Search

When they left their children's play furniture and other items out on the patio, the apartment manager issued a few warnings and then another $20 fine.

The family's actions violated apartment policies, according to a complaint filed last September in Multnomah County Circuit Court. But under an agreement with the state announced Friday, the apartment complex and its property management firm will pay nearly $65,000 to tenants, the state and a legal aid organization. They will have to ditch policies that tenants criticized as discriminating against families.

And they will have to install a playground structure.

"It's a really good (result) for families in Oregon," said Christina Dirks, who represented the Sazykins, one of several families who made claims against the apartment complex and property management firm Norris & Stevens. "It's helping to assure that families in our community have equal access to enjoy their rental housing."

Under the agreement, Wah Mai Terrace and Norris & Stevens, do not admit any wrongdoing.

Norris & Stevens representatives did not return a call for comment.

Jonathan Radmacher, an attorney for the Wah Mai Terrace owners, said the policies were never meant to be anti-children.

He noted that the apartment complex owners and property managers were quick to address the problems as soon as they were brought up.

The policy that barred tenants from storing items other than bikes and barbecue grills on their patios was to keep the look of the complex presentable and clean, Radmacher said. The policy that prohibited children from riding bikes, tricycles, Big Wheel-type toys, skateboards and rollerskates on the property was out of concern for older residents, he said.

"There are lots of places to play in the neighborhood," he said, noting Ventura Park and Floyd Light Middle School, both about a block or two away from the complex at SE 111th and SE Stark.

He criticized the state, saying that the apartment complex and property managers were not aware of the discrimination concerns until the state intervened and threatened them with tens of thousands of dollars in state legal fees. "I know my client would never want to have any policy that's discriminatory... They would always want that brought to their attention, and they would fix it," he said. About $35,000 of the settlement will go to six current and former tenants. Norris & Stevens and Wah Mai Terrace also must pay attorney fees and costs of $20,000 to the Oregon Department of Justice and $9,816.36 to Legal Aid Services of Oregon.

Representatives for the two entities must participate in training on fair housing practices.

They also cannot try to collect fines and other debts that were levied against tenants under the "potentially unlawful" policies.

Norris & Stevens, which manages 8,300 units throughout the Portland area, will adopt the revised policies at all properties in its portfolio, and not just to the Wah Mai Terrace Complex, the state said.

The change helps families - particularly low-income families - who don't have the means to just pick up and move elsewhere, said Dirks, a staff attorney with Legal Aid Services of Oregon. The rental market, as well, offers few options.

The Portland market is tied with Minneapolis for having the second-lowest vacancy rate in the nation, according to a survey of the National Association of Realtors.

Answer. I suspect you allowed the caregiver in without putting her on an Occupancy Agreement (MHCO Form No. 25 ). See, ORS 90.275. It gives you great latitude to control an occupant's activities, since violation can result in eviction action directly against the caregiver.

The following is a summary of my conversation with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon on the issue of whether landlords can put caregivers on Temporary Occupancy Agreements, rather than putting them on a Rental Agreement, or not putting them on any written agreement (which leaves in doubt their legal status if the Landlord wants them removed from the Community).

• If the caregiver doesn'tqualify based on the background check[1] then you don't have to accept them into the Community;
• If they violate rules of the community when they are already in the Community and under the agreement, you can require they leave;
• You can pre-qualify the person as a care provider, i.e. required a letter or similar proof from a doctor or someone, saying the tenant needs someone 24/7;
• If they can't provide that proof, then you don't have to allow them into the Community as a care provider (although I can't imagine it would be very hard to obtain such proof);
• According to the Fair Housing Counsel, you are to give the tenant a choice (assuming the person qualifies under the background check), i.e. they can put the person on an Occupancy Agreement or go onto a Rental Agreement. You can't automatically say, "OK, you must go on an Occupancy Agreement." [Caveat: I do not agree with this position, and do not endorse it. The consequences of putting a caregiver on a rental agreement is that you have an much stricter protocol when they violate the rules or laws - e.g. written notice and opportunity to cure, etc. I believe that caregivers and others who are there on a temporary arrangement should remain on the Temporary Occupancy Agreement. This is exactly what the agreement was designed to do. Both Rental Agreements and Temporary Occupancy Agreements only permit termination "for cause" so this is not a situation the landlord can abuse without consequences.]

If you did not put the caregiver on a Temporary Occupancy Agreement means that the caregiver is merely a "guest" of the tenant, and if the guest violates the rules, you have to send a 30-day notice to the tenant; if the rules continue to be violation, your only option is to terminate the tenant's tenancy, and the caregiver is out too. But, this is not what you want to do.

I suggest that you consider having the caregiver sign a Temporary Occupancy Agreement. Of course, she could refuse, but it's worth a try. I have been successful doing so in the past.

If that does not work, you may consider giving the proper termination notice[2] and then filing for eviction against the tenant and "all others", i.e. the caregiver. Then when the matter gets to court, inform the court that you don't want to evict the tenant, only the caregiver. (I have had a judge agree to do so in the past.) You could then either ask the judge to evict the caregiver, or through the mediation that occurs in these proceedings, provide that the caregiver can stay, but only if she signs the Temporary Occupancy Agreement.

By the way, if the tenant has dementia, something needs to be done through the local social service agency, since it does not sound as if he can take care of himself along. Good luck!

[1] Remember, you cannot require financial capacity if they are to be an occupant, but you can if they are to be a tenant.

[2] I strongly recommend have your attorney review the 30-day notice you previously gave before sending out a repeat violation notice. This situation is too important to get into court and have the case thrown out for a defective notice.

Answer. Your confusion is understandable, because there are no black and white guidelines.  However, attached to this short article is a copy of a publication recently posted on the National Association of Realtors® website. It comes up at the top of the list on a Google search for “NAR disparate impact”, here.  It is simple, straightforward, and something you may wish to use.

If I were to list my rules of thumb[1] that I would follow if I were a manager or park owner, I’d distill them down to the following:

1. Subject to Nos. 8 and 9 below, don’t screen out persons solely for arrests;
2. You may distinguish between non-violent vs. violent convictions;
3. You may distinguish between misdemeanor, driving, and felony convictions;
4. You may distinguish between a single conviction vs. multiple convictions;
5. You may distinguish between a recent conviction and one long ago;
6. You may distinguish between persons who have a verifiable history of rehabilitation following a conviction (You should check personal references for this), vs. those with no such verifiable history;
7. Related to No. 6, you want to find out where the applicant has lived and worked during the years since the conviction.
8. Absent compelling mitigating circumstances, I would be very hesitant to admit into a community anyone with a conviction for a violent crime (i.e. any crime against the person, such as assault, etc.) within the last seven years; ditto for arson.
9. I would automatically reject anyone either under arrest, pending trial or plea, or a conviction anytime, based upon a sexual assault, sexual abuse, or any other sex related crime – regardless of whether they are on any public lists. The reason for this hardline position (as well as No. 8, above) is that as a part of your screening process, the law permits you to consider the safety of others in the community – that should always be your Number One rule of thumb.
10. You have the absolute right to automatically reject an applicant who has had a conviction for the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance.
     

In conclusion, always remember that if the applicant does not pass screening based upon any other valid criteria, then you do not have to go through the criminal background analysis at all. For example, if a person does not meet the financial requirements, or has a poor rental history, that is sufficient to reject them. Only if they qualify in the other screening areas, but have one or more criminal convictions, should you even need to make the above analysis.

[1] This is to say that I’m not “legally advising” you to follow my list. You may develop your own.

The case involved a mobile home park landlord who filed an eviction case because the tenant was allowing her adult son and his girlfriend to stay in the tenant's home without park approval. The park is a "55 or older" facility, and neither the son or girlfriend met the park's age requirements. More importantly, the son's presence in the park was accompanied by constant visitor traffic at all hours of the day.

The park issued a 30-day, for-cause notice to the tenant after confirming that the son and girlfriend were indeed staying there. At trial, the judge believed the evidence that the son was staying in the home, but took issue with the park's overnight guest policy. The judge found that the rental agreement policy allowing only 14 overnight visits per year was "unconscionable." The court stated that the limit was "unreasonable, obscure, and empowers Landlord excessively to Tenant's detriment." The judge went on to consider other factors in deciding the case, but an underlying theme was that tenants should be allowed more time for guest visits.

As a trial court decision, the case does not establish a legal precedent on overnight guest visits. However, while each case is different, landlords could limit their potential liability by expanding overnight visits above 14 days per year. Based on this particular judge's opinion, a 21-day per year limit might be a good safeguard. This adjustment could help negate the "unconscionable" argument by establishing a more relaxed guest policy.

If your park rules already allow more than 14 overnights per year for guests, it would be wise to rely on that policy to enforce guest visits. If you choose to amend your existing guest policy, mobile home park landlords can do so by issuing a rule change notice under ORS 90.610 (MHCO Form 60.) Non-park landlords can implement a new guest policy by having tenants sign off on a new guest policy rule. However, as usual, consult with an attorney before undertaking any rule changes with your tenants, and before filing an eviction action based on guest limitation violations.

MHCO FORM UPDATE: MHCO's rental agreement forms are in the process of being updated to allow 21 days per calendar year for guest visits (MHCO Forms 05A, 05B, 05C, and MHCO Form 80).

Question 1: When tenants request an assistance animal, are they required to put a deposit down like everyone else who requests for a pet to be admitted to housing?

Answer 1: No, you can’t charge a deposit for an assistance animal. So don’t charge the deposit until you've made the decision that it's not an assistance animal.

Question 2: If someone has paid a pet deposit and later needs to reclassify their pet as a support animal, must we refund the pet deposit?

Answer 2: Generally, yes. If you decide to approve the animal as an assistance animal, you should refund the deposit.

Question 3: We have verified that a tenant’s Rottweiler is her assistance animal. But Rottweilers are a restricted breed under our property's insurance policy. What should we do?

Answer 3: HUD has told us that if your carrier won't insure you if you allow a Rottweiler on site, and you’re unable to obtain comparable insurance from some other carrier, then that would be a defense to not allowing the Rottweiler. It would not be a defense to not allowing an assistance animal at all, but not allowing that particular breed. The problem is the burden is on you, the housing provider, to show that: (1) your insurance carrier is going to drop you; and (2) you cannot obtain comparable insurance. It's your burden, but it is a potential defense.

Question 4: If a tenant who’s requesting permission for an assistance animal provides verification from a credible source, but it's dated a few years back, is this acceptable? What is the rule for backdated verifications?

Answer 4: There isn't a rule; it's just a reasonableness issue. If the tenant has gotten a new animal, then you should ask the tenant to update the verification letter. If it's the same animal and it's a legitimate letter other than the date, then it’s probably good enough.

A fire or ambulance crew can’t safely respond to a medical emergency in a single family home because the resident has belongings stacked up to the ceiling and blocking many windows or doors.

A tenant living in an apartment faces eviction when he or she fails to pass a follow-up inspection after several warnings about lease violations related to items that create a tripping hazard, fire danger, or limit access to maintenance staff. The tenant then contacts their case manager in a panic.

These are just two examples of possible complications in housing settings that could impact housing providers.  Hoarding is distinct from simply building a collection, which is usually displayed with pride, or letting a few days of dishes and laundry pile up when life gets busy. A person who has been diagnosed with hoarding has a disability under the Fair Housing Act1. Hoarding has been added to the DSM-5, the latest version of the American Psychiatric Association’s classification and diagnostic tool, and is now recognized as diagnosable condition independent of other mental health conditions.

FHCO had received a few calls about potential hoarding situations by the time an invitation came in the spring of 2013 to participate in a collaborative Multnomah County conversation about the issue. Two graduate social work students serving as interns in the Multnomah County Office of Aging and Disability Services convened various agencies to meet for a “community assessment.” Attendees have included representatives of several nonprofit and for-profit housing providers, Aging and Disability and Adult Protective Services, Legal Aid, Animal Control, and Assessments and Tax. This Hoarding Task Force has continued to meet regularly, researching resources and bringing in experts to assist in coordinating services and developing best practices. The group is now beginning the process of staffing cases and developing a more formal protocol.  The good news is that there are new cognitive behavioral therapy models that can be successful in treating hoarding.

Since hoarding disorder is a disability under the Fair Housing Act, these individuals have the right to request a reasonable accommodation (RA) from a housing provider. This might include providing an agreed upon length of time to bring in a professional cleaner / organizer to help clear pathways, reduce pile heights, clear materials in front of heating vents, etc. More will probably be needed than a single deep clean. There may be several steps to the RA request, prioritizing the most immediate safety needs and then allowing a more gradual timeline for reducing other clutter, in conjunction with a professional organizer or mental health provider.

As with any RA request, housing providers need to evaluate the request and the verification of disability and respond in a timely manner. Housing providers are always well advised to review the legal reasons for denial, consult with a fair housing attorney, document the rationale for their decision, and feel comfortable defending it if a complaint / case follows when making a decision on a RA request.  As always, regardless of the request that’s made or what the disability is, if a denial is made, HUD says a conversation should ensue about what would work for the individual with the disability. 

Want to learn more?  Suggested reading list:

• Hoarding basics: www.psychiatry.org/hoarding-disorder -- American Psychiatric Association: “Hoarding Disorder”
• "The Hoarding Handbook: A Guide for Human Services Professionals" – Bratiotis, Christina, et. al., New York: Oxford University Press, 2011
• “Task Forces Offer Hoarders a Way to Dig Out” – The New York Times, Jan Hoffman, 5/26/13
• “Obsessive compulsive and related disorders” – American Psychiatric Publishing

This article brought to you by the Fair Housing Council; a civil rights organization.  All rights reserved © 2015. 

[1] Federally protected classes under the Fair Housing Act include:  race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (children), and disability.  Oregon law also protects marital status, source of income, sexual orientation, and domestic violence survivors.  Additional protected classes have been added in particular geographic areas; visit FHCO.org/mission.htm and read the section entitled “View Local Protected Classes” for more information.

Answer: ORS 90.532 (3) provides as follows: Except as allowed by subsection (2) of this section for rental agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2010, a landlord and tenant may not amend a rental agreement to convert water or sewer utility and service billing from a method described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(i) [i.e. where the charge is included in the base rent] *** to a method described in subsection (1)(b)(C)(ii) [i.e. where the charge is billed separately from base rent and apportioned among the tenants on a pro rata basis as measured by a master meter]. The exception covered in subsection ORS 90.532(2) provides as follows: A landlord may not use a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method: (a) For water service, if the rental agreement for the dwelling unit was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless the landlord was using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all tenants in the facility immediately before January 1, 2010. (b) For sewer service, if it is measured by consumption of water and the rental agreement was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless the landlord was using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all tenants in the facility immediately before January 1, 2010. Translating this to plain English, here is my take: - For rental agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2010 you may not convert water or sewer charges from an in-rent method to a pro rata billing method except as follows: _ Water service: If the rental agreement was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, unless you were using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all 180 spaces immediately before January 1, 2010. _ Sewer Service: If sewer service is measured by consumption of water and the rental agreement was entered into on or after January 1, 2010, you may not convert from an in-rent method to a pro rata method, unless you were already using a separately charged pro rata apportionment billing method for all 180 spaces immediately before January 1, 2010. - Garbage service: You may not convert from an in-rent method to a pro rata billing method unless the pro rata apportionment is based upon the number and size of the garbage receptacles used by the tenant. There does not appear to be any time frame limitation on this rule Pursuant to ORS 90.534 [Allocated charges for utility or service provided directly to space or common area], if a written rental agreement so provides, you may use a pro rata billing method with a master meter and require tenants to pay you a utility or service charges (e.g. electrical and natural gas) that has been billed to you or provided directly to the tenant's space or to a common area. However, you may not unilaterally amend an existing rental agreement to convert utility and service billing from an in-rent billing method to a pro rata billing method. It appears you could use the pro rata billing method (other than sewer and water) per above rules, only on a going forward basis with new residents. Conclusion. This is the best I can tell you. It is not legal advice, and based only upon my interpretation of the statutes which are quite complex. It appears that yours is a difficult situation in which water/sewer submetering will not actually help. With the exception of garbage service, there is no easy answer. However, upon closer evaluation by your attorney, perhaps you may be able to figure out a work-around solution. Good luck!

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.

Answer: ORS 90.485 specifically allows landlords to have a vehicle towed if it: (a) Blocks or prevents access by emergency vehicles; (b) Blocks or prevents entry to the premises; (c) Violates a prominently posted parking prohibition; (d) Blocks or is unlawfully parked in a space reserved for persons with disabilities; (e) Is parked in an area not intended for motor vehicles including, but not limited to, sidewalks, lawns and landscaping; (f) Is parked in a space reserved for tenants but is not assigned to a tenant and does not display a parking tag or other device; or, (g) Is parked in a specific space assigned to a tenant (but only with the tenant's agreement at the time of the tow).

First and foremost, you should ensure that you have the proper signage in your park specifying whether and/or when parking is allowed in certain areas (i.e., "No Overnight Street Parking"). Also contact a local towing company to have them post towing company signs around the park.

When you have an illegally parked vehicle towed, the towing company is responsible for taking a photo of the vehicle and reporting to the police that it has been towed. After the car is removed, the towing company takes responsibility for the vehicle and returning it to the owner (after paying the tow fees, of course).

I would also suggest a rule allowing the park to assess parking violation charges of $50 per violation. As required by ORS 90.302 (3), the rule should specify that the first violation would result in a written warning, with subsequent violations within one year being assessed the $50 charge. ORS 90.302 (3) specifies the language that must be included in the written warning, which you should consult with an attorney to draft.

There are certain technical nuances to these statutes, so as usual consult with an experienced attorney before implementing a parking enforcement plan. But the bottom line is that you do have tools at your disposal to cut down on parking problems.