Search

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a federal law that prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability.

In general, fair housing law targets housing practices that exclude or otherwise discriminate against anyone because of his or her race or other protected class. Owners, managers, and individual employees all may be held liable for discriminatory housing practices, including:

• Refusing to rent or making housing unavailable;
• Falsely denying that housing is available for inspection or rental;
• Using different qualification criteria or applications, such as income standards, application requirements, application fees, credit analysis, or rental approval procedures;
• Setting different terms, conditions, or privileges for the rental of housing, such as different lease provisions related to rental charges, security deposits, and other lease terms;
• Discouraging prospects from renting a unit by exaggerating drawbacks or saying that the prospect would be uncomfortable with existing residents;
• Assigning residents to a particular section of a community or floor of a building;
• Providing different housing services or facilities, such as access to community facilities; and
• Failing to provide or delaying maintenance or repairs.

In addition, the FHA prohibits retaliation by making it unlawful to threaten, coerce, intimidate, or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right. It’s also unlawful to advertise or make statements that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

FROM THE COURTS

HARASSMENT: Community Accused of Ignoring Tenant-on-Tenant Racial Harassment

In December 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that a New York community could be liable under the FHA for failure to do anything to stop an alleged campaign of racial harassment against an African-American resident by his neighbor. Last year, the Coach highlighted a previous ruling in this case, but the opinion was later withdrawn without explanation.

ALLEGATIONS: In his complaint, the resident alleged that his next-door neighbor began a relentless campaign of racial harassment, abuse, and threats directed toward him several months after he moved to the community.

After the first incident, the resident said he feared for his safety and contacted the police. In response, officers in the hate crimes unit visited the site, interviewed witnesses, and warned the neighbor to stop threatening the resident with racial epithets. According to the resident, he filed a police report, and a police officer told the management about the neighbor’s conduct. Allegedly, the management did nothing.

A few months later, the resident said he called the police and filed another police report. This time, the resident said he provided written notice to management about his neighbor’s racial harassment and provided contact information for the police officers responsible for investigating the neighbor. Allegedly, the management still took no action.

Nevertheless, the neighbor’s conduct allegedly persisted to the point that the police arrested him for aggravated harassment. The resident said he again notified management of the continued racial slurs directed to him and the fact that the neighbor had been arrested for harassment.

A month later, the resident said he contacted the police and sent the management group a third letter complaining about his neighbor’s continued harassment. After receiving the letter, according to the complaint, the management group advised the site manager “not to get involved,” and the management group declined to respond or follow up.

Allegedly, the neighbor was allowed to stay in his unit until his lease expired. A few months later, the neighbor pleaded guilty to harassment and a court entered an order of protection prohibiting him from contacting the resident.

The resident sued, accusing the owner and manager of violating fair housing law by failing to take action to address a racially hostile housing environment created by his neighbor. A district court ruled against the resident and dismissed the case.

DECISION: Reversed; case sent back for further proceedings.

REASONING: The resident was entitled to pursue his claims under the FHA against the community for intentionally discriminating against a resident by failing to do anything to stop the neighbor from subjecting him to a racially hostile housing environment.

At this stage of the proceedings, the court was required to read the complaint in the light most favorable to the resident. If everything he said were true, the resident’s complaint adequately alleged that the owners and managers engaged in intentional racial discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the owners and managers discriminated against the resident by tolerating and/or facilitating a hostile environment, even though they had authority to “counsel, discipline, or evict [the neighbor] due to his continued harassment of [the resident],” and also had “intervened against other tenants at [the site] regarding non-race-related violations of their leases or of the law.”

In other words, the court said, the resident adequately alleged that the owners and managers were actually aware of the neighbor’s criminal racial harassment of the resident—harassment so severe that it resulted in police warnings and the arrest and eventual conviction of the neighbor—“and that management intentionally refused to address the harassment because it was based on race even though they had addressed non-race-related issues in the past, including, it was reasonable to infer, tenant-on-tenant harassment” [emphasis in original]. Accepting these allegations as true, the defendants subjected the resident to conduct that the FHA forbids.

In further proceedings, the defendants may be able to show that they tried and failed to address the resident’s complaints. Or it may unfold that the management also declined to address other, similar complaints unrelated to race, or that they were powerless to address the neighbor’s conduct. But the resident was entitled to further proceedings to resolve these issues [Francis v. King Park Manor, Inc., December 2019].

TREND TAKEAWAY: Federal fair housing law bans not only sexual harassment, but also harassment based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics. As a general rule, community owners may be liable for illegal harassment by managers or employees when they knew or should have known about it but failed to do enough to stop it.

You should take all necessary steps to prevent—and address—discrimination or harassment at the community. Aside from ensuring that your policies and procedures conform to fair housing law, you can reduce the likelihood of a complaint by properly training and supervising all employees—not only managers and leasing staff, but also maintenance workers and anyone else who interacts with the public. And be particularly careful when hiring and supervising outside contractors or anyone else who could be considered your agent.

You don’t have only your employees or other staff member to worry about—you could face liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment under certain circumstances. According to HUD regulations, communities may be liable under the FHA for failure to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party, where the community knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it. The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party depends upon the extent of your control or any other legal responsibility you may have with respect to the third party’s conduct.

Example: In November 2019, HUD announced that it reached an $80,000 settlement to resolve allegations that the owners and management agent of an apartment complex in Savannah, Ga., subjected African-American residents to repeated instances of racial harassment by white residents, which included verbal attacks and physical assaults.

The case came to HUD’s attention when three African-American residents filed complaints claiming that the owners of the property refused to investigate and address their claims that white residents had subjected them to racial harassment and verbal and physical assaults, including attacks by dogs. The residents also alleged that the property’s management ignored their maintenance requests and delayed the maintenance requests of other African-American residents. The housing provider denied discriminating against the residents but agreed to settle their complaints.

Under the terms of the agreement, the owner and management company agreed to pay $20,000 to each of the three residents who filed complaints and create a $20,000 fund to compensate other residents who may have been subjected to racial harassment. The owners also agreed to provide annual fair housing training for the staff and on-site management at the community.

“No one should ever have to face threats or be subjected to physical violence in the place they call home because of their race,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “The agreement we’re announcing today is a reminder to housing providers everywhere that HUD is committed to ensuring that they meet their obligation to comply with the nation’s fair housing laws” [Conciliation/Voluntary Compliance Agreement with Oglethorpe Square Apartments, LP, of Savannah, GA, and Gene B. Glick Company, Inc., of Indianapolis, IN].

DISABILITY: Is Community Required to Grant Reasonable Accommodation Request for Exception to Minimum Income Standards?

In September 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that a Florida housing provider may be required to accept other forms of income as a reasonable accommodation to allow an applicant with a disability to qualify for housing.

ALLEGATIONS: In his complaint, the applicant alleged that shortly after graduating from high school, he was in a wrestling accident that left him completely paralyzed. His housing was inadequate to accommodate his quadriplegia because it wasn’t wheelchair accessible. After seeing an ad about Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit that builds new homes for low-income individuals, he decided to apply.

When he met with a representative, he learned that Habitat imposed a minimum gross annual income requirement of $10,170, presumably to ensure that potential homeowners would be able to pay their mortgages. According to the applicant, his disability prevented him from working, so his main source of income was a Social Security Disability Insurance stipend of $778 per month, which equates to a gross annual income of $9,336. Given the fixed amount of his SSDI, he asked Habitat to consider one of two other sources of income toward its requirement—either the $194 per month in food stamps or the $100 per month he received from his father—either of which would be enough to get him over the minimal income threshold. After reviewing his application, Habitat allegedly said it couldn’t accept either of the two additional sources of income.

After efforts to negotiate a compromise were unsuccessful, the applicant sued Habitat for violating the FHA by denying his reasonable accommodation request to accept either his food stamps or familial support as income for purposes of qualifying for the housing.

After pretrial proceedings, both parties asked the court for judgment without a trial. Siding with Habitat, the court dismissed the case, ruling that the applicant’s accommodation request wasn’t necessary under the FHA because it was related solely to his financial condition, not his disability.

The applicant appealed.

DECISION: Reversed in part; sent back for further proceedings.

REASONING: The applicant was entitled to further proceedings on his claim that Habitat violated fair housing law by denying his reasonable accommodation request to consider supplemental forms of income for purposes of qualifying for housing.

To establish liability for failure to accommodate under the FHA, the applicant had to show that:

1.       He was disabled within the meaning of the FHA;

2.       He requested a reasonable accommodation;

3.       The requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and

4.       The housing provider refused to make the requested accommodation.

The first and fourth elements of the claim were undisputed—no one disputed that the applicant was disabled, or that Habitat refused to accommodate his request to consider his supplemental sources of income. At issue were the middle two: whether the accommodation he requested was “reasonable” and whether it was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In earlier proceedings, the lower court skipped the first question and decided the case solely on the basis of the second.

To determine whether his request was reasonable, the first step was to determine whether the applicant demonstrated that his requested accommodation was of a type likely to be reasonable in the run of cases. The court ruled that he did—he wasn’t asking Habitat to lower its minimum-income requirement or accept anything less than usual in terms of payment or interest. Instead, the applicant, who was unable to work, asked Habitat to accept proof that he brought in the same amount of money as any other Habitat homeowner, but in a different form.

That shifted the burden to Habitat to show that the applicant’s request was unreasonable by imposing an undue burden on Habitat or fundamentally altering Habitat’s program. Further proceedings were needed to resolve this issue.

The second question was whether the applicant’s requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. Under fair housing law, a “necessary” accommodation is one that alleviates the effects of the disability. An accommodation addressing an inability to demonstrate wages earned could in some cases be necessary—that is, could alleviate the effects of a disability. Consequently, the lower court should have considered whether the applicant’s inability to demonstrate the minimum required income through W-2 wages was an effect of his disability.

A separate, but related issue was whether the requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling. He wasn’t entitled to an accommodation that would put him in a better position than a member of the general public. The applicant said he wasn’t asking Habitat to lower its income requirements or pay anything less than other applicants—his accommodation request involved only the form of payment, not the amount. In contrast, Habitat said that he was seeking an advantage that wasn’t available to other applicants. Further proceedings were needed to determine whether the requested accommodation would provide the applicant with an opportunity to enjoy a dwelling that would otherwise—due to his disability—elude him [Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity of Citrus County, Inc., Florida, September 2019].

TREND TAKEAWAY: Carefully consider requests by individuals with disabilities for reasonable accommodations to your financial screening requirements. In general, you don’t have to excuse individuals with disabilities from meeting minimum income standards or verifying their income, but you may have to be flexible when it comes to how they satisfy those requirements.

Example: In June 2019, a court ruled that an Arkansas community had to pay damages for denying a reasonable accommodation request by a disabled woman and her mother who couldn’t produce the documentation required under the community income-verification policies. In lieu of the necessary paperwork, the woman submitted documentation from the Social Security Administration showing the mother’s retirement benefits and her disability benefits, along with income received from a rental property, but the community wouldn’t accept the alternative documentation to verify their income. The court ruled that the community violated fair housing law by denying an accommodation that was both reasonable and necessary for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling [Edwards v. Gene Salter Properties, Arkansas, June 2019].

SETTLEMENTS

CRIMINAL SCREENING POLICIES: Landmark $1.1M Settlement Reached in Fair Housing Case Challenging Alleged Criminal Record Ban

In November 2019, the owners and operators of a 900-unit apartment complex in Queens, N.Y., agreed to pay $1,187,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging that the community violated the FHA by refusing to rent to people with criminal records.

The lawsuit was filed by the Fortune Society, a New York not-for-profit organization that provided housing and other services to formerly incarcerated individuals. In its complaint filed in 2014, Fortune alleged that when it tried to rent apartments for its clients at the community in 2013 and 2014, the community refused because of its policy of prohibiting anyone with a criminal record from living there. Fortune alleged that the policy unlawfully discriminated because it disproportionately barred African Americans and Latinos from housing without considering each potential tenant’s individual history and circumstances.

The settlement follows a July 2019 court ruling denying the community’s request for judgment without a trial. The court rejected claims that Fortune itself wasn’t harmed by the policy and so didn’t have standing to pursue the case. The court ruled that further proceedings were needed to determine whether the community had a ban on applicants with criminal histories, and if so, what were the contours of that ban. Further proceedings were also needed to resolve conflicting expert testimony as to whether any criminal record ban, as applied at the community, had a discriminatory effect on any protected class, including people of color [Fortune Society v. Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund Corporation, New York, July 2019

The owners of the community at the time the lawsuit was filed have sold the building and don’t currently own or rent real estate.

According to a statement by Fortune’s attorneys, Relman, Dane & Colfax, the settlement sends a powerful message to other landlords that they must evaluate each applicant as an individual instead of automatically rejecting those with a criminal history. This is critical because obtaining affordable housing is central to successful reintegration for the hundreds of thousands of Americans–disproportionately people of color–released from confinement every year.

TREND TAKEAWAY: Familiarize yourself with the 2016 HUD guidelines on how federal fair housing law applies to the use of criminal records in both conventional and assisted housing communities. The guidelines spell out how HUD will evaluate fair housing complaints in cases where a community refuses to rent or renew a lease based on an individual’s criminal history. 

DISABILITY: Landlord Accused of Violating Resident’s Privacy by Telling Neighbors About Her Request for an Assistance Animal

In July 2019, the owner of a multifamily rental housing community in Santa Monica, Calif., agreed to pay $14,000 to resolve allegations that she violated fair housing law by disclosing confidential disability-related information about a resident’s request for an assistance animal to her neighbors.

In its complaint, the city claimed that a resident with a disability requested a reasonable accommodation to the community’s general policy against pets and included a letter from a medical professional with her request.

The landlord allegedly sent a group email to all the other residents in the building, in which she disclosed the resident’s request, indicated that a disability was involved, and claimed that the resident had a “psychological therapist” who had sent the landlord a letter. Allegedly, the landlord concluded by asking the other residents to report “anything annoying” about the assistance animal to her. The emails went to 10 people other than the disabled resident.

About six weeks later, the landlord emailed the resident to insist on coming into her home to inspect her bedrooms and meet the “comfort” animal. According to the complaint, none of the justifications for a landlord’s entry into a tenant’s home existed. Allegedly, the resident was in shock and distress over the landlord’s tactics.

After the resident filed a fair housing complaint with local authorities, the Public Rights Division of the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office sued the landlord, alleging disability discrimination and harassment under federal, state, and local law. Specifically, the city claimed that the landlord violated the fair housing rights of a resident with a disability by violating her privacy, making a discriminatory statement, attempting to turn other residents against her, and entering her unit without justification.

Without admitting liability, the owner agreed to a settlement. Under the stipulated judgment with permanent injunction, the court ordered the landlord to pay $14,000 to the city to satisfy all penalties, fees, and costs of investigation and prosecution. The court order also required the landlord to obtain fair housing training and barred her from disclosing any information about a resident’s disability to a third party [City of Santa Monica v. Honda, California, July 2019].

TREND TAKEAWAY: When a resident makes a disability-related reasonable accommodation request, be careful about what you say about it to the neighbors. It doesn’t matter whether it’s for an assistance animal, a reserved parking spot, or something else—you could stir up fair housing trouble if you disclose disability-related information about the resident to her neighbors. According to federal guidelines, information gathered to evaluate reasonable accommodation requests must be kept confidential and must not be shared with other persons unless they need the information to make or assess a decision to grant or deny a reasonable accommodation request or unless disclosure is required by law (such as a court-issued subpoena requiring disclosure).

ENFORCEMENT NEWS

HUD Calls for Investigation into Websites Selling Assistance Animal Documentation

In November 2019, HUD Secretary Ben Carson called for an investigation into certain websites selling assistance animal documentation. In a letter to Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Joseph J. Simmons and Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection Andrew Smith, Carson asked the FTC to investigate these websites for compliance with federal laws that protect consumers from unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

The letter stated: “Housing providers, fair housing groups, and disability rights groups have brought to HUD’s attention their concern that certain websites may be misleading consumers with disabilities into purchasing assistance animal documentation that is unreliable and unnecessary. According to these groups, the websites also may be selling assistance animal documentation to people who do not have disabilities substantially limiting a major life activity, enabling such people to claim that their pets are assistance animals in order to evade housing providers’ pet restrictions and pet fees. HUD shares these concerns” [emphasis in original].

The FHA requires housing providers to grant reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities that affect major life activities when it may be necessary for such individuals to have equal opportunity to enjoy and use a dwelling. One type of reasonable accommodation is an exception to a housing provider’s rules regarding animals to permit individuals with disabilities to keep assistance animals that do work, perform tasks, or assist individuals with disabilities. Documentation, such as a note from a healthcare professional, is helpful and appropriate when a disability is not obvious and not already known.

The FHA doesn’t require assistance animals to be “registered” or “certified,” nor, in HUD’s opinion, does certification or registration provide any benefit to the consumer with a disability who needs an assistance animal. “Certifications, registrations, and other documentation purchased over the internet through these websites are not necessary, may not contain reliable information, and, in HUD’s FHA enforcement process, are insufficient to establish an individual’s disability-related need for an assistance animal,” according to the letter.

In the letter, HUD offered to provide the FTC with examples of websites that sell the type of documentation described in the letter, “including at least one website that contains the seals of HUD and other federal agencies in an effort to imply that their products are endorsed by the federal government.”

“These certificates are not an acceptable substitute for authentic documentation provided by medical professionals when appropriate,” Carson said in a statement. “These websites that sell assistance animal certificates are often also misleading by implying that they are affiliated with the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their goal is to convince individuals with disabilities that they need to spend hundreds of dollars on worthless documentation to keep their assistance animal in their homes.”

HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Anna Maria Farías, explained, “Websites that sell verification for assistance animals take advantage of persons with disabilities who need a reasonable accommodation to keep their assistance animal in housing. This request for FTC action reflects HUD’s ongoing commitment to protecting the housing rights of persons with disabilities.”

“The Fair Housing Act provides for the use of assistance animals by individuals with disabilities. Under the law, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity or bodily function,” added HUD’s General Counsel Paul Compton. “These websites are using questionable business practices that exploit consumers, prejudice the legal rights of individuals with disabilities, dupe landlords, and generally interfere with good faith efforts to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.”

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

Are your catch basins cleaned out and ready for the fall rains, and are your speed bumps painted so vehicles and pedestrians can see them through the long winter months... neither of these two tasks take a lot of time or money, and Residents appreciate some of the attention to this detail!

Have you sent a "Prepare For Winter Memo" to your Residents reminding them to clean gutters, check their heat tape/pipe insulation? Have you WALKED your property taking note of any limbs on tall trees that need pruning attention in the fall and winter wind storms? While on your daily walk-throughs, did you follow-up on your spring four sided inspection reminding Residents to remove items improperly stored outside or in view of the street? Tarps suddenly have a way of appearing once fall rains start, so you will want to include in the memo that these are not allowed. (Check your "Guidelines For Living" aka R&Rs for inclusion of this prohibition!)

How about your inventory of emergency ice melt and sand... do you have them available for common area walkways... mailbox, clubhouse, laundry room and office entry areas... ? What is your plan for the leaf litter that can be overwhelming in the fall? If you own your snowplow equipment, is it serviced and ready to go? Before the rest of the property owners beat you to the phone, you may want to advance negotiations with a local snow removal company... now is the time to make the call and ask for a contract!

There is still an enormous list of tasks ahead of us especially if you own communities with outdoor pools, irrigation, systems, RV storage areas, lawn equipment and the like. These are all the PHYSICAL and FACILITY maintenance items that require our attention before the long winter "sleep." BUT, equally important is sharpening your pencil and looking back at the past year's financials and preparing your budget for NEXT year! Have you contacted utility agencies to establish anticipated raises on their part? How about your insurance agent or County Assessor? Did you sit down with your manager to generate a list of areas that he/she believes need attention administratively???? Have either of you generated a comparable market analysis of rents in your area... exactly where do YOU stack up??

The BEST run MHCs are occupied with content Residents who receive VALUE for their rental dollars. Therefore a very large part of our jobs is not just anticipating and addressing the physical and administrative needs of our communities as partially illustrated above; most importantly, treating Residents with respect and attention to detail will yield a rent roster of Tenants who will exhibit the pride of ownership we all strive to have in our land lease communities.

Joel Erlitz

First Commercial Property Corp

4500 Kruse Way #345

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Phone: 206-985-7275

Fax: 206-985-3876

Email: ross@fcpcmgt.com

Web: http://firstcommercialpropertycorp.com

Sally Harrington

First Commercial Property Corp

4500 Kruse Way #345

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Phone: 206-985-7275

Fax: 206-985-3876

Email: ross@fcpcmgt.com

Web: http://firstcommercialpropertycorp.com

Answer: Under ORS 90.675(20), death of a resident living alone triggers the abandonment procotols.

1. First you need to determine if there is a personal representative ("PR") named in a will or appointed by a court to act for the deceased tenant. If not, is there a person designated in writing by the tenant to be contacted in the event of their death. (Of course, the best practice is to have this information, in advance, for all residents living alone.)
2. If you do not have any contact information, you may have to do some research, which means checking the decedent's rental application, or checking with neighbors. My experience is that when an older person passes away, relatives and others come out of the woodwork. Eventually you will need to identify some person who is willing to assume responsibility for the decedent's property.
3. There is such a thing as a Small Estate Probate, and most counties have the available forms. That would be the best approach for the responsible person to go through.
4. However, note that as a landlord/manager, your job is to get the space re-rented, either by a sale of the home to an approved resident, or removal of the home and re-siting of another.
5. The 45-day abandonment letter must be sent by first class mail to the deceased tenant at the premises, and personally delivered or sent by first class mail to the PR or designated person, if actually known to you. (Note: The 45-day letter must refer to the personal representative or designated person, instead of the deceased tenant.)
6. If the PR or designated person, or other person entitled to possession of the property, such as an heir, responds to you by actual notice (E.g. verbal contact, phone call, email, fax, etc.) within the 45-day period set forth in the 45-day letter, and requests to enter into a written Storage Agreement, you must do so.
7. The written Storage Agreement should provide that the home and personal property may not be sold or disposed of for up to 90 days, or until the conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
8. The written Storage Agreement entitles the PR or designated person to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the home. You should secure it, even if it means changing the current locks. You duty commences the moment you send the 45-day letter.
9. If a written Storage Agreement is signed by yourself and the responsible party, you may not enter into another such agreement with the lienholder until the signed until the agreement with the personal representative or designated person ends.
10. During the term of the Storage Agreement, the PR or designated person has the right to remove or sell the home and personal property (including a sale to a purchaser, or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave it on the rented space and become a tenant - subject to the approval of background information that you have as a landlord or manager under ORS 90.680).
11. You may condition approval for occupancy of any purchaser or heir upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
12. If the PR or designated person violates the signed Storage Agreement, you may terminate it by giving at least 30 days written notice stating facts sufficient to notify him/her of the reason for the termination. Unless the PR or designated person corrects the violation within the 30-day period, the Storage Agreement will be terminated, and you may sell or dispose of the home and property without further notice to them.
13. Upon the failure of a PR or designated person to enter into a written Storage Agreement, or upon termination of the Storage Agreement, you may sell or dispose of the property pursuant to the statute (ORS 90.675) without further notice to them (unless the parties otherwise agree, or the PR or designated has already sold or removed the property).

Editors Note: MHCO is very happy to welcome Mark Busch as a presenter at MHCO's next mandatory training seminary in Bend on July 17th

Answer: The short answer is "not always." More specifically, the laws covering RV tenants are sometimes different from those covering mobile home park tenants. As such, your park will need some separate forms specifically for RV tenants, although there are certain forms that work for both types of tenants.
First and foremost, use a rental agreement form designed for RV tenancies. As mentioned in a previous article, MHCO Form 80 is an excellent recreational vehicle space rental agreement.
Beyond the rental agreement, the basic forms every RV landlord should have are tenancy application and move-in forms (i.e., MHCO Form 01 - Rental Application, Form 03 - Criminal Check Authorization, Form 10 - Application Denial). With proper training, these forms are easily filled out and used during the RV tenant application process.

You will also need eviction notice forms. Here are the most common eviction forms:

1. 72-hour rent nonpayment forms - MHCO Form 82 -(these forms can be the same for mobile home and RV tenants).

2. 30-day or 60-day no cause notice forms (these are different from mobile home park forms).

3. 30-day for cause eviction forms - MHCO Form 83 - (these are different from mobile home park forms).

4. 24-hour eviction notice forms (these forms can be the same for mobile home and RV tenants).

Keep in mind that a form is only as good as the knowledge of the person filling it out. If a form is filled out incorrectly, a landlord risks losing an eviction case to a tenant. This means that not only will the tenant be allowed to stay on the RV space, but you would also likely be held responsible for the tenant's attorney fees and court costs. These fees and costs can run several thousand dollars or more. And you have to start over with evicting the RV tenant.

The best way to ensure a legally enforceable form is to have a knowledgeable landlord attorney spend 5 minutes reviewing it before you serve it on the RV tenant. It all goes back to the old adage that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If an attorney reviews your form before you use it, you immediately and significantly reduce the chances that you will lose an eviction case.

After you or your manager become comfortable filling out your forms, it is not as necessary to involve your attorney. Basic forms - if filled out correctly - typically present no problems later. However, it is always wise to have your attorney review eviction notices, particularly for-cause notices. For-cause notices are typically the ones most challenged by tenants and their attorneys.

A final caveat on RV forms is that you should never purchase forms online or elsewhere that are not specifically tailored for Oregon law. Such forms are typically missing provisions that are either required by Oregon law or are beneficial to landlords under Oregon law.

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when they’re necessary to provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home at the community.

The reasonable accommodation provisions come into play whenever an individual with a disability wants to use an assistance animal in communities that either prohibit or impose restrictions or conditions on pets at the community. Like all reasonable accommodation requests, the determination of whether an individual has a disability-related need for an assistance animal involves an individualized assessment, according to HUD.

Federal fair housing law broadly defines “disability” to mean physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. That covers a wide variety of physical and psychological impairments—many of which aren’t obvious or apparent—as long as the impairment is serious enough to substantially limit a major life activity, such as seeing, hearing, walking, or caring for oneself.

Assistance animals are not pets under fair housing law, according to HUD. They’re animals that work, provide assistance, or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability. You can’t charge an extra fee or pet deposit as a condition of granting a reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal.

Don’t get confused by the different rules under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which governs the types of animals used by individuals with disabilities in places that are open to the public, such as restaurants, hotels, and other venues. With one limited exception, the ADA permits only individually trained service dogs—and excludes emotional support animals.

But the FHA, which governs multifamily housing communities, is much broader than that. Fair housing law allows not only service dogs, but also any type of animal that provides assistance or emotional support to an individual with a disability. Breed, size, or weight limitations may not be applied to an assistance animal, according to HUD. Assistance animals don’t have to be individually trained or certified—and they all have the same legal standing—regardless of what type of assistance they provide to an individual with a disability.

8 RULES FOR HANDLING REQUESTS

FOR ASSISTANCE ANIMALS

Rule #1: Adopt Pet Policy Subject to Exceptions for Assistance Animals

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from having a pet policy—as long as you don’t use it to keep out assistance animals. 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, pet deposits, or additional rent charges. Whatever your policy on pets, it’s unlawful to deny an exception for an assistance animal needed by an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community.

Example: In July 2019, HUD charged a Maine community and one of its agents with discrimination for denying a veteran with disabilities the right to keep his assistance animal. In his HUD complaint, the veteran alleged that he called the community in response to an ad on Craigslist. When he told the agent that he had a disability-related need to live with his assistance dog, the agent allegedly responded, “absolutely not,” and she regretted allowing a prior tenant to live with his assistance dog because other tenants then wanted to get pet dogs.

“No person with a disability should be denied the accommodation they need, especially individuals who served in the Armed Forces to defend our freedom,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation to comply with this nation’s fair housing laws.”

Rule #2: Don’t Make Snap Decisions About Requests for Assistance Animals

Anytime someone asks for an exception to your pet policy to keep an assistance animal, you should treat it as you would any other request for a reasonable accommodation. The reasonable accommodation rules kick in anytime anyone says he needs or wants something—including an assistance animal—because of a disability. The law doesn’t require that a request be made at a particular time or in a particular manner. The person doesn’t have to mention fair housing law or use the words “reasonable accommodation.”

When you receive a request for an assistance animal, HUD says there are two relevant questions:

1. Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability—that is, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?
2. Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance animal? In other words, does the animal work, provide assistance, perform tasks with services for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of a person’s existing disability?

If the answer to both questions is “no,” then HUD says that fair housing law doesn’t require you to make an exception to your pet policy and the reasonable accommodation request may be denied.

If the answer to both questions is “yes,” however, you’re required to make an exception to your pet policies to permit an individual with a disability to live with and use an assistance animal at the community, unless doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the community’s services.

The request may also be denied if the animal is a direct threat to your property or the health and safety of others. But HUD warns that you can’t make that decision based on speculation about the animal’s size or breed—you have to look into the specifics of the particular animal involved. It can get complicated, so don’t make snap decisions about whether to bar an animal on that basis without reviewing all the facts.

Rule #3: Request Documentation When Needed to Evaluate Request

Don’t deny a request just because you’re uncertain about whether the person seeking the accommodation has a disability or a disability-related need for an assistance animal. Though fair housing law generally forbids housing providers from making disability-related inquiries, there’s an exception for reasonable accommodation requests when either the disability—or the disability-related need for the requested accommodation—isn’t obvious or apparent.

Just remember: You can’t ask questions about an applicant’s disability or disability-related need for an assistance animal if both are known or readily apparent. The classic example is a request by a blind or visually impaired applicant to keep a guide dog. Since both the disability and the need for the animal are readily apparent, you can’t ask for documentation about the applicant’s disability or disability-related need for the dog.

You may request information from a resident with a known or obvious disability—but only if his need for the assistance animal isn’t readily apparent. As an example, federal guidelines point to a request by an applicant who uses a wheelchair to keep a dog as an assistance animal. The applicant’s disability is readily apparent, but the need for the assistance animal isn’t obvious, so you can ask the applicant to provide information about the disability-related need for the dog—as long as you don’t go overboard by asking for too much information.

Rule #4: Ask for Verification If Resident Doesn’t Have Apparent Disability

Be careful about how you handle requests for assistance animals from applicants or residents who don’t have an obvious or apparent disability. Under fair housing law, all individuals with disabilities are equally protected—whether they’re physical or mental, obvious or not–so don’t let outward appearances affect how you treat them.

If the resident’s disability isn’t readily observable, you may ask for reliable disability-related information that’s necessary to verify that the resident has a disability that qualifies under the FHA—that is, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities—and has a disability-related need for the animal. You can’t ask the resident for information about what his disability is or what the animal does to assist him—only for confirmation that there is a disability and that the animal is needed because of that disability.

In general, verification may come from a doctor or a medical professional, peer support group, or reliable third party in a position to know about the individual’s disability—even the resident himself, under certain circumstances. But you can’t ask applicants or residents for access to medical records or medical providers—or for detailed or extensive documentation about their physical or mental impairments.

For example, HUD says that communities may ask applicants who want a reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal that provides emotional support to provide documentation from a physician, psychiatrist, social worker, or other mental health professional that the animal provides emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of an existing disability. Such documentation is sufficient if it establishes that an individual has a disability and that the animal in question will provide some type of disability-related assistance or emotional support, according to HUD.

Editor's Note: For model forms you can use to verify an applicant or resident's need for an assistance animal, see “Use Forms to Verify Resident’s Need for  Assistance Animal,” which appeared in our June 2018 issue.

Rule #5: Consider Requests for Emotional Support Animals

Treat requests for emotional support animals the same as any other request for a service dog or any other type of assistance animal. Fair housing law allows people with disabilities to have assistance animals that perform work or tasks, or that provide disability-related emotional support.

Example: In April 2019, the Justice Department sued the owner and property manager of a seven-unit rental property in New York City for refusing a reasonable accommodation to allow a resident with psychiatric disabilities to live with an emotional support German Shepherd in his unit. According to the complaint, the resident was a retired law enforcement officer and September 11th first responder who required an emotional support dog to assist him with his disabilities. The complaint alleged that the community sought to evict him for living with an emotional support dog and, after discontinuing the eviction action in which each side was supposed to pay its own attorney’s fees, the community allegedly retaliated and harassed him by billing him for its attorney’s fees related to its unsuccessful eviction attempt [U.S. v. Higgins, April 2019].

Example: In March 2019, the owner and property manager of a 232-unit housing cooperative in New York City agreed to pay $70,000 to settle allegations that they violated fair housing law by refusing to allow a resident with disabilities to keep an emotional support beagle in his unit. The Justice Department filed the complaint, alleging that the resident had disabilities and requested a reasonable accommodation to keep an assistance dog in his unit. According to the complaint, the community effectively denied the request by issuing a notice of default stating that he violated his lease by harboring a dog in his unit. A few months later, the complaint alleged that the community notified him that his tenancy would be terminated because he kept a dog in his unit [U.S. v. 118 East 60th Owners, Inc., March 2019].

Rule #6: Don’t Put Too Much—or Too Little—Stock in Online Certifications

Knowing the rules on disability verification is essential to avoiding the common mistakes that lead to complaints involving requests for assistance animals. It’s particularly important now that so many applicants or residents can go online and find a quick “certification” process to say their dog is a certified assistance animal.

Example: In November 2018, a court dismissed claims against a Florida homeowners association for denying a resident’s request for an assistance animal. In his complaint, the resident alleged that he was disabled as a result of a 2009 auto accident and bought a Rottweiler puppy in 2017 to serve as a service dog allegedly on the advice of his doctor. When he received a notice of violation stating that Rottweilers weren’t permitted, the resident said he informed the community that the puppy was a service animal. Instead of completing a medical release and form to verify his accommodation request, he allegedly produced service dog identification cards purchased online, his handicap parking placard, and copies of his disability checks. Allegedly, the community denied his reasonable accommodation request because he didn’t provide documentation of his disability or need for a service dog. 

He sued, but the court dismissed the case because the resident failed to prove that he had a disability under fair housing law. The only information about his disability was in his complaint. Although he alleged permanent mobility impairments from his 2009 car accident, he failed to present evidence of his injuries or limitations. And the community presented photos of him riding a scooter, and standing and walking unaided, which contradicted his allegations of disability [Fitzsimmons v. Sand & Sea Homeowners Association, November 2018].

When an applicant provides you with an online certification that he needs an assistance animal, it’s necessary to determine whether it meets the requirements that it’s reliable and from someone familiar with the applicant’s disability. Don’t automatically assume that an online certification wasn’t issued by any recognized group, or a medical or mental health provider, and deny the request.

You still have the obligation to consider, respond, and act on the request—even when you suspect that the online verification doesn’t provide you with all the information you need to act on the accommodation request. Unless the applicant has an obvious disability, you may request confirmation from her treating mental or medical health professional to verify that the applicant is under the provider’s care and treatment and that the provider has diagnosed a medical or mental condition that renders the patient disabled. You may also request confirmation from the treating doctor or mental health provider that the animal is prescribed to assist with the disability.

If the applicant or resident is unwilling to cooperate or obtain the proper medical or mental health provider’s assistance in verifying the information, then you may have grounds for denying the request. But this is a difficult area, so it’s important to get legal advice before taking any adverse action.

Rule #7: Consider Requests for Dogs Otherwise Excluded Under Pet Policies

Carefully consider requests for assistance animals—even if it’s for an animal that’s generally prohibited under your pet policies. It’s common for communities to allow only certain types of pets or to exclude animals based on their size or breed. But remember—these limits don’t apply to assistance animals. HUD says that breed, size, and weight restrictions may not be applied to an assistance animal.

Example: In February 2019, the owner and manager of an apartment building in Manhattan agreed to pay $100,000 to settle allegations of disability discrimination for refusing to rent a unit to an applicant with a psychiatric disability and her fiance because she had a large assistance animal.

According to the complaint filed by the Justice Department, the couple expressed interest in renting a unit, but they had a “service animal” that was “probably over the permitted weight limit” for the building. After they submitted forms requesting a reasonable accommodation, the manager allegedly notified them that the community would permit them to have a dog up to 50 pounds as a reasonable accommodation but their current dog—a 120-pound Cane Corso—was too large, so it would be best if they didn’t pursue their application for an unit in the building [U.S. v. Glenwood Management, February 2019].

It can get complicated when it comes to breed restrictions. Many communities have policies restricting certain dog breeds, most notably pit bulls, but HUD says that breed restrictions don’t apply to assistance animals. To comply with fair housing law, you must assess whether the particular animal in question poses a direct threat; otherwise, you may be accused of denying a reasonable accommodation by excluding an assistance animal based on its breed.

It’s another matter if your community is subject to a local ordinance banning pit bulls or other “dangerous breeds.” If allowing the dog would violate local law, then you may have grounds to deny the request, but this is another gray area where it’s a good idea to get legal advice before taking action on the request.

Example: In April 2019, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against a resident who claimed that the city violated fair housing law by denying his reasonable accommodation request to keep his pit bull as an emotional support animal despite its ordinance banning pit bulls and other “dangerous dogs.”

The lawsuit was filed by a resident who was partially paralyzed and had a pit bull as an emotional support animal. That same year, the city adopted an ordinance banning pit bulls and other dangerous dogs but grandfathered in dogs registered with the city before the law took effect. The resident failed to register the dog on time, so an enforcement officer said he’d have to get rid of the dog.

After obtaining documentation from his doctor, the resident sued the city for violating fair housing law. Rejecting the city’s argument that it was exempt from the FHA, the court issued an order that the ordinance was invalid as applied to the resident’s retention of the dog in his home.

On appeal, the state’s highest court reversed in part, ruling that the resident failed to prove that the requested accommodation was necessary. Assuming that he needed an emotional support dog, he failed to prove that other dogs not covered by the ordinance couldn’t provide comparable therapeutic benefit with regard to his disability. Fair housing law didn’t give him a right to his preferred option [Wilkinson v. City of Arapahoe, April 2019].

Rule #8: Don’t Ban Assistance Animals from Common Areas

Don’t impose unreasonable limits that prevent residents with disabilities from bringing their assistance animals into common areas. HUD says that residents with disabilities may use assistance animals in all areas of the premises where persons are normally allowed to go unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of your services.

Example: In February 2019, a court ruled that a Nevada homeowners association had to pay a couple $635,000 for refusing to grant the wife’s disability-related reasonable accommodation request to bring her assistance animal, a Chihuahua, into the clubhouse.

The court ruled that the FHA applied because access to the clubhouse was necessary for the couple’s enjoyment of their home. The dog qualified under the ADA as an assistance animal because it assisted the wife with acute pain attacks and with retrieving her walker. The dog was not disruptive, threatening, or harmful to the other residents in the community or in the clubhouse, so the accommodation to allow the dog to accompany the wife into the clubhouse was clearly a reasonable accommodation of the wife’s disability.

The court assessed punitive damages against some of the parties involved in denying the wife’s accommodation requests. Among other things, the court said they:

• Continued, in a harassing and malicious manner, to request documentation about the wife’s need for the dog’s assistance even after sufficient documentation was provided regarding her disability and the ways in which the dog assisted her;
• Actively and wantonly prevented the couple from using the clubhouse once documentation was provided;
• Sent or directed to be sent communications on behalf of the board portraying the couple as litigious and untruthful and knew that these communications would contribute to a hostile, threatening, and intimidating living environment; and
• Failed to discourage other residents from harassing and threatening the couple at open meetings and through anonymous letters.

The court further found that they acted with personal animus toward the couple, which fueled the antagonism among the community [Sanzaro v. Ardiente Homeowners Association, LLC, February 2019].

Nevertheless, you don’t have to tolerate bad behavior by individuals with disabilities—or their assistance animals—when they’re in common areas. You may expect them to have their assistance animals under their control, for example, by requiring them to be leashed unless doing so would interfere with the animal’s ability to perform disability-related tasks. You may establish rules to require residents with assistance animals to pick up and dispose of the animal’s waste and to hold them accountable if the animal becomes disruptive or acts aggressively toward other residents.

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

By:  Phillip C. Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

The difference between a well-run manufactured housing community and one with problems frequently lies with the rules and regulations each facility has adopted.  Here are some tips for developing a set of rules and regulations that may be helpful in the successful operation of your community:

1. Avoid Ambiguity.  When writing a rule, make sure that it is understandable.  If a court or jury were called upon to enforce it, would they be able to understand it?  Is it fair?  Is the rule capable of different interpretations?  Is it too vague so as to give little or no guidance to the tenant?  Avoid using general terms which are so subjective that reasonable people could differ about what constitutes a violation.  If necessary, use an example.  If the rule must necessarily be open-ended (e.g. prohibiting loud and disturbing noise or offensive behavior), tie the violation to whether the conduct results in complaints from other tenants.  That way the issue does not become whether the manager is arbitrarily exercising his or her own discretion.
2. Updating the Rules.  Oregon landlord-tenant statutes can change every yerar when the Legislature meets.  Circumstances and needs can change more frequently than that.  At least once a year, take a look at your rules to see if they are legally sufficient and whether they meet the community's present needs.  It is much easier to make smaller changes to the rules one or two at a time rather than trying to get the tenants to agree to a wholesale change of all the rules at once.  If your tenants are on leases, you have the right to submit new park documents (i.e. rules and rental agreement) not less than 60 days prior to the expiration of the lease term.  A tenant shall accept or reject the landlord's proposed new rental agreement at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.  If accepted, the rules and rental agreement will define your new rental relationship with the tenants.  It is one good way to update your rules, without having to go through a formal rules change.
3. Legally Adopting Your Rules.  If the tenants are on month-to-month tenancies, Oregon law requires that the landlord must give at least 30 days' advance written notice to make a change in the rules.  If 51% or more of the tenants affected by the rule change object within the 30 days of service of the notice, the change(s) will not go into effect.  However, if less than 51% object, the new rule(s) will become effective in 60 days from the date the notice was served on the tenants.  The law regarding the contents and timing of the notice of rule change must be strictly followed.  ORS 90.610 describes the process.  Read it carefully!  And use MHCO Form 60: "Sixty Day Notice of Rule Change".  Simply sending a letter to the tenants informing them of a change in the rules is insufficient.  If the rules are not properly adopted they will not be enforceable.  Frequently, the landlord or manager will first learn that their rules were improperly adopted when they try to enforce them.  If one or more of the rules you seek to adopt are opposed by a small but vocal minority who lobby the rest of the tenants against your change, consider meeting with them prior to giving notice of the proposed change, in an effort to mutually draft language that everyone would find acceptable.  If over 51% of the effected space still object, consider implementing the new rules for all new incoming tenants only.  That way, over time, the new rules will have wider and wider application as the older tenants

1. Keeping Track of Your Rules.  If there are more than one set of rules (i.e. old rules for existing tenants and new rules that are given to new tenants) make sure you keep track of which rules apply to which tenant.  Put copies of the applicable rules, together with the rental agreement and statement of policy, in each tenant's file.  Attempting to enforce the wrong rules against a tenant can result in disaster.  Show the date of the latest revision on the first page or, better yet, on the footer of each page.
2. Troublesome Issues.  There are some issues that seem to never go away.  Occupancy issues are one of those troublesome areas that frequently result in litigation.  If your community has rules limiting the time a visitor can stay, make sure it is clear and unambiguous.  Frequently tenants try to avoid these limits by calling their visitor a "house-sitter."  The best approach is to set a definite date, e.g. two weeks, and require that all persons who remain over that period of time must satisfy the same requirements as imposed on incoming tenants - e.g. background check, criminal check, references, etc.  Require that they sign the rental agreement.  If the existing tenant attempts to get around these occupancy rules by arguing that the person is there to provide necessary assistance because of certain physical or emotional disabilities, legal counsel should be immediately consulted due to Fair Housing implications.
3. Consistent Enforcement.  It is not uncommon for landlords and managers to grant exceptions and extensions of time for tenants to come into compliance with a particular violation.  However, landlords can get into trouble when they ignore some violators and enforce the rules against others.  Maintenance violations are a good example.  In order to enforce these rules you must be consistent.  Regular community inspections should be made.  Warnings should be given uniformly to all violators.  Thirty day notices should be given only as a last resort.  If the tenant requests an extension of time to comply, put the agreement in writing.  In those cases where legal action may need to be taken, make sure legal counsel reviews the case before filing the eviction.   Make sure your attorney is aware of your prior efforts to secure the tenant's compliance.  It is always best if the tenant's file shows a clear paper-trail of your efforts to secure voluntary compliance.

Rules and regulations are not foolproof.  Some tenants will always try to find reasons why they do not apply to them.  But clarity, consistency, and fair enforcement will go a long way in keeping peace and harmony in your manufactured housing community.

1. Avoid Ambiguity.  When writing a rule, make sure that it is understandable.  If a court or jury were called upon to enforce it, would they be able to understand it?  Is it fair?  Is the rule capable of different interpretations?  Is it too vague so as to give little or no guidance to the tenant?  Avoid using general terms which are so subjective that reasonable people could differ about what constitutes a violation.  If necessary, use an example.  If the rule must necessarily be open-ended (e.g. prohibiting loud and disturbing noise or offensive behavior), tie the violation to whether the conduct results in complaints from other tenants.  That way the issue does not become whether the manager is arbitrarily exercising his or her own discretion.
2. Updating the Rules.  Oregon landlord-tenant statutes can change every two years when the Legislature meets.  Circumstances and needs can change more frequently than that.  At least once a year, take a look at your rules to see if they are legally sufficient and whether they meet the community's present needs.  It is much easier to make smaller changes to the rules one or two at a time rather than trying to get the tenants to agree to a wholesale change of all the rules at once.  If your tenants are on leases, you have the right to submit new park documents (i.e. rules and rental agreement) not less than 60 days prior to the expiration of the lease term.  A tenant shall accept or reject the landlord's proposed new rental agreement at least 30 days prior to the ending of the term by giving written notice to the landlord.  If accepted, the rules and rental agreement will define your new rental relationship with the tenants.  It is one good way to update your rules, without having to go through a formal rules change.
3. Legally Adopting Your Rules.  If the tenants are on month-to-month tenancies, Oregon law requires that the landlord must give at least 30 days' advance written notice to make a change in the rules.  If 51% or more of the tenants affected by the rule change object within the 30 days of service of the notice, the change(s) will not go into effect.  However, if less than 51% object, the new rule(s) will become effective in 60 days from the date the notice was served on the tenants.  The law regarding the contents and timing of the notice of rule change must be strictly followed.  ORS 90.610 describes the process.  Read it carefully!  Simply sending a letter to the tenants informing them of a change in the rules is insufficient.  If the rules are not properly adopted they will not be enforceable.  Frequently, the landlord or manager will first learn that their rules were improperly adopted when they try to enforce them.  If one or more of the rules you seek to adopt are opposed by a small but vocal minority who lobby the rest of the tenants against your change, consider meeting with them prior to giving notice of the proposed change, in an effort to mutually draft language that everyone would find acceptable.  If over 51% of the effected space still object, consider implementing the new rules for all newincoming tenants only.  That way, over time, the new rules will have wider and wider application as the older tenants

4. Keeping Track of Your Rules.  If there are more than one set of rules (i.e. old rules for existing tenants and new rules that are given to new tenants) make sure you keep track of which rules apply to which tenant.  Put copies of the applicable rules, together with the rental agreement and statement of policy, in each tenant's file.  Attempting to enforce the wrong rules against a tenant can result in disaster.  Show the date of the latest revision on the first page or, better yet, on the footer of each page.
5. Troublesome Issues.  There are some issues that seem to never go away.  Occupancy issues are one of those troublesome areas that frequently result in litigation.  If your community has rules limiting the time a visitor can stay, make sure it is clear and unambiguous.  Frequently tenants try to avoid these limits by calling their visitor a "house-sitter."  The best approach is to set a definite date, e.g. two weeks, and require that all persons who remain over that period of time must satisfy the same requirements as imposed on incoming tenants - e.g. background check, criminal check, references, etc.  Require that they sign the rental agreement.  If the existing tenant attempts to get around these occupancy rules by arguing that the person is there to provide necessary assistance because of certain physical or emotional disabilities, legal counsel should be immediately consulted due to Fair Housing implications.
6. Consistent Enforcement.  It is not uncommon for landlords and managers to grant exceptions and extensions of time for tenants to come into compliance with a particular violation.  However, landlords can get into trouble when they ignore some violators and enforce the rules against others.  Maintenance violations are a good example.  In order to enforce these rules you must be consistent.  Regular community inspections should be made.  Warnings should be given uniformly to all violators.  Thirty day notices should be given only as a last resort.  If the tenant requests an extension of time to comply, put the agreement in writing.  In those cases where legal action may need to be taken, make sure legal counsel reviews the case before filing the eviction.   Make sure your attorney is aware of your prior efforts to secure the tenant's compliance.  It is always best if the tenant's file shows a clear paper-trail of your efforts to secure voluntary compliance.

Rules and regulations are not foolproof.  Some tenants will always try to find reasons why they do not apply to them.  But clarity, consistency, and fair enforcement will go a long way in keeping peace and harmony in your manufactured housing community.

Do employees know our management direction and is it consistently implemented? We all should have our structure to accomplish goals of our management direction. Mentioned in this article are suggestions that are critical to our businesses, service to our residents, retention of employees, and to stay out of court.

I'm sure you're already a dedicated successful business person. Even with the busy schedules we have today, is it worth your time and money to be an more effective park owner. These suggestions I will present are proven to work: in one park, for example, there have been only three management teams in the last thirty years, each staying ten years. A dedicated staff have stayed and performed very well for five to nineteen years. They have eighty five residents who have been living in the park for ten or more years with fifteen residents being at the park for twenty or more years. Survey results show resident satisfaction as "happy" and they would recommend the park to family and friends.

A good management team is the biggest factor to success of our businesses.

Many find that the use of a professional property management company is critical. It can be risky to operate your park without a full and complete knowledge of all current laws and trends. You must ask yourself if you have that knowledge or the time to do re-search necessary to effectively run your park.

Our business is far too complicated for us to know all aspects of a changing environment. Whether it is local politics, timely and correct response to personnel and resident issues, or help with business strategies, it is very complicated and costly to make un-informed decisions. It's difficult to be effective at all things at all times. (Keep in mind that your WMA local representative is an important source of information regarding local laws and regulations.)

Just as property managers have specialists; our businesses should have specialists within our parks with specific responsibilities. Without specific assignments no one will feel responsible for tasks.

As a reminder, the following suggestions may be helpful in managing your business.

"Park within a Park" Rental Homes

Today, many of us have come to rely upon park rentals to maintain profitability and cash flow. If this is the case for your business, someone in your organization must have your rental business as their first responsibility. Prospective renters have to be found and vetted, and decisions made based on the data collected. Do you want to be the collector of all this information? Probably not.

Knowing the reasons why people choose your park is also import-ant. It's good to be aware of the reasons people move in or out. What motivated them to select your park? Using a questionnaire to find out this information will help reveal trends that may help you to manage your rentals more effectively. How can you know your rental business if you don't have data to support decisions and the future for your rental business?

When selling or refinancing a park, buyers and lenders can make informed decisions if you are well documented. Financing can be difficult when rentals are big part of your revenue and expenses. It is a confidence builder for your loan representative and their loan committee if a solid case can be made that you are managing your rental business well.

Develop a "work-order" process, so renters can let you know if something needs to be repaired. Their satisfaction will keep turn-over low.

Know your Inventory

Knowing your inventory is a key factor in projecting your future rental business and cash needs. With up to date information, you will know what each home needs in order to be ready for rental.

Homes need to be safe and acceptable to be rented. If you have a few rentals, it is easy to know the specifics of each home. If you have fifty homes rented and ten needing work, organized and specific data is needed to know which home should be scheduled first for refurbishing.

Curb appeal is a first and lasting impression. People will form opinions about your business based on what they see first.

Consider a color pallet for homes to be painted. (I'm sure we have all seen resident or manager se-lections that are less attractive than we would like them to be.) Keeping a consistent color pallet across your park will have an aesthetically pleasing effect. If you do this, there will be no surprises when you visit your park.

Keep an Eye on Past Due Rents

Our life blood is collecting rents. Monitoring the past due amounts, identifying chronic slow payers, issuing three and sixty day notices, and being a bill collector is a critical aspect of park management. Telephone calls and letters need to be sent, followed up, and timely action needs to be taken to collect rent.

Collection communication takes a special type of person. The per-son responsible for collection may or may not have the personality to collect from people they see every day. If not, see if someone else in your organization would be a better fit.

Managing our Managers and Staff

Once people have been found, hired, and trained, keeping them around is very important. Employees leaving is costly and de-moralizing. It's important to let employees know what is expected of them, and inspect their work. Document their work tasks, and have periodic reviews. This may seem like a lot of work, but the benefits to your business will be great.

One of a manager's important tasks is to be visible to residents and staff. They must be aware of the local politics, changes to city laws and what new issues are the current hot topics. They are your eyes and ears to what is being talked about by your residents.

The following are some ideas to consider when you want loyalty from employees:

-Paid vacation

-Health Insurance, full or partial payment by park

-Give managers permission to take a "resident to lunch" or to do something they feel will help resident satisfaction

-Allow your manager to grant limited "personal time" for doctors appointments and family issues

-Allow law mandated sick days

-Surprise "half day off ". It doesn'tcost much, and will buy productivity when they come back

-"All Hands" quarterly luncheon to review past performance and plans for the near short term

-For special efforts and major projects completed, give paid days off, or gift certificates to take their family out for dinner

It is not the size of thank you, it is the recognition. don't we all like the recognition from work that we can share with family and friends?

Let employees know "your way" of handling resident questions, resident requests, and complaints.

Homes Being Vandalized

Have you had thefts or vandalism to resident homes, yard, and car, park facilities, or had equipment being stolen? It's important to make sure that your staff members are driving the park all day. Make them your eyes and ears for suspicious people or delivery trucks. Have managers develop a relationship with local police.

Train your Neighborhood Watch group and recognize their efforts with periodic coffee and cookies, or lunch.

Buy a used police car and rotate it around the interior and exterior of the park. In one park a resident bought the car for $1,000. It looks like an undercover police car and is working to scare petty thieves. Pit bulls, armed residents, and vigilantes are not suggested.

I know some of the suggestions will take a while to implement and some of these you won'tlike, however it's necessary to make the effort to do something that will be noticed by employees and residents.

You will find that if you have taken the time to do some of the things that were mentioned, the small stuff will come more easily.

MHCO would like to thank WMA (Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association) for this informative article. Thank you!

Vance DiMaria has been a managing partner of Casa Del Rey MHC in Hemet and a partner in other communities in California and Arizona. He can be reached at 949.378.8285 phone; 949.831.1514 fax; and email: jvdmaria@aol.com.

Answer. What follows is a complicated answer to a simple question.

ORS 90.302 (Fees allowed for certain landlord expenses), Subsection (3) (b) (A) authorizes the assessment of a “fee” for noncompliance with written rules or policies governing, among other things, “(t)he late payment of a utility or service charge that the tenant owes the landlord as described in ORS 90.315” (Utility or service payments).

But that statute provides that the written rental agreement must expressly permit this fee. If it’s not in the agreement, ORS 90.302 (9) permits park owners to unilaterally amend it to impose noncompliance fees. A 90-day written notice must first be sent to the tenant.

But as occasionally occurs with legislation written by committees composed of disparate stakeholders, the sausage bill that results can become almost incomprehensible. That is the case with ORS 90.302(3) which describes a complicated implementation process, at best.[1]

If the above discussion isn’t sufficient in discouraging park landlords assessing fees for delinquent water charges, the information below should cinch the deal.

First, remember that the Oregon landlord-tenant law, ORS Chapter 90, is divided into two parts, (a) the non-manufactured housing side, and (b) the manufactured housing side. The latter side commences at ORS 90.505.[2]

Secondly, there is nothing in the manufactured housing utility billing statutes (ORS 90.560 – 90.584) which authorizes the assessment of a late fee for overdue utility charge payments. On the non-manufactured housing side, ORS 90.302 (3) (b) (A) does authorize the assessment of fees for late utility charge payments “… that the tenant owes the landlord as described in ORS 90.315.” (for utility or service charges).

Here is the conundrum: Does ORS 90.302 (3) (b) (A) refer to the utility charges described in ORS 90.315 or the obligation to pay the landlord as described in 90.315?

In ORS 90.560 (the definitions of utilities and services for the manufactured housing side of Chapter 90) it says that the term “utility or service” has the meaning given in ORS 90.315 (i.e., on the non-manufacturing housing side of ORS Chapter 90). The problem with this cross-reference is that the process for charging utility and service charges for manufactured homes and nonmanufactured homes are not the same – in fact, they are quite different.

For example, the procedure for billing utilities to an apartment tenant is described in ORS 90.315 (4) expressly does not apply to manufactured home tenancies. And the procedure for billing utilities to tenants in manufactured housing communities is set out in 90.562 (3) and (4).

Confused? Frustrated? Join the club! The best solution would be a legislative one, i.e., amend 90.302 (3) (b) (A) to include an express cross-reference to ORS 90.562 which would clarify the legislative intent to include both manufactured and non-manufactured housing.

Until then, there is room for disagreement on late fees for unpaid utility charges in manufactured housing communities; and disagreement can lead to litigation – something you don’t want. In the past I have seen park tenants bring claims against landlords for (allegedly) improperly imposed charges, fees, etc. The result is not pretty since each space may have a claim against the landlord for reimbursement of the past twelve months[3]of improperly assessed charges – plus attorney fees.

So, the short answer to your seemingly simple question, is that you do not want to risk assessing fees to residents for overdue payments of their water charges until the legislature clears up the confusion.

This is not to say you are without a remedy, but assessing a fee is not one I would recommend until the legislation clears up. Nonpayment of a utility or service charge is grounds for termination for cause under ORS 90.630. But beware, a landlord may not give a notice of termination under that statute for nonpayment of a utility or service charge sooner than the eighth day (including the first day it is due), after the landlord gives the tenant the written notice stating the amount of the utility or service charge.

Many thanks to John Van Landingham for his assistance in helping me detangle these statutes and their legislative history. Nobody has better institutional knowledge, perspective and understanding of Oregon’s landlord-tenant laws than John.

By:  Dale Strom

This is the sixth and final part of a series of a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR.

The delays of the purchase by the state agencies approving the sale to the tenants were discussed in the fifth part of this series. The tenants want to push back the closing to possibly March 1 from an original target date of November 1. The author is told that the close will probably be around the middle of January.

The vacation we had planned with our sons and their wives was scheduled for February 16. We have just come into the new year with the signing of the final documents just a few weeks away.

The delay for the November closing date was due to the Oregon Department of Justice. However Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) also played a role in the delay. OHCS is Oregon's housing finance agency, providing financial and program support to create and preserve opportunities for quality, affordable housing for Oregonians of lower and moderate income. I was not aware of the specifics to the causes of the delays. As I learned later, the funding to Purchase Riverbend in Clatskanie came from several sources.

One other delay that occurred at the end of this process came from an easement that I signed with Charter Communications almost 10 years ago. That also needed to be addressed. That wasn't easy in that Charter's offices stretch from San Antonio to Southern California to Spokane. Backing out of an agreement that automatically renews every 3 years was not easy. The people at CASA worked with the attorneys at Charter to come to an agreement on either working with the existing agreement or outright termination of that agreement.

To complicate matters, CASA terminated its employment of their Development Manager. This was the one key individual that I relied on to guide this process and to be the main line of communication between myself and the Board of the new Cooperative. Now it doesn't look like the closing is not going to get done in January and I am coming close to a personal vacation deadline. That wouldn't go very well with my better half.

In late January, I was contacted by a contractor on a project that I started a year before. The riverbank at one end of the community started giving way which threatened a space with a home on placed on it. Where moving the home to another safe space would cost less than $15,000, this was much less that shoring up a riverbank at an estimated cost of 70 to 80 thousand dollars. My decision to move the home was obvious due to the costs of each of my options.

Apparently the Cooperative decided to pursue the bank stabilization project. Getting together with the Contractor's Project Manager, I signed the permits that I applied for to give that responsibility to the Cooperative. It would be the Cooperative's decision to explore the stabilization project. What is going through my mind is how would the Co-op be able to finance that project? Whatever that answer to that question is, the permits for the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of State Lands is now in the hands of the Cooperative.

CASA apparently settled their issues with the DOJ and OHCS to the point where the funds were secured. The sale was to occur. The date to sign at closing was set for February 14; two days before vacation. I was to meet the escrow officer in downtown Portland at 2:00 PM. To my surprise, the Board for the new Cooperative was also there having just signed the closing documents in the hour before I was to sign. Needless to say, they were very excited to make this deal as much as I was relieved to sign it away and move on myself. Now it is time to move on, and I couldn't be any happier.

EPILOGUE

During calendar year 2013, State Representative Nancy Nathanson asked the Landlord Tenant coalition to work out an agreement between the Tenants and Manufactured Home Park Landlords. To summarize the conversation of that entire year, tenant associations were to be given an opportunity to compete to purchase the communities where they live when an owner considered selling the community. Especially if that prospective buyer wanted to close that Park. The tenants wanted the opportunity to actively manage their property while gaining equity in the communities where they lived.

The Landlords on the other hand were leery of the information that would be divulged to the tenants, the time it would take for the tenants to form a Cooperative Board to explore the possibilities of a purchase and the possibilities of losing a sale to another private party that was to be based upon the IRS tax code of a 1031 exchange. Landlords were concerned that information that was gathered by the tenants could be used against them in social media or in legal proceedings if the tenants were unsuccessful in purchasing the community.

By the end of 2013 the Tenants and the Landlords were not close to an agreement on the issue. It was a confrontation that went to the legislature in the short 2014 session. This led to HB 4038A that was passed in February of that 2014 session allowing the tenants of a MH Community the opportunity to be forewarned of a potential sale and form a Board to participate in any bidding process.

Landlords were required to inform the tenants of their intent or at least their possible considerations as to the disposition of their community. It was most Landlord's feelings that in order to accommodate the Tenants, the time to agree with another private party that would use the 1031 option as part of the future transaction would be lost because time would be of the essence in this case.

The carrot on the end of the stick" to the selling Landlord was the waiver of long term capital gains on the sale of the property. When the 1031 is exercised by the seller