Search

Answer: All good questions, and ones that I have not addressed for some time. There are several statutes that come into play:

90.514 Disclosure to prospective tenant of improvements required under rental agreement.

(1) Before a prospective tenant signs a rental agreement for space in a manufactured dwelling park or for a converted rental space, the landlord must provide the prospective tenant with a written statement that discloses the improvements that the landlord will require under the rental agreement. The written statement must be in the format developed by the Attorney General pursuant to ORS 90.516 and include at least the following:

(c) Identification of the improvements that belong to the tenant and the improvements that must remain with the space.

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

(7) The landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant is to perform specified repairs, maintenance tasks and minor remodeling only if:

(a) The agreement of the parties is entered into in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord;

(b) The agreement does not diminish the obligations of the landlord to other tenants on the premises; and

(c) The terms and conditions of the agreement are clearly and fairly disclosed and adequate consideration for the agreement is specifically stated.

90.740 Tenant obligations. A tenant shall:

(1) Install the tenant's manufactured dwelling or floating home and any accessory building or structure on a rented space in compliance with applicable laws and the rental agreement.

In summary, what these statutes, and other in ORS Chapter 90 mean, is the following:

• When the landlord rents a space, it includes all pre-existing structures located on the space, such as carports and sheds.
• Does this mean the carport or shed must be maintained by the resident? In my opinion, not unless the rental agreement or rules provide otherwise. And if they so provide, it must be clearly disclosed at the commencement of the tenancy. If the roof leaked and the resident's belongings were damaged, the landlord could have liability.
• If a landlord wanted to transfer ownership of the carport or shed, the arrangement should be clearly documented, including the duty to maintain, and the right to remove upon vacating the space.
• In terms of a "downside" I see very little so long as the responsibility going forward is clear; on the other hand, I see a "downside" in doing nothing, and then each side expects the duty of maintenance belongs to the other - and as pointed out above, if the structure leaks or has a fire, etc., the landlord could have liability.
• When a space changes hands, and you want to transfer the maintenance responsibility at that time, you can do so, as long as it's clear and fair. You cannot, for example, require that a shed that has maintenance problems, be rebuilt or be repainted.
• On the issue of reducing the rent, ORS 90.730(7), cited above, does refer to adequate consideration if the maintenance responsibility is shifted from the landlord to the resident. That may be true where you don't transfer ownership of the structure to the resident. But if you do transfer ownership, and the resident, that is adequate consideration (in my opinion), so long as it is in good condition, and the arrangement was not done solely to avoid having to perform repairs. I would want to make sure that the structure was in good condition at the time, fully inspected by the resident, and the transaction clearly documented.
• As for the sharing of carports, one owned and the other not, it would be nice to get clarity on this between the two residents. The same rules apply, i.e. if the structure is in good repair, and the non-owner is willing to take ownership and assume maintenance responsibility, it would be better than what you have right now. As it stands, you, technically, have maintenance responsibility for the portion of the structure that is park-owned. This likely makes for confusion when repairs, such as roofing and painting are required.

Is your entrance neat and welcoming with well landscaped signage projecting the property's IDEAL image to Residents and future Residents?

• Are your common "green" areas free of weeds, edged, fertilized and looking crisp and clean? We must always lead by example!!!!
• Do all of your buildings have a neat appearance with exposed wood painted, and windows washed? REMEMBER: If you expect this of your Residents, then as Owner/Manager you must set the standard...no one respects a hypocrite!!!!
• If your streets have speed bumps, are they freshly painted so they are not trip hazards?
• When was the last time your catch-basins were cleaned of debris?
• If your MHC is on a private septic system, how current is your pumping schedule and have YOU physically inspected each tank and field for possible shed, fence,
• deck or landscape encroachments?
• Have you reviewed your vacant space inventory and matched it with available
• homes on various web sites/local realtors multiple listing sites/Craig's lists etc? Have you made an offer on any homes and have you contacted any movers to get bids on hauling/setting the home at/to your MHC?
• Is your MHC's business Information Center (aka "Office") the jewel in your crown as a neat, clean and available place to conduct business according to posted hours for Residents?
• Have you or your attorney reviewed lease files space by space to be assured that each Resident's documents are current with legislative and/or "case law" changes?

This very abbreviated list only begins to scratch the surface of what you must do to conquer all the obstacles that stand in your way of being exemplary MHC administrators. Let us be fierce in the desire and follow-through to make MHCs the best they can be for our Residents. In so doing they will provide security for our families' future income!

Joel Erlitz, President
First Commercial Property Corp.
Jserlitz@aol.com
206-985-7275(PARK)

By:   Erik Edwards, Director, Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital
             Erik.Edwards@wellsfargo.com
 

So much has transpired in recent weeks that it has been enough to give both lenders and borrowers whiplash. Back in June and July, the lending and financial markets were stable. The 10-year Treasury yield appeared to have bottomed out in the low 2.0% range (down significantly from the 3.24% high in November 2018) and interest rate loan spreads held steady, resulting in attractive and predictable all-in interest rates. Many borrowers decided it was a good time to refinance, and lending activity picked up steam. But from early August through mid-September, several unpredictable developments took place, a few of which will likely impact residential and commercial real estate lending for years to come.

Click the PDF above the title for the complete article. 

For More Information:  Tony Petosa, Nick Bertino, and Erik Edwards of Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital specialize in providing financing for MHCs through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, conduit, and balance sheet lending programs. For more information or for a copy of their ”Manufactured Home Community Financing Handbook,” please contact: Tony at (760) 438-2153 or tpetosa@wellsfargo.com; Nick at (760)438-2692 or nick.bertino@wellsfargo.com; Erik at (760) 918-2875 or erik.edwards@wellsfargo.com; or visitwww.wellsfargo.com/mhc.

Website: wellsfargo.com/mhc

The Basic Rule for Liability Avoidance in a Mobilehome Park 

It is the parents’ responsibility, not management’s, to decide ability to swim and access privileges for minors. Access, hours, and supervision restrictions are illegal under the Federal Fair Housing Amend- ments Act of 1988 (FHAA).1 While narrowly drawn rules may differentially impact children (persons under 18 years of age), these are not advised. The “default setting” is best: the law requires that the parents be vested with exclusive discretion to decide, control and live with their choices for kid’s access and supervision issues. Likewise, scour the rules and regulations (and now, internal management policies, manuals, agreements and memoranda) to eliminate any rule which mentions “children.” Use of the term “children” is a trigger word, no different than use of any other label for a person in a protected class. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) treats children as “small adults” for purposes of scrutinizing rules.

The Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) created a new protected class of “familial status”. In California, the federal courts have addressed this requirements by ruling that “all age” communities may not discriminate against children, no more than management can discriminate against any other protected class.

Federal Requirements and Over-Regulation 

Let’s face it; some parents are not responsible. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of all children one to four years old who died from an unin- tentional injury, almost 30% died from drowning. Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages one to 14 years. The same report reveals that “the fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is 3.1 times that of white children in the same age range.”

1. E.g., United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates, 273 F.Supp.2d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Bischoff v. Brittain, No. 2:14-cv-01970-KJM-CKD, United States District Court, E.D. California (May, 2016).

Mobilehome park swimming pools are deemed public, and re- quire fencing, postings and related equipment. In years past, it was believed that parkowners could require adult supervision in the swimming pool area, but it is for the parents to decide and control.

State Requirements and Conflict with the FHAA and the FEHA

California, meanwhile, promulgated modifications to Title 24, but apparently did not clear their proposals with any lawyer or the children’s rights lobby. The state mandated sign includes language mandated by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as follows:

“WARNING: NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY Children under the age of 14 shall not use pool without a parent or adult guardian in attendance.”

This language is a prima facie violation of the FHAA protections against discrimination on the basis of familial rights.2 Posting this sign places every operator of a Title 22 swimming pool (that’s us parkowners) in violation of the FHAA. If posted, any aggrieved family member may sue just because it is posted (enforced or not). Since posting this sign exposes a parkowner to liability, what should the parkowner do? First, offer to post the sign which would be consistent with the FHAA:

“WARNING: NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY Children under the age of 14 should not use pool without a parent or adult guardian in attendance; management recommends no one swim alone.”

Despite entreaties made for clarification to resolve this conflict, to both the Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), there has been no response. This problem does not lie in an older persons (55+) park, by the way. This is because the “older persons” park is exempt from the familial status requirements. Since a parkowner may entirely exclude children due to the effect of the 55+ regulation, allowing kids at all is a benefit that is not required (total exclusions, pool hours, supervision are all allowable restrictions) all permissible in the “older persons” community at this time.

2 . In striking down the legal requirement for signage as a discrimination defense, the central district judge held that " . . . there is nothing magical about the age of 18 or 14 years old if defendants' concerns are for the protection of the health and safety of the children or other residents in using recreational facilities or the swimming pool or riding bicycles. Such concerns could be addressed with the use of rules. Moreover, rather than being connected to such ages, bicycle and pool safety would be better served with a proficiency requirement." U.S. v. Plaza Mobile Estates. 

In many counties, the illicit requirement is not applicable until capital renovation of the pool area. But if not, what do you do if the county representative refuses to consent to the suggested modification? Do you refuse to comply with state law in order to comply with the FHAA, or do you comply with the state mandate and violate the FHAA? As of this time, you must seek out counsel, pay them, obtain advice, and follow it.

Management Communications Can Violate the FHAA

In a housing case decided in Northern California in May, 2016, the landlord was called out for discrimination against children in an all age facility. In Bischoff v. Brittain,3 the on site management received training, including a “Resident Relations Training,” at seminars pro- vided by independent experts. A “Brief Recap of Notes” document summarizes several meetings and was distributed to the managers. The document stated that as to handling unsupervised children:

1. If you have a young child not being supervised, walk the child home and speak with whoever is in charge.

2. Have your supervisor write a letter after you speak with the person in the apartment, which will alert whoever opens the mail, that you are worried over the child’s safety-you are now showing safety concerns and are not attacking their parenting skills or being discriminatory.

1. If nothing changes and the child is once again outside un- supervised, notify your super- visor who will now contact so- cial services and/or the police. 

2. If nothing still changes, we will then consider eviction and note the reasoning on their notice. 


The landlord’s property director said the document is “simply a statement of suggested guidelines for the managers’ reference and discretionary application to unsupervised young children.” However, the court found that the reasoning violates “familial status” rights. The director relied on a mistaken understanding that “young children require regular adult super- vision.” She felt that management should “encourage [...] parents and guardians to exercise such supervision for the safety of their young children and for the benefit of other residents.” She believed that “such supervision is necessary so that young children who are tenant residents “will not be at risk of injuring themselves” or other residents, or “engaging in disruptive or destructive activities.”

“In an effort to promote such supervision and discourage parent-guardian neglect, we developed internal suggested guidelines for managers to use in their discretion as circumstances might war- rant.”

3. U.S.Dist.E.D.Ca. April 29, 2016, Decided; May 2, 2016, No. 2:14-cv-01970-KJM-CKD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58280.

The guidelines do not pass muster, said the court. While intended to protect the safety and well-being of young children in need of supervision, to encourage parents or guardians to provide that needed supervision, and to limit disturbances to other residents, they also allow differential treatment. It is no help that the guidelines serve the concomitant business purpose of protecting against liability that might arise from injuries to such young children.

The court found that the landlord’s policies “[...] toward unsupervised young children inherently treats children differently than adults by limiting when they may use the common areas of the complex to times when they are supervised by an adult.” The guidelines also treat parents of young children differently by subjecting them to certain consequences if their children are found unsupervised. Adult-only households may use the complex without limitation and warnings or facing eviction for violating the adult supervision guidelines. Be- cause children are subjected to explicitly differential treatment there was a validly claimed discrimination based on the face of the guide- lines.

The landlord claimed the guide- lines are not discriminatory: they are not a formalized, mandatory “policy” or rental provision; they only limit young children to the ex- tent the children are unsupervised; they apply only to young children; they have nondiscriminatory justifications; and they originated from a “neutral” source (educational sources). The court replied that the landlord did not understand the law: “[...]to establish a prima facie case of facial discrimination, a plaintiff must show only that the defendant subjects a protected group to explicitly differential treatment”4. But the landlord did not dispute that it treated unsupervised young children and their parents differently than adults sans children.

The guidelines were violations even if just “[l]imiting the use of privileges and facilities [which] is a violation of [§ 3604(b)].” The court also found it irrelevant that the guidelines distilled “neutral” information. The courts have held that “all-age” park rules which: (i) treat kids differently; (ii) are not based on a “compelling business necessity” and (iii) did not represent the “least restrictive intrusions” on familial status rights in promoting a health and safety interest, violate the law.

Any age restrictive rules which treat children, (and thus, families with children), differently and less favorably than adults-only house- holds violate the law. Period. In other words, no matter how ad- ministered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced, such rules may lead to a resident’s belief about allowable restrictions in use of the facilities. And now, the right to sue extends to internal policies handed down to on site personnel.

4. Citing Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2007) 490 F.3d 1041 at 1050.

Safeguards Against Harm? 

Well-meant intentions are no defense, said the court. The court noted that the landlord submitted no evidence that managers were told to apply the policy only if a young child’s safety was threatened, or that managers in practice applied the policy in such a way. Land- lord also said, diluting the safety defense, that one of the “primary goals” of the guidelines is to limit disturbances to other residents by children, which “likely encompasses situations beyond those in which a child’s safety is legitimately threatened.” Peace and quiet is not a licit basis for the special treatment of children. Broad exclusionary policies without very particular narrowly tailored terms will be struck down. No cases specify what those narrow, least intrusive regulations might look like. And, it is submitted that seeking to develop children-specific rules is so fraught with difficulty and exposure as not to be worth the time and effort. Again, let the parents and guardians decide.

Eliminate the Exposure You May Have: 

Scour on-site management directives, policy handbooks, instructions, procedures manuals, emails. In other words, audit your intermediate level of management documentation; the entire body of memorialized supervision instructions, policies and requirements that apply to on site management. Do your employment agreements contain your fair housing policy? Do your agreements prohibit discriminatory statements, actions, conduct, communications, jokes, or notices? None of these documents is privileged from the prying eye of the plaintiff class counsel. It may be time to update these documents.

Remember: requiring adult supervision is NOT allowed in all age parks. 

An adult supervision requirement is outlawed by several decisions citing United States v. Plaza Mo- bile Estates: it is the parents, not management, who act as the “gate- keepers” of the facilities including swimming pool access and usage of facilities in “all age” communities. Requiring any form of super- vision constitutes a violation of the FHAA.

The FHAA Examples of Improper Rules to Update 

Rules and regulations in “all age” communities which discriminate include the following. If your rules contain any of the following restrictions, or any rules similar to them, it is strongly advised that a legal advisor conversant with the FHAA (and implementing regulations and judicial and administrative interpretations) be promptly consulted.

• “Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas [or] jet pool at any time;” 

• “Residents and visitors under the age of fourteen (14) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or jet pool (spa) at any time;” 

• “Use of the spa is prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old;” 
“Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and un- der requires accompaniment by a resident;” 

• “Parent of resident child or resident host must accompany 
children at all times in the pool or pool area;”
• “No one under the age of four-
teen (14) years old is allowed • to use the Jacuzzi;”
• “Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years
old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. only and must be accompanied by an adult park resident;”
• “Parent or responsible adult must accompany all children under fourteen (14) years old at all times [in the swimming pool and/or pool area];”
• “Minors under 16 years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;”
• “At 2:00 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;”
• “All children must be accompanied by an adult to use the pool;”
• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old shall not be allowed to ride a bicycle on the park streets without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the mobilehome in which they reside;
• Children under the age of eight (8) years old must be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;
• “Children under 18 years old must be accompanied by a parent when they are in the swimming pool;”
• Children shall not be allowed to play on park streets, or in any other common areas;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old shall not be permitted to use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any other recreational facilities without the accompaniment of an adult registered to the mobilehome in which they reside;
• Residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old must be accompanied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (club- house);
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old may use the swimming pool and sun deck during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (noon) every day. Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted around the pool or sun deck after 12:00 noon;
• Residents and visitors under the age of eighteen (18) years old are not permitted to use the saunas or the therapeutic jet pool at any time; 

• Children under the age of four- teen (14) years old must be ac- companied by a registered resident adult to be allowed to ride a bicycle in the park streets; 

• The adult resident host must accompany all guests of their mobilehome who use the recreation building (clubhouse) or any of the recreational facilities of the park; 

• Children under the age of fourteen (14) years old must be ac- companied by the registered resident adult from the same household in order to use any of the recreational facilities or recreational building (club- house); 

• When using the clubhouse, persons under ten (10) years old must be accompanied by an adult resident; use of the billiards room was restricted to residents over eighteen (18) years old; 

• Use of the spa was prohibited to children under eighteen (18) years old; 

• Use of the pool by children fourteen (14) years old and under required accompaniment by a resident; 

• Bicycle riding by anyone is prohibited unless accompanied by adult resident parent or adult host; 

• Parent of resident child or resident host must accompany children at all times in the pool or pool area;
• Guests and residents under the age of eighteen (18) years old are permitted to use the swimming pool and sun deck from the hours of 9.00 a.m. to 12 noon only and must be accompanied by the parent or resident child or resident host;
• No one under the age of eighteen (18) years old is permitted in the billiard room at any time;
• No one under the age of four- teen (14) years old is allowed to use the Jacuzzi;
• At 2:00 p.m. children are to be out of the pool area;
• Children are not to walk around the park without adult supervision;
• Minors under 16 years old are not permitted in the therapeutic pool;
• For safety, children are not to ride bicycles, roller skates, skateboards, play in the street, play in RV storage, car wash, or wander around the park;
• Children under 8 years old shall be confined to a play area in the rear fenced yard of the family residence;

Age restrictive rules are “facially” discriminatory when they treat children, and thus, families with children, differently and less favor- ably than adults-only households. In other words, no matter how ad- ministered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced, such rules may lead to a resident’s belief about allowable restrictions in use of the facilities.

The FFHA 

In 1988, Congress amended the Federal Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”) to prohibit not just discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin, but also included “familial status” discrimination. “Familial status” is defined as “one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with ... a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals.” Among other provisions, it is unlawful:

“To discriminate against any persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of ... familial status ...”

Thus, in an all-age community, restrictions on access or use of common facilities and amenities based on age of a child (“familial status”) is a violation of the FHAA, absent “compelling business necessity.” 5 Any such rule must be proved to be the “least restrictive means” to achieving a health and safety justification. What does this legalese mean to the parkowner in practical terms? A full blown trial, risks of heavy penalties, damages and attorney’s fees and costs. This is because there is no bright line test for any age-restrictive regulation: the law is bereft of any standards

or guidance to make a reasonable, predictable risk-assessment or likelihood of success. Each case de- pends on the facts and surrounding circumstances. In other words, each case is a “test-case.” In sum, the penalties are so severe that prudent counsel would admonish all to eliminate age-restrictive rules and regulations.

“Children” are as protected as any other protected class. Thus, a simple way to test a rule for FHAA compliance is this: insert any other protected class in the place of “children” when testing a rule and regulation. For example, a common past rule (and no longer a valid one) is “all children under 14 years of age must be accompanied by an adult resident when in the pool area.” How does this sound: “All Methodists must be accompanied by an adult resident. . .” Obviously, such a rule would violate the FHAA.

It is also a violation of the FHAA to express to agents, brokers, employees, prospective sellers, or renters a preference for certain types of ten- ants. Another issue is the use of selective advertisements, or denying information about housing opportunities to particular segments of the housing market because of their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. It is a violation to place ads that specify a preference for: “mature ten- ants,” stating an aversion to “families with children, teenagers in the building; advertisements stating no more than “one child,” or stating that the parkowner does not “rent to children.” “Adult Community” at the entrance to a non-exempt com- munity also violates the FHAA. Use of the word “adult” without in- dicating it is housing for older per- sons, constitutes a violation of the

FHAA. There are no such things as “adult” mobilehome parks, and use of the phrase is deemed to chill family applicants from applying for tenancy in them.

The court held that these rules were not based on “compelling business necessity” and did not represent the “least restrictive” intrusions on “familial status” rights in promoting a health and safety interest. Having held that these rules were unlawful, the issues remaining for trial in the Plaza Mobile Estates case included damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs for the private plaintiffs. While the action was brought as a class claim (in which all of possibly thousands of affected tenants could have been included in damages awards), class certification efforts were defeated, allowing only the named parties to seek damages.

The court’s comments regarding the invalidation of these rules is telling and troubling. The court stated that the age restrictive rules were “facially” discriminatory. In other words, no matter how ad- ministered, the rules were invalid as drafted. Even if never enforced such rules might dissuade a prospective applicant from applying for tenancy.

What Can We Do to Avoid This Mine Field? 

Even in the absence of specific rules and the ability to craft them, educational materials may help parents understand common risks associated with the very youth. When educational information is provided as an adjunct to an activity rather than a rule restricting an activity, the chance of a claim of discriminatory preference is less likely to be made. For example, when a parkowner offers such educational material from organizations who seek better protection of children (e.g., police departments, charitable organizations, etc.), the parkowner is providing a service - disseminating information and facts - not discriminating against children. 6

Conclusion 

All the parkowner wants is to know what the law is! What we do know is that certain rules are not permissible. Does it make any practical sense to promulgate new regula- tions affecting treatment of children? No.

The best policy for the all-age park is to have no references to children, child, adult, or other words which suggest differential treatment be-tween adults and children. The de- cisions affecting the young are for the parents to decide on.

Even with neutral rules and regulations, the enforcement of the rules needs to be considered. Does your manager have different attitudes, tone, manner or demeanor in general in dealing with kids and their parents? There is no room for derogatory comments, insults, or force beyond the same level applied to parents and other childless adults. Our mantra: Professional- ism. First and always! ◆

5. Some cases phrase the test differently (least restrictive, narrowly tailored, not speculative, etc.), but the reader is best advised to apply the standards applicable to the most stringent precedents in effect at this time, until variations on the articulation of the proper test for rules is made judicially and clear through further appellate court development. This is what plaintiff lawyers do. They will make the claim that the rules do not pass muster under the most difficult of possible tests. If you wish to preclude court tests of your rules, they will be drafted based on clearing the highest possible legal hurdles.

6. For example, educational material exist which explain that young children have peripheral vision which is two-thirds that of an adult; they have difficulty determining the source of sounds; traffic noises and sirens may be confusing; they may not understand that an automobile may seriously hurt or kill them; most children cannot understand a complex chain of events; children believe that all grownups will look out for them; they think that if they can see an adult driving a car toward them, the driver must be able to see them; children often mix fantasy with reality - they may give themselves superhuman powers and do not understand that a moving vehicle can hurt them; they have difficulty judging the speed and distance of oncoming vehicles.

Terry R. Dowdall, Esq. has specialized in manufactured home communities’ law since 1978. Mr. Dowdall can be reached at Dowdall Law Offices, APC Orange County office; 284 North Glassell Street, 1st Floor, Orange, CA 92866; 714.532.2222 phone; 714.532.3238 fax. email: trd@dowdalllaw. net; www.dowdalllaw. com.

This article is reprinted from WMA "Reporter", July 2016.  MHCO would like to express our deep appreciation to WMA for their permission to reprint this informative article.

Let's start with the Baby Boomers vs. the Elderly. Senior citizens are now at the top of the heap in U.S. Census numbers. The Baby Boomers are now officially "seniors" as they started turning 65 in 2011. In fact, 10,000 people turn 65 every day! The 85 to 94 year-olds experienced the fastest growth between 2000 and 2010. The senior age group is now, for the first time, the largest in terms of size and percent of the population in the US. While the overall senior population has increased, there are major social and financial differences within the group. For example, the Baby Boomers were young adults during the 1960's and are therefore a more "free thinking" group than their parents, the 85-94 group. While the Baby Boomers generally are not cookie baking grandmothers, they still require specific attention to their needs. Socialization is a key component for any successful senior living community program, but Baby Boomers are not interested in Bingo. The Boomer generation is driven and "self' centered. They want control and believe in personal gratification. In contrast, the Elderly group is concerned about being a burden to their families and how long they will be able to maintain any independent living status. Boomers have the greatest percentage of wealth in our society, where the elderly group is amongst the poorest.

Senior Trends are definitive, and developers and builders need to get ahead of the trends seniors are demanding. Will the product we build today be desirable or outdated in 5, 10, 15 years? Why do we insist that seniors should live in small apartments with no dishwashers? Why do we expect seniors to dispose of all their possessions to live in one of our units with 600 square feet? My sister turned 55 last year, and if she were to move into a typical senior community, she would expect the amenities she has always had. Senior housing is not just for little old ladies anymore! The rules of the past may not apply to this new generation of seniors. Boomers have already shown signs of not following their predecessors in the products and services they desire. They will work longer (don't skimp on parking places) prefer to age in place (smart floor plans, upgraded interior appointments, green features), 89% of seniors are on-line at least once a day (think Wi-Fi, not computer classes), and desire more active retirement scenarios (think wine tasting rather than a quilting bee). For example, on site movie theatres, a concierge (not "activities director"), opportunities that reflect current social trends (golf, gardening, cooking, decorating), concerts with varied options, a technology driven entertainment center (think XBox, not shuffle board) are just some ideas of how to attract the new generation of seniors. Remember, "Oldies" are not just Frank Sinatra and Doris Day, but the Beatles and The Stones!

Financial IssuesWe are living a decade longer than our parent's generation due to healthy aging and increased access to healthcare. Although this would seem to be a welcome fact, there are many seniors who live with the very real threat of running out of financial resources to sustain this longevity. Nearly half a million elderly living alone in California cannot make ends meet. These seniors lack sufficient income to pay for a minimum level of housing, food, health care, transportation and other basic expenses. "As the economy wipes out retirement savings and destroys home equity, our parents and grandparents will find paying for a roof over their heads and affording basic necessities even more of a struggle", said Steven P. Wallace, Ph.D, Center of Human Policy Research. This research shows that elder economic insecurity is problematic in both more and less affluent counties. A majority of all single elders aged 75 or older are economically insecure. The numbers of affected seniors are likely to be even higher as the current recession deepens. So what do we do? It may be a reasonable accommodation to change the rent due date to allow for the changing dynamic with assistance payments. All resources should be explored in order to keep the senior in their housing with eviction as a last resort.

Mental Illness affects one out of every five seniors in America. Just a handful of significant mental health problems that may occur are delirium, dementia, depression, and schizophrenia. Older adults who suffer with mental health conditions often have very abnormal behavior and patterns that create a decreased capacity for them to function independently. In many cases, mental health problems in seniors are too often ignored by health care professionals and attributed to "old age". Traditionally, our culture does not show any type of respect or dignity for those suffering from mental health disease. As our population ages, this challenge will become more prevalent. Many of our residents relocated to California and left their families to pursue the "golden dream". This has left them alone in their elderly years, and they look at us to fill that role for them. Our roles as rental housing professionals will need to evolve into a position of being able to locate resources that can provide assistance to our aging residents. This is why partnering with various social service agencies is such a vital component to add to our amenities on senior communities.

So, how do we support the staff? I believe that there is a special place in property management heaven for our staff members that contribute to the success of our senior communities! We depend on these employees to provide customer service on a completely different level. The demands of the senior resident are wide and varied... ."why does that animal live here?" "I do not like the looks of my neighbor"; "She is looking at my husband?" "Why can't you take me to the store? '_.etc. Our responses must be kind but firm, and conversations must be conducted in terminology that seniors understand. Many seniors believe that the management of our communities have a greater responsibility to them - this makes sense if we keep in mind that they have owned their own homes for many years and probably had some resistance to moving into a "retirement home" that they may think is Assisted Living. Their sense of entitlement runs deep after so many years of being valued and contributing members of our society. Employees are challenged with understanding the perspective of the senior resident. We need to provide major support to these employees and provide continual education on how to interact with seniors. A little pampering and wide shoulders to cry on wouldn't hurt either!

Professionals in the senior housing industry provide a vital service that goes beyond housing. We provide care, comfort, and a sense of family to our residents. This population segment will only increase so as an industry we need to get ahead of the trends and prepare for the influx of senior residents that will come our way. Our senior consumer wants reasons to believe, not empty facts. They want an emotional connection that goes beyond the walls and floors. Will you be ready for them?

For more information on training topics, including newly developed curriculum devoted to Senior Housing, contact Angel Rogers at (909)725-2700 or angel@angelrogers.com

Answer: The applicable statute is ORS 90.304. In summary, it provides as follows:

1. If you require an applicant to pay a screening charge and the application is denied (or if the applicant makes a written request following your denial of an application) you must promptly provide the applicant with a written statement of one or more reasons for the denial.

2. Your statement of reasons for denial may consist of a form with one or more reasons checked off. MHCO has such a form. The reasons for rejection under the statute include, but are not limited to, the following:

- Rental information, including:

o Negative or insufficient reports from references or other sources;
o An unacceptable or insufficient rental history, such as the lack of a reference from a prior landlord;
o A prior eviction action for possession under ORS 105.105 to ORS 105. 168 that resulted in a general judgment of restitution in the landlord's favor; and
o The inability to verify information regarding a rental history.

- Criminal records, including:

o An unacceptable criminal history;
o The inability to verify information regarding criminal history.

- Financial information, including:

o Insufficient income;
o Negative information provided by a consumer credit reporting agency; and
o Inability to verify information regarding credit history.

- Failure to meet other written screening or admission criteria in your lease or rental agreement. (See Footnote 1)

- The dwelling unit has already been rented.

3. If you fail to comply with these provisions, the applicant may recover from you $100.

Footnote 1: The MHCO Lease (MHCO Form 5B) and Rental (MHCO Form 5A) forms list the screening criteria which a landlord may impose when the resident is seeking to sell their home to an applicant who wants to become a resident in the community. They are the following: (a) unsatisfactory rental references; (b) the absence of any prior tenant history or credit history; (c) unsatisfactory credit history; (d) unsatisfactory character references; (e) any criminal history; (f) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly rental and other expense obligations under this Agreement; (g) presence of pets or the number, type or size of pets; (h) if the Community is an age 55+ or 62+ Community, reasonable evidence verifying that at least one occupant is age 55 or 62, or over, as the case may be; (i) evidence that the prospective tenant has provided LANDLORD with falsified or materially misleading information on any material items; (j) if the prospective tenant refuses to sign a new written rental or lease agreement; (k) the number of additional occupants; or, (1) adverse information contained in the public record.

Senate Bill 586 becomes law on January 1, 2020. It amends several landlord-tenant laws, but for purpose of this article, we will focus on the new mediation laws it enacted.

Participation. If any landlord or tenant initiate a request for mediation, participation is mandatory. 

Types of Disputes Subject to Mediation. Generally, they relate to landlord or tenant compliance with the rental agreement or with the provisions of  ORS Chapter 90 (Oregon’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Laws). Specifically, they may include the following: 

• Landlord or tenant conduct within the facility; and
• The modification of a rule or regulation under ORS90.610.

Types of Disputes Excluded From Mediation.Unless all parties agree otherwise, nopartymayinitiatemediationfor:

• Facility closures consistent with ORS90.645 or 90.671;
• Facility sales consistent with ORS 90.842 to 90.850;
• Rent increases consistent with ORS 90.600;
• Rent payments or amounts owed;
• Tenant violations alleged in termination notices given under ORS 90.394 (Nonpayment of Rent), and non-curable notices under 90.396 (24-Hour Notices) or 90.630(8) (3-Strike Notices);
• Unauthorized person in possession under ORS 90.403;
• Unless initiated by the victim, dispute involving allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking or a dispute between the victim and the alleged perpetrator; and
• Disputes arising after the termination of the tenancy, including under ORS 90.425 (Personal Property Abandonment), 90.675 (Manufactured Home Abandonment) or 105.161 (Writs of Execution).

Parks Required to Have a Mediation Policy.It must include the following:  

• The process and format to initiate mediation;
• The names and contact information, including thephone number and website address, for mediation services available through the referral program provided by the Housing and Community Services Department established under ORS 446.543 (2) and any other no-cost mediation service acceptable to thelandlord;
• Information explaining the following requirements:
  • It may be initiated by the landlord or tenant contacting the Housing and Community Services Department in their required format;
  • It may not resolve any matters except by the agreement of all parties; [Note: we interpret this to mean that neither party can be compelled to reach agreement on any matter against their consent. However, we do not interpret this to mean that both parties must agree in advance as to which topics will go to mediation (assuming they are not otherwise beyond the scope of the law)].
  • All communications from all parties are held strictly confidential and may not be used in any legal proceedings. 
  • Mediation may be used toresolve:
    • Disputes between the landlord and one or more tenants,initiated by any party; and 
    • Disputes between any two or more tenants, initiated only by the landlord.
  • A party may designate any person, including a non-attorney, to represent their interests, provided that the designee must have the authority to bind that party to any resolution of thedispute;
  • Must comply with any other provisions as the Housing and Community Services Department may require byrule; and
  • Parties must participate in mediation (a) by making a good faith effort to schedule mediation within 30 days after it is initiated, (b) attending and participating in mediation and (c) cooperating with reasonable requests of the mediator.

MHCO Form No. 4 (Mediation Policy).  This form summarizes Senate Bill 586, and should be given to all new residents after January 1, 2020.  A landlord may unilaterally amend a rental agreement or facility rules and regulationstoSB 586.  PCQ Comment: MHCO has a form (No. 4) available to its members to make the unilateral amendment for existing residents. If your current policy conflicts with the new law, or you simply want to update it, we suggest sending the unilateral amendment to current residents. For new residents, Form 4 should become a part of their rental agreement, rules, and statement of policy.

Pending Claims.After mediation has been initiated and while it is on going,any statute of limitations related to the dispute is suspended (aka “tolled”). Additionally, after the mediation has been initiated, a party may not file a legal action related to the dispute, including an action for possession under ORS105.110 (“FED”).

Continuing Duties During Mediation. The tenant must continue paying their rent. However, receipt of such payment is not subject to landlord waiver under ORS 90.412(2) so long as it is refunded (if appropriate) within 10 days following the conclusion ofmediation.

Miscellaneous.  SB 586 does not require any party to:

• Reachanagreementonanyof the issues submitted to mediation;
• Participate in more than one mediation session or participate for an unreasonable lengthoftimeinasession;or
• Waive or forgo any rights or remedies or the use of any other available informal dispute resolutionprocess.
• A mediator in the mandatory mediation must notify the Housing and Community Services Department as to whether the dispute was resolved - but may not provide the department with the contents of any resolution;
• If a party refuses to participate in good faith in a requested mediation or uses mediation to harass another party, the other party:
  • Has a defense to a claim related to the subject of the dispute for which mediation was sought;and
  • Is entitled to damages of one month’s rent against that party.

PCQ Note:Although unrelated to mediation, SB 586 also provides that the Housing and Community Services Department shall award grants to persons to provide legal representation to low-income facility tenants in addressing disputes involving legal matters arising under ORS Chapter 90;

Disparate impact holds that certain practices in employment, housing, etc., may be considered discriminatory under the Act, if they have a disproportionately "adverse impact" on certain members of a protected class, i.e. those falling into the following groups: Race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.  The simplest explanation of how disparate impact works is by the following example: 

A landlord may be found to have discriminated against a prospective tenant, not because of an intentional discriminatory act, such as rejecting him or her based upon race or religion, but unintentionally, because the landlord relied upon a perfectly legal basis, except that it had a disproportionately adverse impact on members of a protected class.  Proof of the “disproportional impact” is usually based upon some statistical correlation showing that a certain class of protected persons are impacted more than others. In other words, unintentional discrimination can be found to be a violation of the Act.

According to the Memo (footnotes omitted): 

Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability). Additionally, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act occurs if a housing provider treats individuals with comparable criminal history differently because of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic (i.e., disparate treatment liability).

The purpose of the Memo is to issue guidance, mostly by way of examples and prior case law, in how the use of criminal history during the tenant-screening process, may, and may not, trigger a disparate impact result. 

MHCO has closely reviewed the Memo and will be providing further guidance shortly. In the meantime, this article is a “heads-up” to landlords and managers regarding the use of criminal background checks in light of the Memo. It is preliminary only, and not intended as “legal advice”. MHCO members should consult their own legal counsel for advice relating to their particular situation. 

Summary of Thoughts and Suggestions.  Here are some tips based upon information from the Memo: 

1. 1.    Beware of testers, calling over the phone and asking if you will rent to persons with a criminal background. Be careful about answering these blind calls with a “yes” or “no”. Make sure callers understand that no rental decisions are made in advance of reviewing all relevant background information, including a criminal background report. Encourage the caller to either come to the office and pick up the necessary paperwork, or if they prefer, send it to them at their provided address. 

1. 2.    Ultimately, members should plan on making adjustments in their rules and application process.  MHCO will elaborate on this further in a future article.

1. 3.    Do not have a rule or policy that treats arrests, with no conviction, the same as a conviction. If you currently have such a rule, it should not be enforced.

1. 4.    Do not have a blanket guideline providing, for example, that conviction for any crime is an automatic denial.

1. 5.    Be sure that all rules or policies concerning criminal records are uniformly enforced – no exceptions.  However, note No. 7 below. You should avoid a policy saying that all persons with a felony are automatically disqualified. There is a world of difference between an ex-felon who served time for embezzlement ten years ago and has been a contributing member of society ever since vs. an ex-felon who served time for aggravated battery, and has been in and out of jail for similar violence over the past five years.

1. 6.    If possible, evaluate all other rental history, such as prior tenancies, employment, credit, income and affordability, before even going to the results of a criminal background check. If the prospective tenant does not pass one or more of these criteria, then the rejection can be based on that, thus avoiding the use of criminal background reports and disparate impact issues entirely.

1. 7.    In evaluating an applicant’s criminal history, do not use a “one size fits all” approach. There are several gradations of severity. Additional issues need to be addressed before making a decision to reject a prospective tenant based upon criminal history. For example:

1. 1. a.    How long ago was the conviction? (Convictions over 6-7 years old, with no further convictions, in most cases should probably not be used as the basis for a denial (excluding registered sex offenders, or those convicted for violent crimes).

1. 1. b.    What has the person been doing since release?

1. 1. c.    Has the person been convicted once, or on multiple occasions?

1. 1. d.    What was the nature and severity of the crime? 

1. 1. 8.    Note that according to the Memo, a refusal to rent to an applicant who has a conviction for one or more drug crimes involving the manufacture or distribution (not mere possession) of a federally defined controlled substance is immune from a disparate impact claim. In other words, a landlord or manager may legally base the refusal to rent to a prospective tenant based upon his or her conviction for manufacture or distribution will not result in a violation of the Act, based upon disparate impact. Per the Memo: “Section 807(b)(4) of the Fair Housing Act provides that the Act does not prohibit ‘conduct against a person because such person has been convicted … of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).’”

1. 1. 9.    ORS 90.303 (Evaluation of Applicant) addresses some of the same issues as in the Memo, but not all. And where there is similarity, Oregon law does not go as far as the Memo on the issue of criminal records and disparate impact. Oregon’s statute provides:

(1) When evaluating an applicant, a landlord may not consider an action to recover possession pursuant to ORS 105.105 to 105.168 (Oregon’s eviction statutes – PCQ) if the action:

      (a) Was dismissed or resulted in a general judgment for the applicant before the applicant submits the application. This paragraph does not apply if the action has not resulted in a dismissal or general judgment at the time the applicant submits the application.

      (b) Resulted in a general judgment against the applicant that was entered five or more years before the applicant submits the application.

(2) When evaluating the applicant, a landlord may not consider a previous arrest of the applicant if the arrest did not result in a conviction. This subsection does not apply if the arrest has resulted in charges for criminal behavior as described in subsection (3) of this section that have not been dismissed at the time the applicant submits the application.

(3) When evaluating the applicant, the landlord may consider criminal conviction and charging history if the conviction or pending charge is for conduct that is:

     (a) A drug-related crime;

     (b) A person crime;

     (c) A sex offense;

     (d) A crime involving financial fraud, including identity theft and forgery; or

     (e) Any other crime if the conduct for which the applicant was convicted or charged is of a nature that would adversely affect:

         (A) Property of the landlord or a tenant; or

         (B) The health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of residents, the landlord or the landlord’s agent. 

1. 1. 10.    Readers should not assume that compliance with ORS 90.303 means that a denial of tenancy could not result in a disparate impact claim.  In other words, landlords and managers should be extra-cautious in this minefield, since where federal law is more restrictive (i.e. burdensome on landlords), it will likely pre-empt state law.  

Here are some considerations to keep in mind:

1. 1. a.    The Memo and ORS 90.303 both prohibit screening applicants for arrests, regardless of the conduct that led to the arrest;
   2. b.    ORS 90.303 says that an arrest which has not been dismissed, but is still pending (i.e. a conviction is still possible) may be considered in tenant screening. The HUD Memo does not address this issue – so we don’t know what the feds would say. Accordingly, it may be prudent to take a more balanced approach in these situations. For example, rather than having a blanket policy that a tenant will automatically be rejected if their charge is still pending, landlords and managers should evaluate the matter based upon (a) When the matter will be resolved, e.g. a week, a month, or a year? (b) What was the charge? (c) If convicted, would the applicant automatically be denied?  As noted above, the whole issue of criminal background information is an element of the application process that need not be fully vetted, if, regardless of the crime, its severity or recency, the person would fail the application process on other grounds. If so, there is no need to rely upon the community’s criminal background policy to vet an applicant. However, a word of caution here: Be prudent when selecting a basis for denial. Using a weak reason, versus a stronger one, can be viewed as pretextual if the applicant is a member of a protected class. In other words, beware of using a credit basis for denial if it is “iffy” and exclude the criminal background basis. In these cases, landlords and managers should consult legal counsel; it may be best to use both bases. 
   3. c.    ORS 90.303 says that a landlord may consider a conviction for certain conduct, generally relating to threats of violence, drugs, sex, or property damage, which would indicate risks to fellow tenants or the landlord. However, the HUD Memo is broader and more subtle (i.e. it demands an evaluation beyond a one-size-fits-all rejection policy). In short, do not rely solely on ORS 90.303, to the exclusion of the more balanced approach demanded by the Memo.
   4. d.    Unlike the HUD Memo, ORS 90.303 does not address how long ago the conviction occurred, or require an evaluation of what the applicant had been doing since the conviction. (i.e. evidence of rehabilitation). The General Landlord-Tenant Coalition could not reach agreement on whether to use a five or seven year standard in the statute, nor whether multiple convictions should be dealt with differently than single ones. Accordingly, our statute is silent on this. Footnote 34 of the Memo cites to the following authority, which mentions six to seven years: 

“(S)ee, Megan C. Kurlychek et al., Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Offending?, 5 Criminology and Pub. Pol’y 483 (2006) (reporting that after six or seven years without reoffending, the risk of new offenses by persons with a prior criminal history begins to approximate the risk of new offenses among persons with no criminal record).”

Conclusion.  Landlords and managers could be forgiven for feeling they are caught in a dilemma. If they follow Oregon law, it may not be enough – but at least the statutes are black and white. And while it may be sufficient to follow federal law, today that requires a “disparate impact” analysis, which, at best, is a shifting and nuanced set of “guidelines”. Perhaps most unsettling, now a good faith effort to comply with the tenant application process is not enough. Unintentional discrimination, now known under the more benign title, “disparate impact”, is more of a concept than a law, since it does not depend upon one’s overt actions,  - however well intended - but upon the long term “consequences” of those actions based upon inferred and empirical statistics derived from academic writings, analysis, surveys, footnotes, and demographics. Is this something landlords and managers can or should be expected to fully appreciate and understand?  The best we can do today is to keep alert to the issue. MHCO will have more on this minefield in coming articles.

We all know that 80% or more of a community homesites must be occupied by at least one 55+ person, and that documented proof of age must be consistently required to qualify for 55+ status under HOPA. Let's not forget that the requirements also mandate the re-survey.

What do the Regulations say? "...The procedures described in paragraph (b) [routinely determining the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant of each unit is 55 years of age or older] ... must provide for regular updates, through surveys or other means, of the initial information supplied by the occupants of the housing facility or community. Such updates must take place once every two years ...."

For example, there were objections to the re-survey mandate on the grounds it was too burdensome. HUD stated that owners would not be unduly burdened by the update requirements since the information "will be readily available in the files."

This comment reflects that the survey requirement can be fulfilled by preparation of a summary of names and ages of the homeowners based on existing file information (assuming the files are up to date). One might annotate a rent roll with resident ages and satisfy the requirement. HUD emphasizes that "...the re-survey does not require that all supporting documents be collected again - only that the community confirm that those persons counted as occupying dwellings for purposes of meeting the 80% requirement are, in fact, still in occupancy."

It is also clear that the survey is a "summary" and not required to include underlying documentation (remember the POA must be obtained for approval of tenancy and kept in the resident's file): "[Only the overall survey summary is required to be available for review, not the supporting documentation. The word 'summary' has been added to this section").

Compilation of the "Summary"

In review of the files to compile the required "summary," it is possible that some files may be missing POA (Proof of Age) documentation. Missing POA reflects inconsistent conformance to a required age verification policy. This can be fatal to defending a "55+" status. Yet, there are plausible reasons why POA may be absent. Perhaps a resident's tenancy commenced before the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (September 12, 1988): this was the last date to "grandfather" underage residents excluded from the calculation of the 80-20 requirement; perhaps the Xerox copier did not work on the day identification was checked; perhaps the applicant's age was so obvious that documentation was overlooked; perhaps the POA was misplaced. None of these explanations will "wash" with fair housing enforcers. Now is the time for review of this information. Supplementing resident files may bolster a defense of the "55+" status by proving the 80-20 ratio, but cannot substitute for consistent conformance to a policy of seeking POA documentation. HUD's requirements are crystal clear: "The housing facility or community must establish and maintain appropriate policies to require that occupants comply with the age verification procedures required by this section."

Should you seek missing POA information?

Yes. In a large scale review of resident files by fair housing enforcers, the main objective for review of proof of age may be to establish the 80-20 ratio: Proof of age in the file may itself be seen as evidence of adherence to collection of required data: even after-acquired information reflects, at least, compliance with the 2-year survey requirement. Proof of age includes

the following: driver's license (an expired or out-of-state license seems 'ok'), birth certificate, passport, immigration card, military identification, any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of "comparable reliability." This may include birth certificates, baptismal or marriage documents, perhaps, and other public records.

What if the tenant refuses to provide proof of age?

New purchaser: Of course, refusal to supply proof of age when applying for tenancy is a basis for denying a tenancy application. The regulations also allow for a declaration from a member of the household over 18 years of age, stating that at least one person in the homesite is at least 55 years of age. This after-acquired information is permissible for the survey, but again does not bolster evidence of conformance to proof of age documentation required for tenancy approval.

HUD provides a skeletal sample of certification. This can also be used as part of the tenancy application alone or better yet as a backup to production of proof of age. The sample reads as follows: "I, (name), am 18 years of age or older and a member of the household that resides at (housing facility or community), (unit number or designation). I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the ages of the occupants of this household and that at least one occupant is 55 years of age or older." Actual proof of age should be obtained at the application stage to avoid false reporting - no defense to a failure to achieve the 80-20 ration.

The regs also allow for other proof of age if an existing resident refuses to provide it. HUD states that "[I]f the occupants ... refuse to comply with the age verification procedures, the [management] may, if it has sufficient evidence, consider the unit to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. Such evidence may include: (1) Government records or documents, such as a local household census; (2) Prior forms or applications; or (3) A statement from an individual who has personal knowledge of the age of the occupants. The individual's statement must set forth the basis for such knowledge and be signed under the penalty of perjury."

Thus, the survey could be supplemented by including a sworn declaration or affidavit by any person with personal knowledge of the age of the resident's age. In past cases where proof of age was critically important, private investigation of public records to obtain that information has been conducted to provide such knowledge. Remember however, that obtaining proof of age "after the fact" shows compliance with the 2-year survey requirement, but does not substitute for a consistent practice of securing the required information at the time of processing the tenancy application.

HUD gives the following example as acceptable: "the owner of a mobile home park where the residents own the coach but rent the land requires a statement of whether at least one occupant is 55 years of age or older before any sublease or new rental." In other words, the qualification procedure can be instituted within the application process itself. HUD states such an example ("All new leases, new purchase agreements, or new applications contain a provision directly above the signatory line for leases, asserting that at least one occupant or the swelling will be 55 years of age or older. In addition the community surveys all current residents for their occupancy status in compliance with the 55 - or-older requirements"). Actual proof of age should always be required with submission of the tenancy application as well.

Conclusion

The continuing survey requirement is mandatory. Whether failure to comply will be fatal to the assertion of "older persons" status is unknown, but this survey requirement is part of the "intent" prong of operating an "older persons" community. In sum, it is time to compile the summary for your park.

(Reprinted with permission from MHI)

Do you operate a 55 & Older Community?

Do you have the necessary MHCO Forms for 55 & Older Communities?

MHCO has the Resources You Need!

If you are one of the many members of MHCO who own and operate a 55 & Older manufactured home community - MHCO has the resources you need to keep that community compliant with current HUD rules.

• Addendum to the Rent/Lease Agreement for Age 55 & Older Communities (MHCO Form 71A)
• 55 & Older Community - Occupation Determination and Age Verification (MHCO Form 71B)
• 55 & Older Community HUD Verification of Occupancy Survey (MHCO Form 71C)

These are excellent tools to use in the effective management of your 55 & Older community. Get the most out of your MHCO membership by purchasing and using MHCO Forms.