Search

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: 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: 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: 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.

By: Phil Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

Current Oregon Law. ORS 90.680 is the statute governing the on-site sale of homes in a manufactured housing community. It previously contained no limitations on landlords who required, as a condition of tenancy, that residents selling their homes must enter into a consignment agreement with the landlord. That will change on January 1, 2016.

New Oregon Law. ORS 90.680 is now amended as follows:
1. It defines the term consignment" to mean a written agreement in which a resident

authorizes a landlord to sell their manufactured dwelling or floating home in the

community for compensation.

1. It prohibits landlords from requiring as a condition of occupancy

Answer: ORS Chapter 90, the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act, is replete with references to tenant associations. Residents clearly have many rights when it comes to the formation of an association, including the right of assembly and the right to canvass other residents. However, nowhere does the law say that park owners and managers have a legal duty to provide individual contact information to other residents, regardless of the purpose for which it is sought. Here is what ORS 90.750 [“Right to assemble or canvass in facility; limitations”] says on the matter: • No park bylaw, rental agreement, regulation or rule shall infringe upon resident rights to: o Peaceably assemble in an open public meeting for any lawful purpose, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, in the common areas or recreational areas; reasonable times are the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. o To communicate or assemble among themselves, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, for the purpose of discussing any matter, including but not limited to any matter relating to the park, or manufactured dwelling living. • The discussions may be held in the common areas or recreational areas of the facility, including halls or centers, or any resident’s home. • However, the landlord may enforce reasonable rules and regulations including but not limited to place, scheduling, occupancy densities and utilities. • A landlord may not prohibit any resident from canvassing other persons in the same facility for certain prescribed purposes. The term “canvassing” includes door-to-door contact, an oral or written request, the distribution, circulation, posting or publication of a notice or newsletter, a general announcement or any other matter relevant to the membership of a tenants’ association. • However, a landlord is not required to permit any person to solicit money, except that a tenants’ association member, whether or not a tenant of the facility, may personally collect delinquent dues owed by an existing member of a tenants’ association. • Lastly, the statute clarifies that it is not intended to require a landlord to permit any person to disregard a tenant’s request not to be canvassed. To me, this last provision suggests an answer to your question, as it acknowledges that some residents may not want to be “canvassed.” In other words, they have certain rights not to be disturbed, and may request management’s assistance in preventing it from occurring. Accordingly, my view is that before contact information is shared by management with other residents, advance consent should be received from each affected person. Without such consent, I would be very hesitant to give out the information. Certainly, the resident seeking the contact information can try to obtain it by going door-to-door and asking for it. If community management already maintains a published directory of residents that contains names and addresses, I suppose consent is implied by the lapse of time, assuming that everyone knows of the directory. But I would not recommend this practice, and certainly would not share the information with other residents. My conclusions are based not so much on some legal duty of “confidentiality” or legally protectable “right of privacy.” With the Internet, it’s hard to say much of our private information is legally protectable any more. My feeling is a practical one: If there is no affirmative legal duty to provide the information, and there is some risk, however remote, that sharing it without advance consent could anger some residents, it is far better to decline your resident’s request. It does not hamper the association formation process in any way, and respects every resident’s privacy, however limited it is today.

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

Answer: You've already recognized that it really is a matter of personal preference and how each type of tenancy fits into your park's business model. There is certainly an advantage to having long-term tenants so that you have less turnover and you develop a good reputation as an option for residents who plan on staying awhile.

However, month-to-month tenants can only be evicted without cause on 30 days' written notice during the first year of the tenancy, and on 60 days' notice after the first year of tenancy. (But see special note below for Portland and Milwaukie landlords.) Additionally, state law now prohibits rent increases on monthly RV tenants during the first year of the tenancy and requires 90 days' written notice to raise the rent after the first year.

Conversely, week-to-week tenancies make it easier to evaluate a tenant in the short-term to ensure that he or she will work out in the long run. Weekly tenants can be evicted for no cause on 10 days' written notice and rent can be increased on 7 days' written notice. These are significant advantages when evaluating tenants as possible long-term residents.

The primary disadvantage in creating weekly tenants is the administrative burden. To create a week-to-week tenancy in Oregon, it must have all of the following characteristics: (1) occupancy charged on a weekly basis and payable no less frequently than every seven days; (2) a written rental agreement that defines the landlord's and the tenant's rights and responsibilities under Oregon law, and (3) no fees or security deposits, although the landlord may require the payment of an applicant screening charge.

In your situation, it might make sense to put new tenants on weekly agreements at least initially. If they seem to be working out, you can then offer them a new, monthly agreement later. MHCO Form 80 [Recreational Vehicle Space Rental Agreement] can be used for either weekly or monthly tenants. Just be sure to properly fill out the form and do not charge weekly tenants a security deposit or other fees (or you risk automatically making them monthly tenants right away).

Special Note Regarding RV Parks in Portland and Milwaukie: These two cities have enacted local ordinances that override state law and require a minimum of 90 days' written notice for no-cause evictions from the very beginning of a month-to-month tenancy. Landlords in these cities might want to seriously consider the week-to-week tenancy option for RV tenants since weekly tenancies are specifically exempt from this regulation in both cities.