketing materials that indicate preferences on the basis of protected characteristics. Statements like “No Children” or “Singles Only” are obvious examples. However, indications of discriminatory preference may be far more subtle, such as characterizing a property located in a predominately white area as being “traditional” or even noting that it’s located next to a particular church. Here’s a list of marketing Do’s and Don’ts that comes straight out of HUD guidelines:

Steer Clear of Discriminatory Marketing

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. The vast majority of undocumented alien discrimination cases involve exclusion of people who aren’t legal citizens of the U.S. The question: Is this legal?

Damned If You Do: How the FHA Applies to Undocumented Aliens

Notice that citizenship and immigration status aren’t on the list of FHA “protected classes.” In January 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a memo clarifying that the FHA “does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status.” Nor does the law bar discrimination based on “immigration status or resident alien” status, the HUD memo adds. In other words, people who are in this country illegally can’t sue for discrimination under the FHA if that’s the sole reason they experience discrimination.  

However, there’s more to the story. Undocumented aliens and non-U.S. citizens who get excluded may have valid grounds to sue for other forms of discrimination, including religion, race, and especially national origin. Rule: FHA protections extend to every person in the U.S., regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Stated differently, a person doesn’t have to be a U.S. citizen to sue for discrimination.

Example: A Virginia townhouse community rejected a resident alien couple because they weren’t U.S. citizens. The couple sued, and the federal court ruled that they had a valid FHA claim for national origin discrimination. A citizenship requirement may be part of a wider scheme to exclude persons based on their national origin, the court reasoned [Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mut. Ass'n, 522 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981)].

Of course, the same principles could apply to other protected classes. Thus, for example, a citizenship requirement may also constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

Refusing to rent to non-U.S. citizens may also violate other federal civil rights laws. For example, people who aren’t U.S. citizens may be permanent legal residents with “Green Cards” who enjoy nearly all the same rights as citizens to live and work in the country.

In addition to federal laws, landlords must comply with any stricter requirements under state and local fair housing laws. And immigration status is a protected class in some states and municipalities. For example, California makes it illegal to inquire into an applicant’s immigration status; New York City bans discrimination on the basis of “alienage or citizenship status.”

DEEP DIVE

Anti-Harboring Laws

Federal and some states’ immigration laws make it a crime to “harbor” undocumented aliens. However, most courts have ruled that the laws don’t penalize landlords for simply renting housing to people without regard to their immigration status.

Example: In February 2017, a Texas federal appeals court ruled against two landlords who were willing to rent to persons regardless of immigration status but feared they might be prosecuted for “harboring” illegal aliens under state law. The lower court agreed and issued a temporary ban on Texas’s enforcement of the law. But the appeals court lifted the ban and dismissed the case, saying there’s a distinction between “harboring” and simply renting to an undocumented alien [Cruz v. Abbott, February 2017].

Damned If You Don’t: The Liability Risks of Not Screening Applicants’ Immigration/Citizenship Status

Here’s where things get tricky. While screening on the basis of immigration or citizenship status is problematic for conventional housing, it’s actually required for some forms of federally assisted housing. Thus, for example, landlords participating in the Section 8 program are obligated to ask and confirm that applicants and tenants are permanent U.S. citizens or hold some other lawful immigration status.

There are also states and municipalities where landlords are required to verify applicants’ immigration status or face severe penalties, including stiff fines and loss of their business license to operate.

Bottom Line: It’s crucial to consult an attorney and be aware of the fair housing requirements of your particular jurisdiction in determining your policies and protocols for screening and leasing to immigrants.

7 RULES FOR AVOIDING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMMIGRANTS

Once you sort out the basic legal landscape, you need to establish clear policies on leasing to undocumented aliens and train your leasing and management staff to implement them consistently. Here are the seven rules to cover in your training.

Rule #1: Ensure Nondiscriminatory Justification for Citizenship Screening

Technically, unless you live in a state or municipality that prohibits it, screening applicants’ citizenship and/or immigration status isn’t illegal; it might even be required. However, there are risks you must avoid if you adopt such a policy.

First, you need a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and documented business justification for making citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion. Doing it because the law requires it is one example. But also keep in mind that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the U.S. belong to a minority racial, religious, and/or nationality group. Accordingly, stereotypes about undocumented aliens being troublemakers or not paying rent open the door to discrimination on the basis of religion, race, and national origin. Thus, for example, refusing to rent to immigrants because they “can’t keep a steady job” may be deemed a pretext for excluding certain nationalities, particularly in properties located near the Mexican border or on the West Coast where there are large numbers of Asian immigrants.

Rule #2: Apply Screening Policy Consistently

Whatever screening approach you adopt, you must apply it consistently. Just having a principled and justified policy requiring rental applicants to verify their U.S. citizenship won’t protect you if you follow it in some cases but not others. The 2003 HUD memo uses the following example to illustrate the fair housing liability risks of an inconsistent citizenship or immigration status screening policy.  

Example: A person from the Middle East applies for an apartment. Because he’s from the Middle East, the landlord requires him to provide additional information and forms of identification and refuses to rent him the apartment. Later, somebody from Europe applies for an apartment at the same complex. Because the person is from Europe, the landlord rents him the apartment without making him complete additional paperwork or verify the information on the application and rents the apartment. This would be disparate treatment on the basis of national origin.  

Implementation Strategy: The only way to ensure the consistency necessary for compliance is to have clearly written policies that explain why you screen for citizenship and/or immigration status along with procedures and protocols for implementing them. What you must guard against, above all, is allowing leasing staff to ask questions or make decisions about whether to screen particular applicants based on their appearance, accent, apparel, etc.

Rule #3: Ask for the Right Kind of Proof

If you do decide to screen for citizenship and/or immigration status, you need specific procedures and protocols to do it properly. You don’t have to take applicants at their word and have the right to request information enabling you to verify their status. Again, consistency is the key. If you ask one applicant for documentation, you must ask all applicants for it. You must also be careful to request the right information. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status—that is, noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons who are allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94 (a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record, or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay). They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

Rule #4: Apply Your Normal Screening Standards to Immigrants

There’s no rule requiring landlords to make special concessions for applicants based on their citizenship or immigration status. In other words, you may require verification of identity (such as a driver’s license, passport, or other form of government ID), financial and rental history, and other legitimate qualifications that you use to screen any other applicant.

It’s standard practice to ask applicants for Social Security numbers (SSNs). This is okay, especially since many screening companies require an SSN to perform tenant screening, such as credit and criminal background checks. But don’t automatically reject applicants because they don’t have SSNs. Explanation: Not having an SSN doesn’t necessarily mean the applicant is in the country illegally. Noncitizens need to get SSNs only if they want to work in the U.S. And tenant screening companies may still be able to vet their qualifications even without an SSN using alternative information, such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, and last known address.

Also, note that unauthorized immigrants may obtain drivers’ licenses in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington).

Coach’s Tip: Contact an immigration attorney, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), or State Department if you’re unclear about documentation requirements or have questions about the documentation of legal immigration that an applicant presents to you.

Rule #5: Don’t Make Ability to Speak English a Rental Criterion

In September 2016, HUD issued guidance confirming what several courts had previously ruled—namely, that excluding applicants or tenants based on their limited English proficiency (LEP) violates the FHA. Explanation: Statistically, most LEP people come from a country other than the U.S. Thus, disqualifying people because they’re LEP has the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin (and, in some cases, race and/or religion). Discriminatory practices to avoid include:

• Imposing an English-speaking language-related requirement on people of certain races or nationalities;
• Posting ads that contain blanket statements, such as “all tenants must speak English”; or
• Immediately turning away applicants because they’re not fluent in English.

Example: In 2013, HUD ordered a Virginia property management company to pay $82,500 to settle allegations of not letting a Hispanic woman apply for an apartment. According to the complaint, the company refused to give her a rental application because she didn’t speak fluent English even though she brought along a bilingual person to act as translator. HUD investigators also found that the company actually had a written policy requiring all prospects to be able to communicate with management in English without help from others [Travsiňa v. Virginia Realty Company of Tidewater, Inc., FHEO Case Numbers 03-11-0424-8].

Strategic Pointer: It’s imperative to ensure that leasing, management, and other staff remain calm, patient, poised, and professional at all times when dealing with LEP people. Giving in to frustration, even if it’s just a momentary and isolated lapse, may result in comments and actions that serve as Exhibit A in an intentional discrimination case against you.

Example: In 2017, the owner and manager of a California community had to shell out $20,000 to settle claims of national origin discrimination against Latino tenants. The turning point came when a local fair housing group joined the case bringing along evidence showing that the manager repeatedly made statements about not liking having Latino tenants at the community because they didn’t speak English.

For more guidance on this topic, see the Coach’s July 2021 issue, How to Avoid Discriminating Against People with Limited English Proficiency.

Rule #6: Don’t Use Tenant’s Immigration Status as a Bargaining Chip

Citizenship and immigration status liability issues can arise not only during the leasing process but also in the context of dealing with current tenants. One common example is seeking to use that status to extort a rental or other concession from the tenant. In 2012, HUD issued guidance (in the form of FAQs) clarifying that it’s “illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of” FHA rights. “This includes threats to report a person to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” to get them to move out or accept unfavorable treatment, or in retaliation for reporting housing discrimination to HUD.

Example: A married couple sued their landlord for threatening to report them to federal immigration authorities if they didn’t move out within a matter of days. They also claimed the landlord threatened to report their attorney to the California Bar for illegally advocating on behalf of tenants it perceived to be undocumented. In April 2020, the landlord agreed to pay $250,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the allegations of national origin discrimination [DFEH settlement announcement, April 22, 2020].

Rule #7: Protect Immigrant Tenants from Harassment

Immigrant tenants may become a target for harassment, intimidation, and abuse by property staff and neighboring tenants. Regrettably, the emergence of immigration as a divisive political issue in recent years has made such behavior a more widespread problem in the context of not only rental housing but many other aspects of social activity. And to the extent it’s typically based on a tenant’s national origin, race, or religion, landlords that engage in or allow others to engage in such harassment are at risk of liability for interfering with tenants’ use and enjoyment of the property they lease.

Strategic Pointer: Preventing harassment is the bare minimum. Achieving true compliance requires a shift in culture, one in which nationality, racial, and religious differences are not only tolerated but appreciated and respected, if not actively embraced. Staff training should strongly emphasize professionalism and the need to respect the diverse ethnic and cultural differences among prospects, applicants, and tenants.

To accomplish this requires cultural sensitivity and awareness of how well intentioned and seemingly innocent acts and statements may be considered offensive to persons of different national, ethnic, or religious backgrounds.

Example: Training of maintenance and other staffers who may enter into a tenant’s apartment should emphasize that removing one’s shoes before entering another person’s home is an essential protocol of respect in some cultures.

Also train staff to avoid asking people about their accents or where they come from. While such questions might be the product of genuine curiosity or desire to engage on a personal level, they may also be construed as a form of illegal inquiry, especially if they’re accompanied by clumsy or insensitive remarks.

Example: In an attempt to make casual conversation, a real estate broker married to a Brazilian woman asked the wife of a married couple where she was from. What the broker didn’t know was that the wife, who was from Venezuela, felt as if she had just been denied a rental at another property because of her national origin. “Here we go again,” she thought when the broker asked the question. She was convinced that they had just lost a rental opportunity because of her national origin and that it was happening again. The couple filed a discrimination complaint. Result: The broker was found liable for discrimination and ordered to pay $76,500. The Massachusetts appeals court upheld the ruling—although it did reduce the damages [Linder v. Boston Fair Housing Commission, February 2014].

Having a one-size-fits-all approach also can lead to fair housing trouble when it has a discriminatory effect on people protected under fair housing law. One example involves occupancy policies: If they’re too restrictive, they can have a discriminatory effect on families with children. Though it’s generally accepted that two persons per bedroom is a reasonable occupancy policy, that’s only a rule of thumb—and subject to a number of exceptions.

Finally, the law itself offers some exceptions, but it’s important to know whether—and how—they apply to avoid fair housing trouble. For instance, the law generally forbids communities from excluding families with children from living there, but there’s an exception for senior housing communities. To claim the exception, however, communities must meet strict technical requirements—unless you do, you’ll invite a fair housing complaint if you deny housing to families with children.

In this article we will review fair housing requirements and give you seven rules—along with the most common exceptions—to help your community avoid fair housing trouble.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability.

The vast majority of fair housing cases are for intentional discrimination—that is, purposely denying housing to people—or treating them differently—because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. In these cases, the focus is on intent—why the community acted the way it did. If, for example, an applicant accuses you of intentional discrimination for refusing to rent to him based on his race, the community may defend itself by proving that it rejected his application for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: The applicant didn’t satisfy its standard screening criteria, which were consistently required of all applicants.

But the law goes further to outlaw what’s known as “disparate impact” discrimination—that is, housing practices that appear to be neutral, but have an unjustified discriminatory effect on members of protected classes, even if there’s no intent to discriminate. In contrast to claims for intentional discrimination, fair housing claims based on disparate impact aren’t so much concerned with your intent, but on the effects, of your policies or practices. For example, courts have ruled that overly restrictive occupancy policies violate fair housing law because of their discriminatory effect on larger households, which are more likely to be families with children.

RULE #1: Consistency Is the General Rule

EXCEPTION: Understand When the Law Requires You to Make Exceptions

As a general rule, it’s a good idea to establish reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules policies—and to apply them consistently—to counter any perception that your community treats people differently based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. Applying the same policies and rules to everyone helps avoid accusations of conduct made unlawful under the FHA, such as:

• Excluding members of protected classes from living in your community;
• Falsely denying that housing is available to members of protected classes;
• Discouraging members of protected classes from living there;
• Restricting where members of protected classes may live in your community;
• Setting different terms, conditions, or privileges or facilities for members of protected classes;
• Delaying or denying requests for maintenance services for members of protected classes;
• Enforcing community rules more harshly or leniently for members of protected classes;
• Making eviction decisions because of a protected characteristic;
• Making statements expressing a preference for or against members of protected classes; or
• Threatening, coercing, intimidating, or interfering with anyone exercising a fair housing right.

Nevertheless, you should learn to recognize when fair housing law requires you to make exceptions to your general policies. The most important are requests for reasonable accommodations or modifications for individuals with disabilities. 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. It’s also unlawful to refuse to allow reasonable modifications to the unit or common use areas, at the applicant or resident’s expense, if necessary for an individual with a disability to fully use the housing.

RULE #2: You Make the Rules When It Comes to Pets

EXCEPTION: You Can’t Apply Pet Rules to Assistance Animals

Your community, like many others, may have rules about pets. You may forbid all pets, or you may allow only certain types, breeds, and sizes of animals at your community. Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from regulating whether and when residents may keep pets at your community—as long as you understand that you must make an exception to your pet rules as a reasonable accommodation for an individual with a disability who needs an assistance animal to fully use and enjoy the premises.

That’s because assistance animals are not pets under fair housing law. They’re animals that work, provide assistance, or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability, according to HUD. Though most requests for assistance animals are for dogs, HUD says that assistance animals may include a wide variety of species—not just dogs—that provide various forms of assistance—including emotional support—with or without specialized training.

Though many communities have policies banning so-called dangerous breeds, most notably pit bulls, HUD says that breed, size, or weight limitations may not be applied to assistance animals. That doesn’t mean that you must allow a resident to keep a dangerous animal—even if it’s an assistance animal. Though you can’t apply a blanket rule against certain dog breeds, you can exclude a specific animal that poses a direct threat to the safety of others.

Example: In October 2017, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld an eviction of a resident who had a dog in violation of the community’s no-pet policy. The resident claimed that she had disabilities and that the dog, which had been living with her for some time, was an emotional support animal.

Though the resident was disabled and had a disability-related need for an emotional support animal, the court ruled that she wasn’t entitled to a reasonable accommodation to keep this dog, Duchess, because it posed a direct threat to the safety of others. The evidence showed that Duchess often exhibited aggressive tendencies and that other residents were afraid of her. The resident, who was unable to restrain the dog, had tried and failed to reduce the potential for aggression that the other residents had reasonably feared. While sympathetic to the resident’s attachment to Duchess, the court said that the landlord was not required to do everything humanly possible to accommodate her disability [Gill Terrace Retirement Apartments Inc. v. Johnson, October 2017].

Though your rules may require pet owners to pay extra pet fees or deposits, you must make an exception to the rules for assistance animals. According to federal guidelines, communities may not require individuals with disabilities to pay extra fees or security deposits as a condition of allowing them to keep assistance animals as a reasonable accommodation. If the assistance animal causes damage, you can charge the resident for the cost of repair—but only if you have a general policy requiring all residents to pay for damages they cause to the premises.

RULE #3: You Can Regulate Parking at Your Community

EXCEPTION: You Must Consider Disability-Related Requests for Special Parking Arrangements

For the most part, it’s up to you to determine whether—and how—to regulate parking at your community. Whatever your policy, however, you should be prepared for reasonable accommodation requests by individuals with disabilities who say they need an exception to your parking policies so they may use and enjoy their home.

A prime example is a request for an exception to parking rules for an individual with a mobility impairment. In general, you should grant reasonable requests from applicants or residents with mobility problems for parking accommodations, such as a designated parking space near a building entrance or a resident’s unit, an accessible parking space, or a space designed for van parking. When there’s a clear relationship between the resident’s disability and the need for the requested parking accommodation, the law requires the community to grant the request unless it’s unreasonable—that is, it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the community or fundamentally alter the nature of the community’s operations.

Nevertheless, HUD says that the FHA does not require a community to make an exception to parking rules unless there is an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the individual’s disability. The requested parking accommodation must be more than a mere convenience—it must be necessary to allow the resident to live in and fully enjoy the community.

Example: In September 2017, a court ruled against a resident who accused her community of refusing her requests for reasonable accommodations, including her request to reserve the three parking spaces in front of her condo to prevent her neighbors from parking there. The resident claimed that she had a mental disability and that she needed all three parking spaces because she felt unsafe and harassed when strangers parked in front of her home. Allegedly, she rejected the community’s offer to reserve one designated parking space for her, because the installation of a sign to mark the space would block her view and cause psychological distress. She sued, accusing the community of disability discrimination.

Siding with the community, the court ruled that the resident failed to show that her request for three reserved parking spaces were either necessary or reasonable to accommodate her mental disability. She presented a doctor’s note, but it didn’t explain the nature of her disability or why reserving the three parking spaces in front of her unit was necessary to afford her equal opportunity to use and enjoy her dwelling.

The resident also failed to show that reserving these three parking spaces was a reasonable accommodation. The three parking spaces at issue were among the 150 non-reserved parking spaces at the condo complex and all the condo owners had rights to the spaces. Reserving three of them for the resident couldn’t be done without amending the condo documents and reducing the rights of all other owners. The requested accommodation was unreasonable because her unproven need for the spaces was entirely outweighed by the burden that others would suffer if the accommodation were granted [Burrows v. Cubba, September 2017].

RULE #4: You Can Require Applicants to Satisfy Financial Criteria

EXCEPTION: You Must Consider Disability-Related Requests to Modify Financial Requirements

You’re entitled to, and should, determine financial criteria that you apply consistently to all applicants. If you ask some applicants to meet stricter financial requirements than others have to meet, then an applicant may believe he’s being treated differently because of his race or other protected characteristic and claim discrimination under fair housing law.

Nevertheless, you could face a request for an exception to your financial requirements as a reasonable accommodation for an individual with a disability. For example, an applicant with a disability may not qualify financially for a unit in your community, but offer to have someone who will co-sign and promise to pay the rent for him. Depending on the circumstances, refusing to consider such requests for exceptions to your community’s financial requirements could be viewed as denying requests for reasonable accommodations required by fair housing law.

Example: In July 2017, a New York co-op community agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and penalties to resolve a fair housing lawsuit for its alleged refusal to grant a reasonable accommodation to an applicant with a disability.

In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that the community and its property managers repeatedly denied the application of a 34-year-old man to purchase a one-bedroom unit because of his disabilities, which included serious heart problems, learning disorders, and depression. Allegedly, the man and his family asked that ownership of his unit be placed under a legal trust to help him manage the requirements of cooperative housing, but that the community refused the requests without explanation. As a result, the complaint alleged, the man was forced to continue living in a boarding house with abysmal conditions, grew increasingly depressed, and suffered another heart attack.

“Every member of our society is entitled to equal access to housing and the independence and dignity that it provides,” Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said in a statement. “With this resolution, we again emphasize that condos, cooperatives, landlords, and property managers must provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities” [U.S. v. 505 Central Avenue Corp., July 2017].

In some cases, disabled applicants have asked for an exemption from financial requirements as a reasonable accommodation, arguing that their disabilities caused them to suffer financial hardships, such as the inability to work. That argument has been rejected by a number of courts, but these can be difficult cases to resolve, so it’s a good idea to get legal advice when confronted by such requests.

RULE #5: You Establish Policies on When and How Rent Is Paid

EXCEPTION: You Must Consider Disability-Related Requests to Modify Rental Payment Policies

You have the right to require residents to pay their rent in a timely manner, but you should consider disability-related requests for exceptions to your policies on how rent is paid. For example, federal guidelines state that a community with a policy requiring payment of rent in person at the leasing office must make an exception for a resident who has a mental disability that makes her afraid to leave her home. According to the guidelines, the community must grant her request to have a friend mail the rental payments as a reasonable accommodation.

Depending on the circumstances, you may also have to consider a disability-related request to change the rental due date. This may come from a resident who relies on disability benefits to pay rent, but who doesn’t receive the check until after the rent is due. If the resident can show that he needs the accommodation because of a disability, then you’ll need documentation to prove that his request is unreasonable because of its impact on your business operations.

Example: In April 2017, a court refused to dismiss a lawsuit accusing a Pennsylvania community and its management company of disability discrimination for allegedly denying a resident’s reasonable accommodation request for the change in his monthly rental due date until after he received his monthly SSDI benefit check. After conducting an investigation, fair housing advocates sued, alleging that the company wouldn’t permit any exceptions to its policies on the rental due date.

The court ruled that the advocates could pursue claims that the company unlawfully denied the resident’s reasonable accommodation request for an exception to the policy requiring rent payments on the first of the month. The company argued that it wasn’t required to grant accommodations related to a disabled person’s financial circumstances, but the advocates argued that SSDI recipients relied on their checks as their primary or only source of income because their disabilities rendered them unable to work. The court said it may be reasonable that the company be required to adjust its rent due date for disabled persons to be afforded equal housing opportunities.

Nevertheless, further proceedings were needed on the community’s claim that the accommodation request was unreasonable. The company argued that the request to change its policy on the rental due date posed an unreasonable financial and administrative burden on the company’s business operations. The company pointed out that it manages more than 35,000 rental units in approximately 140 communities in 10 states. According to the company, its current system of rent collection and handling court proceedings is cost-effective and that the requested accommodation would “fundamentally alter the way” it does business and require a “major and expensive reprograming of software and business procedures [Fair Housing Rights Center in Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Morgan Properties Management Company, LLC, April 2017].

RULE #6: You Can Enforce Reasonable Occupancy Standards

EXCEPTION: General Two Person/Bedroom Standard May Not Be Reasonable in Some Circumstances

As a general rule, fair housing law doesn’t prevent communities from maintaining reasonable occupancy policies, but it’s unlawful to set overly restrictive occupancy standards that have the effect of excluding families with children.

Across the country, communities have come to rely on the industry standard—“two persons per bedroom”—as a reasonable occupancy standard. It comes from HUD in what’s known as the “Keating memo,” which states that the agency considers two persons per bedroom to be a reasonable standard. But, as the memo points out, that’s not a hard-and-fast rule, and HUD will consider other factors, including bedroom size and other “special considerations,” which may make the two person/bedroom standard unreasonable under the circumstances.

In recent years, fair housing advocates have challenged the use of the two person/bedroom standard where state or local occupancy laws may allow more people to live there based on square footage and other factors. It’s too soon to tell how it will all shake out, but for now, communities could face a greater risk of being challenged if they stick with a rigid one-size-fits-all occupancy standard without considering other factors listed in HUD’s Keating memo.

Example: In October 2017, the owner of a Washington community was ordered to pay more than $127,000 in damages for violating federal, state, and local fair housing laws based on familial status by enforcing an occupancy policy allowing only one occupant in studio units.

The case began when an advocacy group conducted fair housing testing at the 96-unit apartment complex where two-thirds of the units were studios, all over 400 square feet. According to the group, its testing confirmed that the community rented the studio units only to single occupants. The group sued, arguing that the community’s occupancy restriction had an adverse discriminatory effect on families with children.

The court agreed, rejecting the community’s claim of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to justify the rule. Among other things, the community argued that the units were too small to accommodate more than one person, but the court pointed out that the city code allowed two people to occupy a studio unit as small as 150 square feet [Fair Housing Center of Washington v. Breier-Scheetz Properties, LLC, October 2017].

RULE #7: You Can’t Refuse to Rent to Families with Children

EXCEPTION: You Can Exclude Children ONLY if You Qualify for Senior Housing Exemption

The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on familial status—which means the presence of a child under 18 in the household. The law protects families with children, along with anyone else who has legal custody or written permission to have a minor child living with them. It also applies to pregnant women and anyone in the process of obtaining legal custody, such as through adoption or divorce proceedings, of a child or children under 18.

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

There’s only one exception that would allow you to exclude children from your community—but it applies only to senior housing communities that meet strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” The FHA recognizes three types of housing that may qualify under the familial status exemption as housing for older persons. The most common—55 or older—is also the most complicated: Among other things, 55+ communities must adopt policies and procedures to ensure that at least 80 percent of its units are occupied by at least one person 55 and older.

Senior communities that comply with these and other technical requirements are exempt from the general rules that protect families with children. There’s no middle ground—you either meet those requirements or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’ll likely trigger a fair housing complaint by adopting an “adults-only” policy to prevent families with children from living there.

Example: In September 2017, the owners and manager of three apartment buildings in Washington agreed to pay $95,000 to resolve allegations that they refused to rent to families with children. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that a manager told a woman seeking an apartment for herself, her husband, and their one-year-old child that the apartment buildings were “adult only.” Allegedly, the communities advertised their apartments as being in “adult buildings.”

“No family should be denied a place to live simply because they have a child,” added Anna Maria Farias, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD will continue to work with the Justice Department to ensure that property owners comply with their obligations under the nation’s fair housing laws.”