Search

By:  Rebekah Near, CEO, Orca Information, Inc.

Last article I wrote was titled, A COMMON MISTAKE WHEN DENYING APPLICANT COULD COST YOU THOUSANDS.  The focus of the topic was on giving your applicant who does not qualify for the unit the ADVERSE ACTION LETTER which is sometimes referred to as a CONSUMER RIGHTS LETTER AKA FCRA Summary of Rights.  One knowledgeable, sharp and concerned Manufactured Park Manager sent me some good questions. Evidently there is some confusion as to what information is required in an Adverse Action letter.  Here is one of the questions I received and my reply.  

Question: I’ve been giving the FCRA Summary of Rights as part of the Adverse Action letter to applicants for years until my supervisor told me not to.  I recently forwarded your advice directly to my employer and supervisor, who says, “There is no current requirement to give an applicant the FCRA Summary of Rights along with the reasons for adverse action”. 

Answer:  First, I am not an attorney.  It is wise to consult an attorney on these matters.  That is just what I did.  Not only did I read advice from an attorney but I also researched deeply the FCRA wording for clarity.  Let’s read what this attorney from the FTC Division of Privacy and Identity Protection advises.  She is addressing landlords.  She writes the following:

What if the information in a consumer report (tenant screening report) leads you to deny housing to an applicant?  Under the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), you must inform applicants in what’s called an adverse action notice. That’s true even if the report was only a minor factor in your decision. An adverse action notice tells people about their rights to see information being reported about them and to dispute inaccurate information. It’s a best practice to provide that adverse action notice in writing because it benefits both you and the applicant. Written notices give you proof of compliance with the law. They also better enable applicants to assert their rights to request a copy of the report from the consumer reporting agency (tenant screening company) and to dispute any mistakes.

The attorney now quotes the FCRA:

Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C § 1681

A summary of rights is required to be included with agency (tenant screening company) disclosures (adverse action notices).

A consumer reporting agency (tenant screening company) shall provide to a consumer (landlords applicant), with each written disclosure by the agency (tenant screening company) to the consumer (landlords applicant) under this section –

(A) the summary of rights prepared by the Bureau (credit bureau) under paragraph (1);

(B) in the case of a consumer reporting agency (tenant screening company) described in section 603(p), a toll-free telephone number established by the agency (tenant screening company) at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours;

(C) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this title, and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency;

(D) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general (or the equivalent thereof) to learn of those rights; and

(E) a statement that a consumer reporting agency (tenant screening company) is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or cannot be verified.

End of the FTC attorneys advice.

______

It appears the Park Manager who submitted this question is correct when she sent denied applicants the Adverse Action letter and included The Summary of Their Rights.  If this Park Manager were my employee, I would be proud I had the foresight to hire someone who deeply cares about the company for which they work, stays educated and remains aware of the ever-changing, laws.  What do you my readers think?  I would love to hear from you.

To read more about the FCRA law pertaining to Adverse Action letters including Summary of Rights, go to:  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Rules & Policy.  Also, the FTC, Summary of Your Rights. 

Rebekah Near is the owner operator of Orca Information, Inc an Employment and Tenant screening company serving the Pacific Northwest and the Nation.  The web address is www.orcainfo-com.com  She is not an attorney and does not give legal advice.  You may send your questions to her at rebekahn@orcainfo-com.com.    

Under a limited exception, senior housing communities may lawfully exclude families with children, but that exception applies only if your community satisfies specific technical requirements. Unless you meet these requirements, your community could be liable for restricting or otherwise excluding families with children from living there.

In this lesson, we’ll review the law governing familial status and offer 10 rules—the essential Dos & Don’ts—for complying with fair housing law when dealing with families with children. Finally, you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on familial status. In general, that means you can’t discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. Specifically, the FHA’s ban on discrimination based on familial status applies when one or more children under the age of 18 are living with:

• A parent;
• An individual with legal custody; or
• An individual who has the written permission of the parent or custodian.

It also applies to pregnant woman and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of one or more children under 18.

In a nutshell, the familial status provisions apply whenever there’s one or more children under 18 living in the household. The children may be living with one or both birth parents—whether they’re married, divorced, single, gay, or straight. The adult could also be an adoptive parent, foster parent, or legal guardian. Individuals with legal custody include family members or others approved by the courts. More broadly, the law applies to people with written permission of the parent or legal guardian.

Senior housing exemption. Under a limited exception, senior housing communities may lawfully exclude children, but only when they satisfy strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” The exemption applies to housing communities or facilities that are governed by a common set of rules, regulations, or restrictions. A portion of a single building is not considered a housing facility or community, according to HUD. And remember: The senior-housing exemption applies only to the FHA’s familial status provisions; the community still must abide by the law’s protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability.

FOLLOW 10 RULES FOR DEALING WITH FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

Rule #1

DO Make Housing Available to Families with Children

DON’T Deny Housing Because There’s a Child in the Household

Though it’s been unlawful for more than 30 years, communities continue to run afoul of fair housing provisions by denying housing to families with children.

It’s important to remember that 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 prospects 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. In fact, simply expressing a preference against families with children can lead to a fair housing complaint.

Example: In February 2020, the owners of a California community and its leasing agency agreed to pay $10,000 to resolve allegations that its leasing agent denied a father of two children the opportunity to rent a condominium. In his HUD complaint, the father alleged that he was denied the opportunity to rent the condo because his two young daughters would be living with him part time. According to the father, the leasing agent refused to consider his application for the unit, saying, “I don’t want to waste your time or mine. Sorry.” The housing providers denied that they discriminated against the family.

“Families today face enough challenges without being denied a place to call home because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue working to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation under the Fair Housing Act to treat home seekers with children equally.”

Example: In March 2019, a California rental property owner and his management company agreed to pay $15,000 to resolve a HUD complaint alleging that they refused to rent a unit to a couple because they have three children. The case came to HUD’s attention when Project Sentinel, a HUD Fair Housing Initiatives Program agency, filed a complaint alleging that the family was denied the opportunity to rent a two-bedroom unit because they have children. The housing providers denied that they discriminated against the couple.

“Families shouldn’t have their access to housing denied simply because they have children,” Farías said in a statement. “This type of discrimination has been against the law for more than 30 years, and HUD will continue working to make the public and housing providers aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #2

DO Follow the Rules to Qualify for the Senior Housing Exemption

DON’T Adopt or Enforce Adults-Only Policy

Although fair housing law generally prohibits discrimination based on familial status, there’s a limited exception that applies to senior housing communities that meet strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” Senior communities that comply with these 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’re likely to trigger a fair housing complaint if you adopt or enforce an “adults-only” policy that prevents families with children from living there.

Example: In January 2019, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced a $10,000 settlement to resolve a fair housing complaint against the owner of a six-unit rental community and the real estate brokerage firm that managed it. Fair housing advocates filed the complaint, alleging that the property was advertised online as an “adult complex” and included a restriction of “maximum 2 adults.” During a follow-up call, the property manager allegedly told a tester that children were not allowed. DFEH found that the complex wasn’t a senior citizen housing development and that there was cause to believe a violation of state fair housing law had occurred. The case was settled prior to formal mediation.

“In California, senior housing developments can, with some exceptions, exclude residents under 55 years of age if they have at least 35 units and meet other requirements,” DFEH Director Kevin Kish said in a statement. “All other rental properties violate the law if they categorically exclude families with minor children.”

Rule #3

DO Apply Same Terms and Conditions Regardless of Familial Status

DON’T Treat Prospects Differently Because They Have Children

Treat prospects consistently, regardless of whether there are children in the household. It’s unlawful to impose different terms and conditions of a tenancy on households based on familial status, so you can’t make the leasing process more cumbersome, or quote higher rental terms, for families with children.

Example: In May 2019, a court refused to dismiss a fair housing case against a Virginia couple who engaged the services of a real estate agency to assist them in leasing their five-bedroom, five-and-a-half bath, 8,500 sq. ft. home. Shortly after it was listed for rent at $3,750 per month, a prospect contacted the realty agent about leasing the home for his multigenerational family. When the agent asked how many people would be living there, the prospect said his family consisted of him and his wife, their five minor children, and his two parents.

A few days later, the agent allegedly told the prospect that the owners “were not interested in renting to a large family.” Later, the owner allegedly told the agent that he was willing to rent to the prospects “if they paid more.” According to the prospect, the agent told him that he could rent the home if he was willing to pay “a few hundred dollars” more since there would be two families living there. The prospect said he told the agent that there would not be two families living there. The home was later rented to a family consisting of a husband, wife, and two children for the advertised rent.

The prospect sued the owners and the agency for discrimination based on familial status under state law. The prospect claimed that the agent’s “tone and communications” made him believe that the landlords feared additional wear and tear on the home because his family included five children and that the couple wasn’t willing to rent them the home, despite the prospect’s willingness to pay the advertised rent, because they were “a large family.” According to the prospect, the owner’s use of terms “additional family” and “two families” were code words to mask their preference to refuse to rent to his family because it included five children under age 18.

The court refused to dismiss the case. The owner alleged that his request for additional rent was related to the presence of the additional adults, not the minor children, in the household, but court ruled that further proceedings were needed to resolve the case [Commonwealth ex rel. Real Estate Board v. Tutt Taylor & Rankin Real Estate LLC., Virginia, May 2019].

Rule #4

DO Be Prepared to Justify Reasonableness of Occupancy Standards

DON’T Apply Unreasonably Restrictive Occupancy Standards

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from maintaining reasonable occupancy policies as long as you apply them consistently. But it’s illegal to set overly restrictive occupancy standards that have the effect of excluding families with children. If a community’s occupancy policy keeps the number of occupants unreasonably low, it’s likely to discourage families with children from living there unless they’re willing to pay for a larger unit.

To ensure your community’s occupancy standards pass muster, the first step is to check applicable state and local laws, which may limit occupancy based on the number of people, square footage, and other factors. In general, federal fair housing law defers to reasonable state and local restrictions on occupancy, so you have to be familiar with those laws before you set or enforce your occupancy standards.

Subject to state and local law, two persons per bedroom is a reasonable occupancy policy under federal fair housing law, according to HUD guidelines issued in 1991 known as the “Keating memo.” Nevertheless, HUD says that’s only a rule of thumb, which may not be reasonable in certain cases because of the size of the bedrooms and of the overall unit, the age of the children, the unit configuration, other physical limitations of the housing, state and local law, and other relevant factors. Among other things, HUD will look at evidence, such as discriminatory statements or rules, which may suggest that the occupancy policy was adopted as a way to restrict children from living there.

Example: In February 2020, HUD approved a settlement between fair housing advocates and a group of California property owners and managers resolving allegations of discrimination based on familial status. Fair housing advocates filed the HUD complaint, alleging that fair housing testing showed that the owners and two property managers refused to rent to families with children or offered them different lease terms and conditions. The advocates also claimed that the owners and managers implemented an unreasonably restrictive two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy at two rental properties. The housing providers denied the allegations.

“Families looking for safe, decent housing shouldn’t be penalized because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Today’s agreement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to ensuring that housing providers meet their obligation to treat all applicants the same.”

To avoid fair housing trouble, you’re better off focusing on the number of people who may occupy units, not the number of children you’d prefer to live there. HUD guidelines state that an occupancy policy that limits the number of children in a unit is less likely to be reasonable than one that limits the number of people per unit.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of a large rental home in Idaho agreed to pay $15,000 to settle allegations that they refused to rent the home to a married couple because they had more than four children. Specifically, the HUD charge alleged that the homeowners discriminated against a family attempting to lease their 2,600 square foot, four-bedroom rental home because they had seven minor children. When the couple met with the property manager about renting the home, he allegedly said that the owners had set a limit of four children for the home. The charge also alleged a policy restricting the number of children was written in the rental contract.

“Persons attempting to provide a home for their family should not have their housing options limited because they have children,” Farías said in a statement. “Today’s action will hopefully serve as a reminder to all housing providers of the importance of meeting their obligations to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #5

DO Be Careful About Applying Occupancy Standards When a Child Joins a Household

DON’T Penalize Residents for Having a Baby

Fair housing rules banning discrimination based on familial status apply not only to families with children under 18, but also to pregnant women and others who have or are in the process of adopting or obtaining custody of a child.

Consequently, it’s unlawful to discriminate against a resident who has a baby, adopts a child, or takes custody of grandchildren. As long as the unit is large enough for the family under applicable state and local occupancy limits, you could face fair housing liability if you evict them, refuse to renew their lease, or insist that they move to a larger unit.

Example: In September 2019, the Justice Department sued the manager and owners of a Missouri apartment complex for discrimination on the basis of familial status. The case began with a HUD complaint filed by a couple, who alleged that the owners and manager terminated their tenancy because of the birth of their second child. At the time, the couple said they and one minor child had been renting their one-bedroom unit at the community for more than a year. The complaint also alleged that the community’s application form, lease agreement, and correspondence with the couple stated an explicit “No children” policy.

Example: In August 2018, HUD charged the owners of a South Dakota community and their property management company with housing discrimination for refusing to let a couple and their newborn baby stay in their one-bedroom apartment because of the community’s occupancy policies. According to the charge, shortly after the new baby arrived, the mother allegedly asked agents of the property management company how long two adults could live in a one-bedroom unit with an infant and was told that they would have to move to a two-bedroom unit. The community claimed that the two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy was required by the city’s occupancy code. But HUD alleged that the city code was more flexible than that by allowing consideration of additional areas beyond bedrooms that may be considered for sleeping and occupancy purposes.

“Occupancy policies that exclude families with children or make it harder for them to obtain housing are unlawful and have no place in today’s often tight housing markets,” said Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Rule #6

DO Tell Prospects About All Units that Fit Their Needs

DON’T Engage in Unlawful Steering Based on Familial Status

Limiting a prospect’s housing choices because they have children under 18 in the household is a fair housing violation, commonly known as “steering.” In general, steering means guiding, directing, or encouraging prospects to live—or not live—at the community or in certain areas within a community based on familial status or other characteristics protected under fair housing law. Among other things, you may not restrict where families may live by making certain units, floors, or buildings off-limits to families with children.

When discussing vacancies with prospects, tell them about all available units that meet their stated requirements. Even if you believe it might be better for the children, you could trigger a discrimination complaint if you don’t tell families with children about available units on upper floors or near water features, such as a pond or pool.

Example: In December 2017, the owners and operators of a New Hampshire community agreed to pay $25,000 to settle fair housing case for discrimination based on familial status. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that a mother of an infant child visited the community to inquire about two-bedroom apartments but was told that the community had a policy of placing families with children under the age of 10 in first-floor units only, and that no first-floor units were available.

Rule #7

DO Adopt Child-Neutral Community Rules

DON’T Allow Rules to Unfairly Target Children

Rules governing residents’ behavior in common areas, such as hallways, parking lots, and outside spaces serve a legitimate purpose: to protect property and ensure safety. But you could trigger a discrimination claim if your rules unreasonably target children or limit their behavior.

As much as possible, avoid adopting rules that specifically target children’s behavior. Rules banning children from playing outside, unduly restricting their access to amenities, or requiring adult supervision of all children under 18 could lead to accusations that you’re treating families with children less favorably than adult households living at the community.

Example: In April 2018, the owner of a 44-unit California community agreed to a $25,000 settlement to resolve claims that the owner’s “house rules” discriminated against families with children. In a complaint filed with state officials, a family alleged that the owner had a number of rules discriminating against children who lived in the complex. According to the family, children were forbidden from using the swimming pool after 6 p.m., even though adults were free to use the pool until 9 p.m. The family also alleged that the rules prohibited children from riding bicycles, using skateboards, or playing with Hot Wheels, wagons, or balls in common areas—rules that were not applied to adults. Allegedly, the family eventually moved out of their unit due to the restrictions on where their child could play.

“DFEH is committed to ensuring that families with children are not discriminated against in housing,” Kevin Kish, Director of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said in a statement. “Discriminatory restrictions on children’s use of common areas are not only against the law, but make it difficult for families with children to find and stay in suitable housing.”

Coach’s Tip: Even if your community’s rules apply to all residents—not just children—you could still face a discrimination claim if you enforce the rule only against children. For example, singling out children for breaking the rules against noisy behavior in common areas—but ignoring similar transgressions by adults—could lead to a fair housing claim based on familial status.

Rule #8

DO Focus Advertising on Property, Not People

DON’T Suggest that Children Aren’t Welcome at Your Community

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to “make, print, or publish…any notice, statement, or advertisement,” that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on familial status and other protected characteristics. This rule applies to not only discriminatory advertising, but also all kinds of statements, including:

• What you say to prospects, applicants, or residents in person or over the phone;
• What you write in notes, text messages, emails, and perhaps even social media, as well as community rules and policies;
• What you put in your advertising and marketing materials—including words and graphics—in print, online, and other media.

Unlike other prohibited practices, liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. The test is whether an “ordinary reader or listener” would interpret the statement as indicating a preference for—or against—families with children. According to HUD guidelines, advertisements may not contain limitations on the number or ages of children, or state a preference for adults, couples, or singles.

Example: In April 2019, the owner of a Maine rental property and its rental agent agreed to pay $18,000 to settle allegations that they denied housing to families with children. A fair housing advocacy group filed the HUD complaint, alleging that the community refused to negotiate with fair housing testers posing as families with children, posted discriminatory advertisements indicating that children weren’t allowed, and made discriminatory statements to fair housing testers.

“It’s hard enough for families to find places to live that meet their needs without being denied suitable housing because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD is committed to working to ensure that housing providers comply with their Fair Housing Act obligation to treat all applicants the same, including families with children.”

Coach’s Tip: To avoid accusations of discriminatory advertising, focus on descriptions of the property available for rent, not the kind of people who may want to live there.

Rule #9

DO Abide by Legal Obligations Involving Lead-Based Paint

DON’T Deny Housing to Families with Children Due to the Presence of Lead Paint

Although lead-based paint was banned for residential use in 1978, HUD estimates that about 24 million older homes still have significant lead-based paint hazards. Lead-contaminated dust is the primary cause of lead exposure and can lead to a variety of health problems in young children; at higher levels, lead can damage a child’s kidneys and central nervous system and can even be deadly, according to HUD.

While an affected community may be tempted to avoid renting to those most at risk—young children—that practice is banned under fair housing law. Regardless of the presence of lead-based paint, you may neither exclude nor discourage families with young children from living there.

Example: In January 2019, a federal appeals court upheld a $43,500 jury verdict against a Massachusetts community. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that the owner of a four-unit rental property violated federal fair housing law when he refused to rent a unit to a family because they had children under 6 years old and the units had no lead certificate. According to the Justice Department, the jury found that the owner made an apartment unavailable to the family based in substantial part on their familial status and that the owner retaliated against them after they filed their HUD complaint.

Rule #10

DO Review Student Housing Policies Affecting Students with Children

DON’T Risk Fair Housing Trouble in Student Housing Based on Familial Status

Fair housing experts warn that student housing providers are risking fair housing trouble when it comes to housing decisions affecting students with minor children. If you rent to anyone, including students, it’s a violation of fair housing law to refuse to rent to a student with a young child on the same terms and conditions as you would to other applicants.

Example: In March 2020, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced a settlement agreement with the largest third-party property management company in the nation for campus living. NFHA reports that the agreement will open up access to 140,000 beds across 40 states and 77 cities to families with children.

The settlement resolves NFHA’s lawsuit alleging that the company violated fair housing law by discriminating against families with children. The complaint alleged that the company, although marketing itself as student housing, knowingly rented to non-students while enforcing policies that discouraged families with children, even when the parents were students.

NFHA also alleged that the company, which owns or manages hundreds of apartment buildings throughout the country, had a policy that no more than one person could reside in each bedroom. According to the complaint, the policy wouldn’t permit a mother and her 2-year-old child to live in a large one-bedroom apartment under one lease, so the student and her daughter had to sign two leases and pay double the rent.

Example: In September 2019, the Justice Department sued the owners and managers of residential rental housing in Hawaii, alleging that they violated fair housing law by refusing to rent to families with children. The lawsuit claimed that the three properties were operated as student housing for post-secondary students.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the communities discriminated against families with children by: (1) refusing to rent or to negotiate for the rental of the three properties on the basis of familial status; (2) steering prospective renters with children who inquired about housing away from the properties to a separate property management company; and (3) making discouraging and other discriminatory statements to potential renters with children who inquired about housing, including that the housing wasn’t “suitable” or the right “fit” for families with children. The complaint contains allegations of unlawful conduct; the allegations must be proven in federal court.

“Owners and managers of rental housing must ensure their housing is open to families with children,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Fair Housing Act requires it, and the Justice Department will continue both to enforce the Act vigorously and to seek relief for families victimized by unlawful discrimination.”

• ·       Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.

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.

Answer:  This is a very broad question, which is why the answer will have to be general. What follows are some of the major issues that occur. In all cases, the best protection for Management is to make sure these issues are addressed either in the Rental Agreement or the Rules – and then make sure they are enforced in a timely manner.

What Does the Rental  Agreement Say?  The MHCO Rental Agreement provides that a tenant may not “erect additional structures (attached or detached), including but not limited to fencing, steps, or decks, to the exterior of the Home or anywhere upon the Space (hereinafter “Construction”) without LANDLORD’S prior written approval.”

This imposes a duty on management to be vigilant. If an unpermitted fence goes up and is allowed to remain without oversight, it could result in waiver issues for the landlord.

Management must be proactive and require that any recently unpermitted fences be vetted in accordance with Section 7 of the MHCO Rental Agreement (Improvement to Rental Space or Home).  They should either be made to conform to all applicable laws and codes or removed.

Preexisting Fences/Structures. Again, vigilance is the watchword. Before permitting an owner to sell their home, landlord should make sure that there are no structures out of conformance with all codes and laws. This can be reasonably easy to do, especially if it is covered in the Park Rules dealing with obtaining landlords consent to sell. Using ORS 90.632 (Termination/Deterioration of Home) unfortunately, does not directly apply because it pertains only to homes.

However, landlords can craft a rule change that would accomplish the same result for all fences or other structures on the space which were either installed by the tenant or existed at the time of purchase of the home. Like ORS 90.632, the notice could be made transferable and imposed upon the new tenant/buyer if he/she agrees. This would then be  something the existing homeowner could negotiate with the new buyer as a part of the sale. In this manner noncompliant fences, etc. can be corrected.

What About Pre-existing Fences at Time of Park Purchase?  In my opinion, this is a due diligence item for Park purchasers to attend to. Unfortunately, I have seen many instances of where it is not done; thus the problem gets ignored until something occurs, such as an argument between tenants as to who has the duty to maintain.  Is the fence even located where it should be? Upon park purchase, landlords should consider vetting the issue between the tenants who border the fence.  Who maintains? What do the Rules say?

Going forward, this is a significant issue for landlords to consider when amending their rules. In a perfect world, the new rule should address maintenance responsibility. The easiest solution is a shared liability between bordering tenants – assuming that the fence was there when all tenants purchased their homes. If one tenant unilaterally installed a fence (benefiting both adjoining tenants) the issue becomes whether the tenant who did not construct or ask for the fence should have to pay. (Note to Landlord: This is what happens when the new fence construction is ignored and allowed to remain without resolving the issue at or before construction.)

This might be something that mandatory mediation under ORS 90.767 could address.

Park Installed Fences. Clearly, these are the landlord’s duty to maintain, even if they were installed before Park purchase. One issue, however, is that Park purchasers should make sure the preexisting fences are on or near the correct boundary lines. Tip: The older the fence, the greater the likelihood it needs to be surveyed as a condition of purchase.

Tree Damage to Fences. Tenants are, by statute, required to maintain and water trees, includingcleanup and removal of fallen branches and leaves, on the rented space - except for hazard trees. “Maintaining a  tree” means removing or  trimming a  tree  for  the  purpose  of eliminatingfeatures of the  tree  that  cause the  tree  to  be hazardous, or  that  may  cause  the  tree tobecome hazardous in  the  near  future. “Removing a tree”  includes felling it, removing it, and  grinding or removing the stump of the tree.

But for damage to fences, ultimately the issue goes back to whose fence it is and who has maintenance and repair duties. This may not be addressed in the rental agreement or rules. But it could be by a rule change.

The Take-Away. As a rule of thumb, the landlord is in the best position to deal with these issues proactively. This can be done by a good rental agreement such as the MHCO form, plus implementing rules to address fences. Oregon law permits amending the rules even if they alter the bargain at the inception of the tenant’s tenancy. (Check with your lawyer first!)

But the bottom line is that in the event a fence has been allowed to remain between tenants’ spaces with no landlord involvement, the damaged fence should be repaired. If the tenants cannot or will not agree, it will likely become management’s responsibility, because it could have been addressed originally, but was  not.

Answer: As to your question regarding the assessment of a late fee, here is what ORS 90.260(1) provides:

(1)A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

(a)The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the weekly or monthly rental period for which rent is payable; and

(b)There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:

(A)The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge on delinquent rent payments;

(B)The type and amount of the late charge, as described in subsection (2) of this section; and

(C)The date on which rent payments are due and the date or day on which late charges become due. (Underscored text in italics are mine.)

I know of no other statute that directly addresses this issue. So assuming that:

• Your Rental Agreement makes it clear that the rent check must be received on or before the fourth of the month;
• The type and amount of late charge; and
• The date (a) rent payments are due (e.g. the first of the month), and (b) when the late charge would be due (e.g. the fifth of the month, or later),

I would conclude that you may assess a late charge where residents mail in their rent checks, but they are not received until the fifth of the month or later.

However, a word of caution: If you are going to institute this policy, it must be done uniformly and consistently for all residents. I suspect that some folks may believe that by mailing their checks on the fourth (based upon the postmark), their rent payment is timely, i.e. no late charge will be assessed. You want to make sure your residents understand that since they have the option of manually delivering their rent to the manager's office (or presumably dropping it into a box when the office is closed), that selecting the use of the mails requires that the rent is received - not simply deposited in a mailbox - could result in the assessment of a late charge if the check is received on the fifth or later.

Note, that ORS 90.394(4) provides:

(4) Payment by a tenant who has received a (72-hour or 144 hour) notice *** is timely if mailed to the landlord within the period of the notice unless:

(a)The notice is served on the tenant:

(A)By personal delivery as provided in ORS 90.155(Service or delivery of written notice) (1)(a); or

(B)By first class mail and attachment as provided in ORS90.155 (Service or delivery of written notice) (1)(c);

(b)A written rental agreement and the notice expressly state that payment is to be made at a specified location that is either on the premises or at a place where the tenant has made all previous rent payments in person; and

(c)The place so specified is available to the tenant for payment throughout the period of the notice. (Underscored text in italics are mine.)

Although this statute does not expressly say that proof of mailing is determined by the postmark (and I have not researched this based upon Oregon case law), for purposes of the payment of property taxes in Oregon, as well as state and federal income taxes, the postmark date is what is relied upon in determining whether the payment was timely. In other words, by analogy (without the benefit of legal research), I would conclude that timely mailing, based upon the postmark, does work for payment of rent following the issuance of a 72-hour or 144-hour notice of nonpayment under ORS 90.394. To be absolutely certain, however, you should obtain a legal opinion, based upon legal research, from your own attorney.

As to the second part of your question, i.e. what costs and fees you may assess to a resident, who tenders rent after the expiration of a 72-hour or 144-hour notice, if the eviction is actually file, the answer is contained in ORS 90.255:

In any action on a rental agreement or arising under this chapter, reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal may be awarded to the prevailing party together with costs and necessary disbursements, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. As used in this section, prevailing party means the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered. (Underscored text in italics are mine.)

ORCP 68(A)(1) Provides:

Attorney fees. "Attorney fees" are the reasonable value of legal services related to the prosecution or defense of an action.

ORCP 68(A)(2) Provides:

Costs and disbursements. "Costs and disbursements" are reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the prosecution or defense of an action, other than for legal services, and include the fees of officers and witnesses; the expense of publication of summonses or notices, and the postage where the same are served by mail; any fee charged by the Department of Transportation for providing address information concerning a party served with summons pursuant to subparagraph D(4)(a)(i) of Rule 7; the compensation of referees; the expense of copying of any public record, book, or document admitted into evidence at trial; recordation of any document where recordation is required to give notice of the creation, modification, or termination of an interest in real property; a reasonable sum paid a person for executing any bond, recognizance, undertaking, stipulation, or other obligation therein; and any other expense specifically allowed by agreement, by these rules, or by any other rule or statute. The court, acting in its sole discretion, may allow as costs reasonable expenses incurred by a party for interpreter services. The expense of taking depositions shall not be allowed, even though the depositions are used at trial, except as otherwise provided by rule or statute. (Underscored text in italics are mine.)

Based upon the above, it is my opinion that the cost of the private company you employ to prepare the eviction complaint, would not normally be recoverable, even if you filed the complaint. Without addressing whether this is the "unlawful practice of law", I will note that if you paid your attorney to perform this service, it would be recoverable as attorney fees, if the complaint was filed. The only exception might be if you had a specific provision in your Rental Agreement that expressly permitted it as a recoverable court cost. I say "might", since the court has a certain amount of discretion in the matter of the amount of costs, fees, and disbursements it will award, and may or may not permit it.

If you file the eviction, but reach a settlement with the resident for payment of your court costs, attorney fees, and disbursements, you may have to enter into a Stipulated Judgment of Restitution, permitting the resident to pay these additional costs over a period of time.

If no eviction is filed, i.e. the resident tenders rent after the running of the 72-hour or 144-hour written notice of nonpayment, but before the filing of a complaint in court, you cannot condition your acceptance upon the simultaneous payment of late charges. And since you have not filed in court, the best you can expect is to recover late charges through the use of a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1). Additionally, remember that if the resident is a serial later payor, you may issue a 20-day non-curable notice of termination, under the 3-strikes provisions of ORS 90.630(8).

The owners and manager of three apartment buildings in Washington have agreed to pay $95,000 in damages and civil penalties to resolve a lawsuit charging them with refusing to rent to families with children, according to a recent announcement by the Justice Department.

In its complaint, the 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." The complaint also alleged that the defendants advertised their apartments as being in "adult buildings." The family filed a complaint with HUD

Answer: ORS 90.417 (Duty to Pay Rent) provides as follows:

• Effect of acceptance of partial rent:

1. A tenant's duty regarding rent payments is to tender to the landlord an offer of the full amount of rent owed within the time allowed by law and by the rental agreement;

1. A landlord may refuse to accept a rent tender that is for less than the full amount of rent owed or that is untimely.

1. A landlord may accept a partial payment of rent. The acceptance of a partial payment of rent does not constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy for failure to pay all rent due so long as the landlord and tenant by written agreement provide that monthly rent shall be paid in regular installments of less than a month pursuant to a schedule specified in the agreement. Installment rent payments paid in this manner are not considered partial payment of rent.

1. However, if there is no such written agreement, the acceptance of a partial payment of rent waives the right of the landlord to terminate the tenant's rental agreement for nonpayment of the balance rent unless:
   1. The landlord accepted the partial payment of rent before the landlord gave a nonpayment of rent termination notice based on the tenant's agreement to pay the balance by a time certain and the tenant does not pay the balance of the rent as agreed;

(b) The landlord's notice of termination is served no earlier than it would have been permitted under had no rent been accepted; and

(c) The 72-hour or 144-hour notice permits the tenant to avoid termination of the tenancy by paying the balance within 72 hours or 144 hours, as the case may be, or by any date to which the parties agreed, whichever is later; OR

(d)The landlord accepted a partial payment of rent after giving a 72-hour or 144-hour notice and entered into a written agreement with the tenant that the acceptance does not constitute waiver. This written agreement may provide that the landlord may terminate the rental agreement and take possession under the eviction statutes without serving a new notice of termination if the tenant fails to pay the balance of the rent by a time certain.

• Note: Notwithstanding any acceptance of a partial payment under the written agreement arrangement above, the tenant continues to owe the landlord the unpaid balance of the rent.

Applying the above rules to your question, my response is as follows:

• Although you had no legal duty to accept the partial rent, you did accept it;
• Since you apparently had no written agreement with the tenant at the time of the partial payment, you would have had to issue a 72-hour or 144-hour notice for the balance of April's rent;
• You did not issue that notice;
• May's rent is now due, together with the unpaid balance of April's rent;
• As noted above, ORS 90.417 provides that a tenant has a duty to tender to the landlord an the full amount of rent owed and acceptance of partial rent does not mean the tenant does not owe the landlord for the unpaid balance that remains;
• In this case the full amount would be the remainder of April's unpaid rent, plus May's rent.
• Caveat: Remember that if your rental or lease agreement provides that rent is due on the first day of the month, the earliest you can issue a 72-hour is the 8th day of the month. If you issue a 144-hour notice, the earliest you could issue it is the 5th day of the month. don't issue your May notice before the applicable time!

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

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

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

Register online to become a community member.

Download the current community membership application here.