Search

Answers:  One caveat: The answers below are based upon some quick basic research and should not be relied upon as a complete legal answer to a complicated issue. You should verify the information with your own legal counsel.

1. Is it illegal to require an SSN on a rental application?  No, it is not illegal to “require” an SSN on a rental application provided every application requires an SSN. Only requiring SSNs from certain applicants likely would run afoul of Fair Housing Laws if the group requested may be a protected class. The take-away is (as I have said repeatedly in the past) if you are going to require it, you must require it of everyone, regardless of protected class.  You cannot pick and choose who must provide their SSN number. 

2. Is it a violation of the Fair Housing Laws to deny an applicant because they do not have an SSN?  This is a grey area. While it is not explicitly illegal to deny an applicant because they do not possess an SSN, if denials seem to only occur to certain groups of people, it could trigger a Fair Housing complaint. 

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against certain protected classes, one of which is national origin. The Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO) encourages landlords to consider documentation other than SSNs, if possible:

“It is our agency’s position that the refusal to review alternative documentation when a Social Security Number is not available will have a negative and disparate impact[1]on individuals whose national origin is not the United States, thereby having a disparate impact on that protected class.” 

A disparate impact may arise when negative outcomes affect a particular protected class, even though they are not a product of explicit discriminatory intent. A recent example cited by the FHCO was an apartment complex in Beaverton which prohibited the cooking of curry on the premises. The prohibition was arguably without specific discriminatory intent because it was based on the difficulty of reliably cleaning apartments where curry had been frequently cooked (it was compared to the impact of tobacco smoke). However, because only certain groups of people, mostly Indian, were likely to cook curry with any frequency in their homes, the rule had a discriminatory impact on people of a particular national origin.[2]

FHCO advocates that landlords consider accepting alternate forms of identification (e.g., ITIN) if they, or their screening companies, can obtain similar, reliable information regarding rental risk as they would be able to with an SSN. This may take the form of asking for more assurances from a potential renter, including references to former landlords to show rental history, utility bills to show timely payments, etc. The FHCO also acknowledges that additional screening steps to compensate for a lack of SSN may have an increased cost, and that increased cost may be passed on to the applicant. [Query: But doesn’t that, in itself, create a disparate impact?! ~PCQ]

Although an ITIN cannot be used in place of an SSN for pulling a credit report, however, people with ITINs can build and maintain credit. Credit bureaus may be able to provide a report based on other identifying information (name, date of birth, employment history) however it may not be as accurate as one tied to an SSN, or the credit bureau may not reliably be able to pull together information for a full credit report without the SSN. It appears that methods of pulling a credit report online will not allow an ITIN to be used, but a consumer may write to the credit bureaus and attempt to pull their own credit report with their other identifying information. FHCO admits that at this time tenant screening companies likely cannot gather credit information without an SSN.

In short, currently it is not explicitly illegal to require an SSN for a rental application, nor is it explicitly illegal to deny an applicant because they do not have an SSN. However, a landlord may expose themselves to potential FHA liability if their facially neutral rules end up having an unintended (i.e., “disparate “) impact on a particular identifiable group (i.e., a “protected class”). 

///

///

Oregon’s BOLI states that while you do have the right to select the tenants you want, refusals:

“…to rent cannot be based on a protected class. The protected classes include race/color, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, national origin, and familial status. All applicants must be given the same rental requirements and judged by the same standards.”[3]

Specifically, regarding Social Security Numbers, the FHCO suggests not outright denying for lack of SSN, but instead saying: “show me what you can” and then seeing if the documentation provided and the information that can be gleaned by the screening company is sufficient to give the landlord enough data to accept or deny an application.

For more information:

• http://fhco.org/index.php/discrimination-in-oregon/protected-classes/national-origin/screening-options

• https://www.multifamilypro.com/playing-the-numbers…a-fair-housing-gamble/

3. Can you use an SSN for identification?  Social Security Cards are commonly used as one of a two-piece identification program. For example, the Oregon State ID and Driver’s License program accepts it as a primary document (provided you also have a document showing your date of birth)[4], along with other forms of identity like Passports and Driver’s Licenses. 

The concern with Social Security Cards is that they do not have enough identifying information to be useful as a single or primary method of ID (e.g., a photo, a date of birth, other data that corroborates that it correctly identifies the holder). If it is one of two pieces of information, that does not appear to be a problem. FHCO provides a list of alternative documents that a prospective renter might produce, and a landlord may consider accepting.

Answer A : First, the MHCO Lease cited above addresses this. Not fixing the leaks, which are their responsibility to do, is a violation. Secondly, ORS 90.740(f) requires that tenants "(u)se electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems. The tenant is using the water system in an unreasonable manner when they refuse to fix the leaks.

ORS 90.630 (Termination by Landlord) provides, in relevant part, the following:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant:

(a) Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740;

(b) Violates a rule or rental agreement provision related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with a rental agreement regarding a program of recovery in drug and alcohol free housing... .

ORS 90.630 goes on to explain that you may issue a 30-day written notice of termination, allowing the tenant to fix the leaks within 30 days and avoid termination. If they fail to do so, you may file for eviction. If they cure, but the problem occurs again within six months following the date of your earlier 30-day notice, you may terminate the tenancy within 20 days, and there is no opportunity to cure. MHCO has the necessary forms.

Be sure you have papered your file to support your contention that these are water leaks for which the tenant is responsible, and then specifically describe the violations (there are two of them, one under the Lease, and the other under the statute) in the Notice.

Answer B: This question is same as the prior one and the answer is the same (although the placement of the requirement may not be in the same location, depending on the date of your lease or rental agreement). Just make sure you have the evidence (e.g. plumber statement) before acting, and that you adequately identify the problem and solution in the Notice.

Answer: Much depends on your rules and rental agreement, which you've not addressed. For purposes of my response, I will assume that one or both of these documents require that if a resident wants to have a person live with them at the home, they must so notify the landlord, get a background check and have management approval. If they are going to go onto the lease, then their credit record becomes important, and they would have to provide financial information as well. If the person will not be living there as a resident, then they could enter into a temporary occupancy agreement under ORS 90.275.

However, in your case, assuming that this person is actually a pedophile with a criminal record, he is not someone you want in the community under any circumstances. If he was a resident who signed a rental agreement or lease, Oregon law provides that you may terminate it by giving him not less than 30 days' notice if he is classified as a level three sex offender under ORS181.800 (Risk assessment tool) (3) or is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.838 (Juvenile predatory sex offender defined). (See, 90.630(1)(c).

However, this person is a visitor/guest - you are not legally obligated to permit him in the community if he poses a threat to other persons, or interrupts their peaceful enjoyment. You certainly do not have to give 30-days' notice for him to vacate.

You should promptly contact the mother and tell her that the son must leave. If you are willing to give him a short period of time to find other living arrangements, make sure that he is not loitering around the community. If this is a family park, I would not permit him much more than three days to be gone. He should be warned not to come back. If he and his mother want to visit, it must be outside the community.

If the mother refuses to cooperate, you should contact the local police, and ask them what protocol they would like to you follow to have him removed as a trespasser. In most cases, you would first issue him a written notice (with copy to the mother) informing him that he is not welcomed in the community, and if he comes back after a certain date, you will call the police and have him removed as a trespasser.

Hopefully, this will resolve the matter. If it does not, either because he is seen still coming back into the community, you may have to issue the mother a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630 for violating the rules and/or rental agreement. The rule that would likely apply would prohibit persons from staying in homes as occupants or guests without landlord approval. In such case, you would have to issue her a 30-day notice for cause.

Lastly, until this matter is resolved, I don't recommend accepting rent from the mother (or son). If she pays, return it within ten (10) days after receipt. See, ORS 9i0.412(3)(a).

Answer:  Since there is no rental agreement and you (presumably) have not accepted any rent or other payments from him, he is technically a “squatter.”  Under Oregon law, a “squatter” means a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement (ORS 90.100 (43)).  The “dwelling unit” in this case is the RV space.  Occupancy by a squatter is not governed by the usual landlord-tenant laws under ORS Chapter 90.

This person is first and foremost a trespasser.  As such, you should first try contacting the police or sheriff, explain the situation to them, and ask them to remove this person from the park. You should also ask them to issue a no trespass order so that if he returns, he can be arrested for trespassing.

Unfortunately, sometimes law enforcement officers are reluctant to remove squatters even when they have the lawful authority to do so (i.e., if the squatter lies and says he has paid rent to the park).  In that case, you will need to resort to court action.

There is a “midnight move-in” statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(c)) that allows RV parks to immediately file an eviction case in court without notice if the owner or possessor of an RV places it on park property without the park’s prior consent.  However, since the statute is very specific about applying only to “recreational vehicles,” this statute would not work in your case where the squatter has only a tent.

Fortunately, there is another statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(b)) that also allows a landowner to file an immediate eviction case when a “person in possession . . . is holding possession without any written lease or agreement.”  When you file the eviction case at your county courthouse, ask for and fill out the eviction complaint form for a tenancy notcovered by ORS Chapter 90.  In the section where you must indicate why the park is entitled to possession of the premises, check the “No Notice” box and write:  “ORS 105.115 (1)(b) – Trespasser in possession.” (NOTE:  The filing fee for this kind of case is more than a regular residential eviction case – $281 vs. $88.)  After filing, the case will proceed like any other eviction case.

Finally, be aware that in rare instances, a court might decide that an eviction case is not the right kind of  case to file in this situation (although in my opinion, any such ruling would be legally incorrect under this particular fact pattern).  If that were to happen, you would likely need to file an ejectment case, which is similar to an eviction case, but takes longer and would usually require the assistance of an attorney.

Answer: You are referring to MHCO Form 35B "Manufactured Home Storage Agreement (With Homeowner)." Before addressing your specific questions, it is necessary to point out what this form is intended to do. Here are some that come quickly to mind: (a) A resident, living alone, moves out of the home and wants to sell it on site; (b) A person inherits or buys the home, but cannot be approved for occupancy due to the background check or their financial condition; (c) A resident, living alone, passes away, and the estate wants to sell it.

It is important to remember that this is a "storage" agreement not a "rental" agreement. In fact, it expressly disclaims a "landlord-tenant" relationship between the community and the home owner. Accordingly, the legal relationship is more akin to one in which a party stores their property in a commercial storage facility.

You should not treat a breach of the Storage Agreement as something that is remedied by going to FED court. Rather, the provisions of Oregon law dealing with statutory liens in ORS 87.152 et. seq. apply. This process can get very complicated, and I highly recommend that you secure the services of an attorney before proceeding.

Lastly, the MHCO Storage Agreement contains a provision for mandatory arbitration, in lieu of any other court or legal process. However, the box on the form must be checked in order for it to apply. The reason that this arbitration alternative exists is because it was believed (and still is) that the process mandated by the statutes might be better implemented for park owners through arbitration, which can be cheaper, faster, and easier - especially if the matter becomes contested.

The MHCO form does require that the home be maintained by the owner. Accordingly, you may wish to consider sending a notice to the owner demanding that they do the clean-up work or you will do so, and pass the charge on to them. I don't think the issue of payments and maintenance are the same. Accordingly, I don't believe there is a need to discontinue accepting payments. However, all of this needs to be handled carefully, and for this you should speak with your attorney.

Answer: First, please understand that Oregon law does not directly deal with this - and neither is it addressed in most rental/lease agreements, including MHCO's. So my responses are based upon my opinion alone. Until an appellate court rules on these issues - which is unlikely, since most such cases are never appealed - the best we can do is speculate. My answers are in italics below.

1. Do we write a new lease for the remaining resident or keep the old lease with both residents on the lease? I think I would prefer to see a new lease signed by the remaining resident - even if title remains in both their names. That way, the ex-spouse cannot argue that he or she has a right of occupancy a year or two down the road, when they patch things up, or one moves out and the other moves back in. A new lease would require than any new occupants be qualified all over again. Note that if the lease is changed into the name of the remaining resident, the ex-spouse would certainly have no liability for space rent going forward.

2. Can we legally keep the resident that moved out, responsible for the lease after a divorce and separation of assets? Technically, yes. Neither the divorce decree nor the parties themselves can - without your consent - alter their joint legal duties under a lease they both signed. [This situation is not dissimilar to spouses jointly signing their mortgage and then divorcing; they both remain liable under the mortgage, even though one vacates the home.] The best a divorce court can do is to make the occupying ex-spouse primarily responsible for the rent and give indemnity rights to the non-occupying ex-spouse in case she or he end up having to pay for unpaid rent that should have been paid by the occupying ex-spouse.

3. Do we rescreen the remaining resident to see if he/she qualifies on their own? I have a visceral reaction to doing so - if they did not pass the credit requirements, then what? Deny them the right to stay in the community in which they have lived for a number of years? Kick them out without waiting to see whether they can - or will make the payments? That is like punishing the remaining ex-spouse for being divorced. Remember, the occupying ex-spouse will likely be the custodial parent, if children are involved. The non-custodial parent will likely have some child support obligation, which would then make the custodial parent's individual credit score less important. The same may be said even if there are no children; there may be a spousal support obligation by the non-occupying ex-spouse. It seems to me that it will become clear soon enough, whether the occupying ex-spouse can or will make the space rental payments, independent of what their current credit score may be.

4. If we do rescreen the remaining resident and he/she fails the credit or criminal background, what are our options? Before you re-screen, re-read my answer to Question No. 3 above. If the lease agreement or rules do not address the possibility of spouses divorcing - and I have never seen any that do - the ultimate decision on whether you may re-screen could be left up to a judge. I submit that judges do not like to evict people out of their homes unless there is a compelling reason to do so. A case in which a resident is being evicted for no reason other than that they no longer meet the credit criteria - with no evidence that they are in default under the lease or rules - would be a very difficult sell to most judges. It is unlikely that you would prevail. I compare this situation to requiring a resident to be re-screened upon a job loss or death of a spouse. In cases of such unplanned events occurring after residents have been approved, I suggest that you let the situation play itself out. If a resident cannot afford to pay the space rent, you will then have sufficient cause to evict. But to try to evict because you doubt the ability of the resident to pay rent in the future, is premature and likely to fail.

5. Who owns the security deposit or pre-paid rent? That depends upon whether you have the remaining resident sign a new lease. If a new lease is signed, you could issue a refund check to both of them under the first least, and require the remaining occupant to pay a new deposit under the new lease. It would be preferable, however, to see if they could agree to authorize you to leave the existing deposit in place, but permitting you to refund it, if appropriate, to the remaining occupant at the end of his/her tenancy. If no agreement can be reached, simply hold the deposit until expiration of the tenancy by the occupying non-spouse, and then, if a refund is in order, make the check out to both of them.

Termination for Continuing Violations. In manufactured housing communities, the type of conduct that would make a tenant subject to this 30-day termination notice is the failure to maintain the space which is required under the rules or rental agreement. MHCO Form 43 would be used which – at the title states – is “for continuing violations only.” ORS 90.630(3)(d) defines this as conduct that is “constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing.”

This form is to be completed according to its instructions must specify, in detail, if necessary (including pictures if appropriate):  (i) the reason for the violation: (ii) the source of the violation, e.g., rules, rental agreement, statute, etc.; and (iii) at least one possible remedy. If the violation is cured within the 30-day period, the problem is solved. If it is not cured, the landlord has the right to then file for eviction (being sure to append the 30-day notice to the complaint). Taking photos of the condition upon which the notice is based on the date of the notice and the 31st day thereafter is essential for use in court.

Termination for Distinct Acts or Omissions. However, when the violation is a single event, such as speeding in the community; loud music or other disturbances; fighting; threats of violence, etc., things become more complicated since the landlord does not want to give the tenant 30 days to stop engaging in the offensive activity.  For that reason, landlords must use MHCO Form 43A for violations that constitute a “distinct act or omission.”

The protocol in completing this form is much different than Form 43 and must be followed carefully; it can get confusing. Here it is:

1. The “Deadline” to correct the violation can be no sooner than the 4th day after the date of the notice if hand-delivered or mailed and attached, or the 7th day after the date of the notice if sent via regular mail. (Although not required by law, it is recommended that landlords obtain a certificate of mailing from the post office if regular mail is used.)

2. Similar to Form 43, in 43A the basis for the violation (e.g., rules, rental agreement, etc.) the violation, and the event(s) to cure must also be specified with particularity.

3. If correction does not occur by the Deadline, the tenancy automatically ends on the “Termination Date” which must be at least 30 full days after the date of the notice.  Thus, if the tenant is not out by the Termination Date, the eviction may be filed.  Filing for eviction before the Termination Date would, in my opinion, be premature, since the tenant still has the right to remain at the space for the balance of the month. For repeat violations, see (iv) below.

4. If substantially the same violation occurs within six months following the date of the notice (43A), the landlord may terminate with 20 days written notice to the tenant and there is no right to cure.

Conclusion.  The above discussion is a summary only. There are various nuances. Conduct by a pet or assistance animal is not included. Note there can be some overlap with conduct triggering the 24-hour notice statute under ORS 90.396 (which may be preferable if the conduct involves health and safety). Accordingly, if you have questions that are not answered by the above, check with you legal counsel before filing the notice and before filing an eviction based upon the notice.

[1] Note that rules and regulations are also considered a part of the “rental agreement.”

Answer: Generally the short answer is yes, the Federal Fair Housing laws apply to RV rentals. It also does not matter whether the RV rental is a vacation occupancy rental or a long-term rental. The discrimination laws apply either way.

Specifically, the Federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") prohibits discrimination in the rental of a "dwelling" based upon race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. "Dwelling" includes any vacant land which is offered for lease for locating any "structure" on it. A structure would include an RV.

(Note: State fair housing statutes also protect against discrimination based upon race, color, sex, marital status, source of income (excluding Section 8), familial status, religion, national origin, and disability. Some local ordinances [e.g., Portland and Eugene] protect against discrimination based upon age and sexual orientation.)

As such, and as an initial matter, landlords should avoid asking any questions of RV rental applicants related to these prohibited areas. The sole exception may be the age of a potential applicant if the RV section qualifies as a "55 or older" facility under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The qualifications for "55 or older" housing are very strict and you should always check with your attorney before asking age-related questions on your rental application.

During an RV tenancy, landlords must also be careful to avoid anything that might be interpreted as discriminatory. For example, rent increases should typically be made across the board to avoid discrimination allegations. Another thing to avoid is the uneven enforcement of your rules and regulations. Every RV tenant should be held equally accountable to follow the rules, and appropriate notices should be issued to every tenant who violates the rules to leave no room for any discrimination claims.

Reasonable Accommodation

The Fair Housing Act also prohibits acts that "discriminate against any person... in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling, because of a handicap of that person or any person associated with that person." The FHA defines discrimination as "a refusal to make reasonable accommodation in its rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a [disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The FHA obligates landlords to make "reasonable accommodations" in the "rules, policies, practices, or services," necessary to afford handicapped persons "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."

This means that if an RV tenant requests an "accommodation" for his or her handicap, the landlord is obligated to provide it unless it causes a financial or administrative burden. A typical example might be if a handicapped RV tenant requested an RV rental space closest to the park's RV restrooms/showers. In most cases, the landlord would need to accommodate this request if it were possible to accommodate the request without causing a "burden."

However, landlords need not provide housing to individuals whose "tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." A good example of this would be if an RV tenant requested to keep a pit bull as a "companion animal." In most instances, the landlord would be justified in rejecting this request since pit bulls are generally considered a dangerous breed.

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

Answer: In Oregon, month-to-month RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day, no-cause notice during the first year of their tenancy. After the first year, the no-cause notice to a monthly tenant would need to be a 60-day notice. Use MHCO Form 43C for no-cause RV evictions, choosing either the 30-day or 60-day notice option, depending on the length of tenancy.

Caveat: Portland and Milwaukie both have ordinances requiring 90-day no-cause notices to all monthly tenants, regardless of how long they have been tenants. The City of Bend requires 90-day notices after the first year of tenancy. In addition, Portland requires landlords to make "relocation assistance" payments to tenants evicted for no-cause, ranging from $2,900 to $4,500 - although the applicability of this requirement to RV tenants is legally questionable. Bottom line: Consult an attorney if you have an RV park in any of these cities.

If you have any week-to-week RV tenants, they can be evicted with a 10-day, no-cause notice. This applies even in the municipalities mentioned above, which all provide exceptions for weekly tenants. However, remember that to have a valid "week-to-week" tenancy, you must meet these specific requirements: (1) Occupancy is charged on a weekly basis and is payable no less frequently than every seven days, (2) there is a written rental agreement defining the landlord's and tenant's rights and responsibilities, and (3) there are no fees or security deposits (other than applicant screening charges). If your weekly tenant arrangements do not meet these specific requirements, your tenants will be treated as month-to-month tenants under Oregon law.

If you happen to have any fixed-term RV tenants, you cannot evict them with a no-cause notice until the fixed-term ends. Before that, it would require a for-cause notice (i.e., for breaking a park rule or for not paying the rent).

Finally, there is also an exception under Oregon law for RV "vacation occupants." A "vacation occupant" is someone who: (1) Rents the RV space for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence, (2) has a principal residence other than at the RV park, and (3) does not occupy the RV park for more than 45 days. You would need to have these facts documented in a written agreement. "Vacation occupants" are not "tenants" under Oregon law. They can be asked to leave without any eviction proceedings and the sheriff can be called to assist if necessary.

As usual, you should always seek the advice of a knowledgeable attorney if you are unsure whether you can or should issue a no-cause eviction notice.