Search

Answer: The statute you are referring to is 90.302, and it provides the following: • A landlord may charge a tenant a fee for each occurrence of the following: o A late rent payment; o A dishonored check; o Removal or tampering with a properly functioning smoke alarm,smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm; o The violation of a written pet agreement or of a rule relating to pets in a facility; o The abandonment or relinquishment of a dwelling unit during a fixed term tenancy without cause; • A landlord may charge a tenant a fee for a second noncompliance or for a subsequent noncompliance with written rules or policies that describe the prohibited conduct and the fee for a second noncompliance, and for any third or subsequent noncompliance, that occurs within one year after a written warning notice. o The fee may not exceed $50 for the second noncompliance within one year after the warning notice for the same or a similar noncompliance or o $50 plus five percent of the rent payment for the current rental period for a third or subsequent noncompliance within one year after the warning notice for the same or a similar noncompliance. • The landlord must: o Give the tenant a written warning notice that describes:  A specific noncompliance before charging a fee for a second or subsequent noncompliance for the same or similar conduct; and  The amount of the fee for a second noncompliance, and for any subsequent noncompliance, that occurs within one year after the warning notice. Give a tenant a written notice describing the noncompliance when assessing a fee for a second or subsequent noncompliance that occurs within one year after the warning notice. Give a warning notice for a noncompliance or assess a fee for a second or subsequent noncompliance within 30 days after the act constituting noncompliance. • The landlord may terminate a tenancy for a noncompliance instead of assessing a fee, but may not assess a fee and terminate a tenancy for the same noncompliance. • The landlord may not deduct a fee from a rent payment for the current or a subsequent rental period. • The landlord may charge a tenant a fee for occurrences of noncompliance with written rules or policies as provided above for the following types of noncompliance: o The late payment to futility or service charge that the tenant owes the landlord; o The failure to clean up pet waste from the space; o The failure to clean up garbage,rubbish and other waste from the space; o For parking violations; o For the improper use of vehicles within the premises; o For smoking in a clearly designated nonsmoking area within the community other than the home; 1 o For keeping an unauthorized pet capable of causing damage to persons or property. • The landlord is not be required to account for or return to any fees to the tenant. • Other than for early termination of a fixed term lease (discussed above) a landlord may not charge a tenant any form of liquidated damages, however designated. • Nonpayment of a fee is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent (i.e. under ORS 90.394), but is grounds for a 30-day notice of termination for cause under 90.630 (1). • This law does not apply to: o Attorneyfeesawarded; o Applicant screening charges; o Charges for improvements or other actions that are requested by the tenant and are not required under the rental agreement or by law, including the cost to replace a key lost by a tenant; o Processing fees charged to the landlord by a credit card company and passed through to the tenant for the use of a credit card by the tenant to make a payment when:  The credit card company allows processing fees to be passed through to the credit card holder; and  The landlord allows the tenant to pay in cash or by check; or  A requirement by a landlord in a written rental agreement that a tenant obtain and maintain renter’s liability insurance. • NOTE: The fees must be described in a written rental agreement. o Since ORS90.100(38)defines“rental agreement”to mean“…all agreements,written or oral, and valid rules and regulations, it would seem that including the fines in the rules would suffice. 2

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.”

Answer: First off, every "reasonable accommodation" case is different, so I strongly recommend that you consult an attorney on your particular case.

As a general matter, HUD has said that landlords must allow emotional support animals if (1) the tenant has a disability, and (2) the tenant documents that an assistance animal is necessary to help alleviate the disability.

In your particular case, it sounds like the tenant managed to convince her doctor's office to provide her with the required documentation of both her disability and the need for an assistance animal. As such, you are probably obligated under federal law to let her to keep the pit bull.

However, one reason for challenging a reasonable accommodation is on the disability diagnosis. In other words, did the tenant's doctor actually make a verifiable diagnosis, or did the tenant just get an online "prescription" without even meeting the tenant? If that is the case, you might consider consulting your attorney on challenging the request since HUD has stated that the tenant must submit reliable documentation of a disability and the need for an assistance animal.

I have also advised clients that it is sometimes possible to remove an assistance animal if it poses a threat to other residents. However, this can' be based on the particular breed of dog, but must instead be based on the attributes of the specific animal in question. For example, if the dog lunged at or attacked another resident, you could likely have it removed.

Along these lines, I recommend that you arrange a meeting with the tenant to "meet" the dog. The purpose (which you can explain to the tenant) is to ensure that her particular dog complies with federal law by not posing a threat to other residents. Assuming the dog does not display any vicious tendencies, it complies and can stay (although any future incidents could lead to a re-evaluation). You can also require her to keep the dog on a leash, clean up after it, and otherwise adhere to any reasonable pet rules you might have. You cannot, however, require any sort of pet deposit or other fee since the dog is considered an assistance animal, not a pet.

A final issue to consider is whether a pit bull in your RV park might cause your insurance rates to rise. If that is the case, you should consult your attorney on whether that rate increase might be considered an undue financial burden on the park. If so, you could possibly deny the pit bull on that basis.

The moral of this question is that each and every reasonable accommodation case is different. Talk to your attorney before denying a tenant's request so that you can avoid a HUD investigation.

The owners and managers of a Midwest community recently agreed to pay $35,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department, alleging that they violated fair housing law by placing undue conditions on a resident’s request to live with her assistance animal and then refused to renew her lease.

The Backstory: The case is about a resident who moved into an 800-unit community, which allowed pets and assistance animals, but had a “no dangerous breeds” policy that prohibited pit bulls. Before moving in, the resident allegedly had been in treatment for mental health disabilities that stemmed, at least in part, from witnessing the traumatic deaths of her boyfriend and mother. A family member gave her a young pit bull, which her treating psychologist said helped alleviate the symptoms of her disability and was a “major and required part of her treatment program.”

She apparently didn’t mention the dog when she moved into the community later that year. When the community discovered the pit bull, the resident requested a reasonable accommodation so she could keep it as an emotional support animal. Allegedly, the community denied the request and told her to remove it.

What followed were communications involving the resident, community representatives, and their lawyers, and ultimately, a series of court proceedings. During the process, the resident produced documentation from her treating psychiatrist that the specific animal was necessary for her to be able to live there and essential to her recovery from the severe trauma she suffered. In an interview before a court reporter, the psychiatrist said much the same thing.

It was about half-way through the one-year lease term when the parties came to terms. In lieu of granting her requested accommodation, the community allegedly gave her two options: either immediately terminate her lease and get some rent back or keep the dog through the end of the lease, but with conditions. Allegedly, the conditions included obtaining an insurance policy to cover the dog, requiring the dog to wear an emotional support vest whenever he left her unit, and repaying the community for any harm caused by the dog.

According to the resident, she picked the second option, but a few months later, she received notice that her lease would not be renewed. Renewed negotiations were unsuccessful, and she moved out. 

After the resident filed a HUD complaint, the Justice Department sued the community for discrimination and retaliation against the resident on the basis of her disability.

The community denied the allegations, but the parties reached a settlement to resolve the matter. Without admitting liability, the community agreed to pay $35,000 to the former resident and adopt policies, including a reasonable accommodation policy that specifically addressed requests for assistance animals. Under the new policy, assistance animals are not subject to breed restrictions or required to wear vests or other insignia that identify them as assistance animals; residents are not required to pay any fees or obtain insurance as a condition of keeping assistance animals.

Lessons Learned: 

1.   Assistance Animals Are NOT Pets: Some communities ban pets altogether, while others place limits on the number, type, size, or weight of pets and impose conditions such as extra fees, security deposits, or additional rent charges. Whatever your pet policy, you must consider a request to make an exception to allow an assistance animal when needed by an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community. That includes a request to keep a pit bull as an assistance animal—despite any policies banning so-called “dangerous breeds”—unless there’s evidence that the particular animal poses a direct threat to the safety or property of others.

2.   Requests for Assistance Animal Can Come Anytime: Don’t get thrown off because the resident makes a reasonable accommodation only after you discover she’s been keeping an animal in violation of your pet policy. Under fair housing law, reasonable accommodation requests may be made at anytime before or during the tenancy. The timing may be off, but it’s risky to deny the request—or make the resident jump through hoops—to overcome suspicions that she’s trying to get around your rules by falsely claiming a pet is an assistance animal. Instead, follow your standard policies for handling reasonable accommodation requests, including verification of the disability and need for the assistance animal if either or both are not known or readily apparent.

3.   Don’t Impose Extra Conditions to Allow Assistance Animals: Don’t require residents with disabilities to pay pet fees or get extra insurance coverage as a condition of allowing them to keep assistance animals. Conditions and restrictions that communities apply to pets may not be applied to assistance animals, according to HUD, though you do have recourse against residents for damages caused by assistance animals. HUD says you may require a resident to cover the cost of repairs for damage the animal causes to his unit or the common areas, reasonable wear and tear excepted, if it’s your policy to assess residents for any damage that they cause to the premises. Allowing for reasonable wear and tear, you may assess the costs against the standard security deposit charged to all residents, regardless of disability.

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: There are several issues that I see repeatedly. Here are a few: 1. Managers not adequately papering their file before taking legal action against a resident. Judges want to see that you’ve “walked the extra mile” with the resident, making every reasonable effort to bring them into compliance. This means starting with a personal conversation with them about the problem and then making notes of the date, time, and matters discussed and the resident’s responses. Next try a note or letter without using a formal termination notice. Only after it becomes apparent that you will have to go the formal route should you do so. 2. Failing to act promptly when a resident violate the rules. Although many things are not waivable, such as maintenance violations, some definitely are, such as unpermitted pets or occupants. When there is a belief that the resident has either an unapproved pet or occupant, the resident should be contacted immediately. With pets (assuming they are not in violation of the rules against breeds, or numbers), you want to promptly get them onto a Pet Agreement. With occupants you should use the Occupancy Agreement and run a background check. (Make sure you don’t require a financial background check, since that is not permitted on occupants – only tenants.) If the resident delays in complying, get a 30-day notice issued and do not accept rent until the matter is resolved. I have seen too many managers accept rent and work for months with the resident, not realizing that they are being lulled into believing the resident will ultimately cooperate – until it’s too late. 3. Failing to properly prepare a notice of termination. Oregon law is very strict when it comes to the preparation of notices. Even the slightest error can be fatal. Make sure you’re using the correct MHCO form [e.g. don’t use a 30-day notice for failure to maintain under ORS 90.630, when you should be using a 30-day notice for repair and deterioration under ORS 90.632.] When you draft the notice, have someone else read it for content and accuracy. Then do so again yourself. If you realize that you sent out an incorrectly prepared notice, send out a corrected one and state that it rescinds and replaces the incorrect one. 4. Accepting residents you have doubts about. Always do a “gut-check.” If you think the applicant would be problematic, look closely at their application and references. While you cannot and should not reject applicants arbitrarily, if they are on the cusp – i.e. you could legitimately accept or reject - give careful consideration to your decision and don’t let it be dictated by your desire to just fill a space. 5. Not understanding the range of solutions when dealing with a residents. By this I mean, don’t just fire out a notice as a knee jerk reaction to a violation. A good example is a resident who is intoxicated and gets into a verbal altercation with another resident. Say it gets out of control, and threats are made by the resident. If this is unusual for the resident and out of character for him, don’t simply send a 24-hour notice. The law is quite clear that you are not to use a 24-hour notice if another form of notice, e.g. a curable 30-day notice would work. Remember, a repeat violation with six months following the date of the 30-day notice gives you the right to terminate with a 20-day non-curable notice. Judges don’t like to terminate manufactured housing residents, given the drastic consequences. You want to show the judge that you were not being heavy-handed, but tried the most rationale and reasonable approach first.

Answer: First things first. If you simply want to get rid of Kris, you can immediately serve him with a no-cause eviction notice. Since it seems like he has been there far longer than a year, Oregon law requires a 60-day notice to evict. MHCO form 43 C is the form for you.

The "reasonable accommodation" request does raise a potential retaliation defense, however, so don't be too quick to ruin the holidays with an eviction notice. It would probably be best to give Kris a reasonable accommodation request form (MHCO Form 15). That form requires Kris to give the park information about his disability and get a medical provider or other specialist to sign off on the fact that he actually needs an accommodation. Assuming Kris returns the completed form, go ahead and do background checks on his guests (conduct and criminal check only, not credit history). If everything checks out, have his guests sign a temporary occupancy agreement (MHCO Form 25).

The reindeers are definitely a problem. If you're okay with them being there, have Kris fill out a pet agreement (MHCO Form 21). If you want the beasts out, you can give a 10-day pet notice forcing Kris to remove Rudolph and Co. if the herd is capable of causing damage to persons or property. (MHCO doesn'thave this particular form, so contact attorney Lionel Hutz at "I can't Believe It's a Law Firm!" in Springfield.)

The parking is easy to remedy if you have clearly posted signs stating that street parking is not allowed and unlawfully parked vehicles are subject to tow. You should also have local towing company signs posted. If you fit these requirements, call the tow company and they will put that eyesore in the impound lot.

The wild card here is if Kris happens to break into your park office and leaves a lump of coal in your stocking. If you can prove it was him, you could likely issue a 24-hour eviction notice for either substantial damage to the premises if he breaks the chimney, or perhaps for outrageous behavior for forcing his way into the building. And, if Kris instead happens to leave you presents that cause your heart to grow 3 sizes, you can probably get him with a 24-hour notice for inflicting substantial personal injury.

Happy Holidays to All!

Answer. Here is a short summary of the law regarding "service animals" and "assistance animals."

Service Animals. A "service animal" under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") is limited solely to dogs that have been individually trained to work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, e.g. guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, or protecting a person who is having a seizure. The ADA does require that landlords make reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities requesting to have a service animal. Note that the term "disability" under the ADA is very, very, broad.[1]

Although service animals must be on leash or harness, they may also be controlled through voice commands or hand signals. Service animals are not "pets." This means, among other things, that certain park rules for pets, such as requiring residents sign a Pet Agreement, cannot be required if it is a service animal. Dogs whose only purpose is to provide comfort or emotional support to a resident do not qualify under the ADA.

Assistance Animals. Under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, housing providers, including manufactured housing communities, must make also "reasonable accommodations" for persons with disabilities requesting to have an assistance animal for emotional support, or to provide other forms of help.

Similar to service animals, assistance animals are not regarded as "pets," and residents cannot be required to sign a Pet Agreement for them. According to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (here), as assistance animal:

'_ is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability. Assistance animals perform many disability-related functions, including but not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to sounds, providing protection or rescue assistance, pulling a wheelchair, fetching items, alerting persons to impending seizures, or providing emotional support to persons with disabilities who have a disability-related need for such support. For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests (the law does not require) an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified. While dogs are the most common type of assistance animal, other animals can also be assistance animals."

Companion Animals. A "companion animal" is more of a generic term, and the role it serves is what determines which laws will apply.

Approval Requirements. You are correct that you may not refuse to permit an assistance animal or service animal based upon size or breed. This means that you may not, based upon an animal's "propensity" restrict a resident from having a particular animal. There must be some evidence of actual risk to persons or property, such as history of such conduct.

The one limitation where it appears there is some latitude, where the landlord's liability insurance carrier would increase the premium or deny coverage. However, according to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, even this issue could be problematic for landlords, unless they first sought, as a reasonable accommodation, to obtain another liability insurance carrier that did provide coverage. I suggest that if/when such issues arise in your community that you check first with your attorney to determine how to proceed. Better safe than sorry!

For a very good summary of reasonable accommodations under the federal law, go to: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/huddojstatement.pdf

[1] An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

See, http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

Answer:  There are several issues that I see repeatedly.  Here are a few:

1. Managers not adequately papering their file before taking legal action against a resident.  Judges want to see that you’ve “walked the extra mile” with the resident, making every reasonable effort to bring them into compliance.  This means starting with a personal conversation with them about the problem and then making notes of the date, time, and matters discussed and the resident’s responses. Next try a note or letter without using a formal termination notice.  Only after it becomes apparent that you will have to go the formal route should you do so. 

2. Failing to act promptly when a resident violate the rules.  Although many things are not waivable, such as maintenance violations, some definitely are, such as unpermitted pets or occupants.  When there is a belief that the resident has either an unapproved pet or occupant, the resident should be contacted immediately.  With pets (assuming they are not in violation of the rules against breeds, or numbers), you want to promptly get them onto a Pet Agreement.  With occupants you should use the Occupancy Agreement and run a background check. (Make sure you don’t require a financial background check, since that is not permitted on occupants – only tenants.) If the resident delays in complying, get a 30-day notice issued and do not accept rent until the matter is resolved.  I have seen too many managers accept rent and work for months with the resident, not realizing that they are being lulled into believing the resident will ultimately cooperate – until it’s too late.

3. Failing to properly prepare a notice of termination.  Oregon law is very strict when it comes to the preparation of notices. Even the slightest error can be fatal. Make sure you’re using the correct MHCO form [e.g. don’t use a 30-day notice for failure to maintain under ORS 90.630, when you should be using a 30-day notice for repair and deterioration under ORS 90.632.]  When you draft the notice, have someone else read it for content and accuracy.  Then do so again yourself.  If you realize that you sent out an incorrectly prepared notice, send out a corrected one and state that it rescinds and replaces the incorrect one.  

4. Accepting residents you have doubts about.  Always do a “gut-check.”  If you think the applicant would be problematic, look closely at their application and references.  While you cannot and should not reject applicants arbitrarily, if they are on the cusp – i.e. you could legitimately accept or reject - give careful consideration to your decision and don’t let it be dictated by your desire to just fill a space. 

5. Not understanding the range of solutions when dealing with a resident.  By this I mean, don’t just fire out a notice as a knee jerk reaction to a violation.  A good example is a resident who is intoxicated and gets into a verbal altercation with another resident.  Say it gets out of control, and threats are made by the resident.   If this is unusual for the resident and out of character for him, don’t simply send a 24-hour notice.  The law is quite clear that you are notto use a 24-hour notice if another form of notice, e.g. a curable 30-day notice would work.  Remember, a repeat violation with six months following the date of the 30-day notice gives you the right to terminate with a 20-day non-curable notice.  Judges don’t like to terminate manufactured housing residents, given the drastic consequences.  You want to show the judge that you were not being heavy-handed, but tried the most rationale and reasonable approach first.