Search

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:  This is a new one.  The Oregon landlord tenant law does not expressly address this specific issue. The closest it comes are the following laws:

1. ORS 90.755 Right to speak on political issues; limitations; placement of political signs:

(1) No provision in any bylaw, rental agreement, regulation or rule may infringe upon the right of a person who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home to invite public officers, candidates for public office or officers or representatives of a tenant organization to appear and speak upon matters of public interest in the common areas or recreational areas of the facilityat reasonable times and in a reasonable manner in an open public meeting. The landlord of a facility, however, may enforce reasonable rules and regulations relating to the time, place and scheduling of the speakers that will protect the interests of the majority of the homeowners.

            (2) The landlord shall allow the tenant to place political signson or in a manufactured dwelling or floating home owned by the tenant or the space rented by the tenant. The size of the signs and the length of time for which the signs may be displayed are subject to the reasonable rules of the landlord. (Emphasis added.) 

2. 90.750 Right to assemble or canvass in facility; limitations. No provision contained in any bylaw, rental agreement, regulation or rule pertaining to a facility shall:

            (1) Infringe upon the right of persons who rent spaces in a facility to 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 of the facility. Reasonable times shall include daily the hours between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.

            (2) Infringe upon the right of persons who rent spaces in a facility 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 facility or manufactured dwelling or floating home living. The discussions may be held in the common areas or recreational areas of the facility, including halls or centers, or any resident’s dwelling unit or floating home. The landlord of a facility, however, may enforce reasonable rules and regulations including but not limited to place, scheduling, occupancy densities and utilities.

            (3) Prohibit any person who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home from canvassing other persons in the same facility for purposes described in this section. As used in this subsection, “canvassing” includes door-to-door contact, an oral or written request, the distribution, the circulation, the posting or the publication of a notice or newsletter or a general announcement or any other matter relevant to the membership of a tenants’ association.

            (4) This section is not intended to require a landlord 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.

            (5) This section is not intended to require a landlord to permit any person to disregard a tenant’s request not to be canvassed. (Emphasis added.)

3.  90.740 Tenant obligations. A tenant shall:

            (3) Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in compliance with the rental agreement and with any laws or ordinances that relate to the tenant’s behavior as a tenant.

            (4) Except as provided by the rental agreement:

            (a) Use the rented space and the facility common areas in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended;

            (i) Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors. (Emphasis added.)

So, you see, this simply isn’t addressed in the landlord-tenant law.  Nor should it be.  Clearly, the resident leaving the religious material in the clubhouse could, if he or she wanted, go door to door proselytizing, unless and until others complained.  If the materials are left anonymously, without more than a single resident being offended, I’m not sure what the landlord could or should do.   Remove and destroy the materials?  

If the landlord knows who is doing this, perhaps a personal discussion with them might be in order. But telling them to “stop” because a single person is offended seems unnecessary.  If there is a place in the clubhouse for storage of reading materials, perhaps removing the literature to that location would work.  Certainly, no rule change prohibiting placement of materials in the clubhouse (just because they are religious) is unnecessary.  Management cannot be responsible for controlling the placement of written materials in the clubhouse unless it is offensive, inappropriate for minors and guests.[i] This is what free speech is all about.  My view would be the same regardless of the denomination of the literature.  If I’m incorrect, I’m sure I will hear about it.

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.

10 Essential Rules for Avoiding Fair Housing Trouble

This month, we highlight 10 essential rules to help you to comply with fair housing law. Housing discrimination has been outlawed for more than 50 years, but all too often communities still find themselves on the wrong side of the law and are forced to pay out thousands—and in some cases millions—in settlements or court awards, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees to get themselves out of fair housing trouble.

In this article, we’ll provide an overview of fair housing requirements and offer 10 essential rules to help you ward off fair housing problems at your community. 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status. In a nutshell, the FHA prohibits communities from excluding or otherwise discriminating against prospects, applicants, and residents—as well as anyone associated with them—based on any of these protected characteristics.

The FHA also bans discriminatory statements—including advertising—that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. And the law prohibits retaliation against anyone for exercising his or her rights under fair housing law or assisting others who exercise that right.

FOLLOW 10 ESSENTIAL RULES

TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

Rule #1: Don’t Discriminate Based on Race or Color

The FHA bans discrimination based on both race and color, two separate but closely related characteristics. In general, race refers to a person’s physical appearance and color refers to a characteristic of a person’s race, so discrimination claims based on color are often coupled with claims based on race.

Be sure to give prospects the same information about availability and the terms and conditions of tenancy, such as screening criteria, rental terms, and any other relevant information. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to deny housing based on an applicant’s race or color by providing different and false information about terms, conditions, and availability of rental properties.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of two New York apartment buildings agreed to pay $272,000 to resolve allegations of racial discrimination against African American prospects in violation of federal, state, and local fair housing laws. The Fair Housing Justice Center filed the lawsuit based on the results of a two-year investigation involving white and African American testers posing as prospective renters. The complaint alleged that the white testers were repeatedly shown available units and encouraged to apply, while the African American testers were routinely told that no apartments were available for rent.

It’s also important to apply the community’s policies and procedures—including screening criteria—consistently without regard to race, color, national origin, or other protected characteristics. Whatever your policy on criminal background checks, for example, applying it only to applicants who are members of racial or ethnic minorities, but not to white applicants, is a sure way to trigger a fair housing complaint.

Example: In August 2019, the owners and managers of a Tennessee community agreed to pay $42,250 to resolve a race discrimination case alleging that they denied the rental application of an African-American applicant because of his criminal record, despite contemporaneously approving the rental applications of two white people with disqualifying felony convictions.

Tip: If your community has a policy to conduct criminal background checks, check to make sure it passes muster under HUD’s 2016 guidelines on the use of criminal records in conventional and assisted housing communities. The HUD guidance doesn’t prevent communities from screening applicants based on their criminal history, but you could trigger a fair housing complaint if the policy, without justification, has a disparate impact—or discriminatory effect—on minority applicants.

Rule #2: Don’t Discriminate Based on National Origin

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on national origin, which means the geographic area in which a person was born or from which his or her ancestors came. National origin discrimination means treating people differently because they or their family are from outside the United States, or because they have physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of persons from a foreign geographic area.

Example: In March 2019, the owners of a Minnesota rental home and a realty company agreed to pay $74,000 to resolve allegations that they refused to rent to a family of five adults and six minor children because they are Native American and Hispanic, and had minor children. HUD’s charge alleged that the housing providers discouraged the family from renting the six-bedroom home by offering them less favorable rental terms, including increasing the requested monthly rent by $1,000.

“Denying a family housing because of their ethnicity or familial makeup not only robs them of a place to call home, it violates the law,” Anna María Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Tip: In September 2016, HUD issued new “Limited English Proficiency” (LEP) guidance on how fair housing law applies to claims of housing discrimination brought by people because they don’t speak, read, or write English proficiently. Although people with limited English proficiency are not a protected class under the FHA, the law bans discrimination based on national origin, which is closely linked to the ability to communicate proficiently in English.

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Religion

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on religion, so it’s unlawful to refuse to rent to people, or to treat them differently, because of their religion. For example, it’s unlawful to show favoritism toward applicants who share your religious beliefs—or bias against—those of other religious faiths.

Example: In December 2019, a California homeowners association (HOA) and its management company agreed to pay $40,000 to resolve allegations that they refused to permit a condo owner to display a religious object, a mezuzah, on her front doorpost because it violated community rules. A mezuzah is a small object placed on the doorpost of many Jewish homes in fulfillment of religious obligations. Allegedly, someone forcibly removed the mezuzah from her doorpost.

“A rule prohibiting the display of a mezuzah effectively makes that housing unavailable for many observant Jews,” said Kevin Kish, director of California’s Department of Fair Employment & Housing. “For that reason, DFEH interprets California fair housing law to require landlords and HOAs to permit residents to display mezuzah outside of their homes.”

Tip: The FHA doesn’t define “religion,” but fair housing experts believe it’s broad enough to prohibit discrimination against individuals who aren’t affiliated with a particular religion or don’t ascribe to particular religious beliefs. Treating people differently simply because they do—or do not—attend religious services or identify with a religious faith could lead to fair housing trouble.

Rule #4: Don’t Discriminate Against Families with Children

Fair housing law prohibits discrimination because of familial status, which FHA defines to mean households with one or more children who are under 18 years of age, where the child is living with:

• A parent,
• A person who has legal custody (such as a guardian), or
• A person who has the written permission of the parent or legal custodian to care for the child.

That covers not only traditional families with children, but also same-sex couples, single mothers or fathers, grandparents, and others who have permission to have a child under 18 living with them. It also includes pregnant women and those in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child, such as a foster or adoptive parent.

There’s a limited exception to the familial status provisions that allows senior housing communities to lawfully exclude children, but it applies only if the community satisfies strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” Otherwise, it’s unlawful to refuse to rent to families with children under 18 by enforcing an “adults-only” policy or adopting rules, such as an age limit, that would prevent children from living there.

Overly restrictive occupancy standards can lead to discrimination claims based on familial status because they limit the housing choices of families with children under 18. In general, the law considers two people per bedroom—regardless of gender—to be a reasonable occupancy standard, but there are exceptions based on the size or configuration of the unit and other factors.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of a single-family rental home in Idaho agreed to pay $15,000 to settle allegations that they discriminated against a family attempting to lease their 2,600 square foot, four-bedroom rental home because they have seven minor children. HUD’s charge alleged that when the couple met with the property manager about renting the home, he told them that the owners had set a limit of four children for the home.

“Persons attempting to provide a home for their family should not have their housing options limited because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

The FHA’s familial status provisions also protect pregnant women from discrimination, so it’s unlawful to require residents to move out because of the birth of a child.

Example: In April 2019, the owners and operators of a student housing community in Arizona agreed to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to resolve allegations of discrimination based on sex and familial status. The Tucson Civil Rights Division brought a charge of housing discrimination against the community after viewing an example lease agreement on the apartment complex’s website. Allegedly, a portion of the lease agreement stated that if a female resident became pregnant, then she must vacate the apartment upon or prior to the birth of the child.

Rule #5: Don’t Discriminate Based on Sex

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against applicants based on their sex. Making decisions about whether to accept or reject applicants based on their sex can lead to costly fair housing litigation, particularly when combined with allegations of discrimination based on familial status or other protected characteristics. 

Example: In June 2018, the owner of a three-unit rental community in South Dakota agreed to a $3,000 settlement to resolve allegations of discrimination based on sex and familial status. The complaint alleged that the owner refused to rent a unit to a woman and her 17-year-old daughter because she would be concerned about any woman being alone there and she had “always rented to bachelors” [U.S. v. Kelly, South Dakota, 2018].

Sexual harassment—that is, unwelcome sexual conduct—is a form of discrimination based on sex, according to HUD, which explains the two main types of sexual harassment:

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a housing provider requires a person to submit to an unwelcome request to engage in sexual conduct as a condition of obtaining or maintaining housing or housing-related services. HUD offers these examples:

• A landlord tells an applicant he won’t rent her an apartment unless she has sex with him.
• A property manager evicts a tenant after she refuses to perform sexual acts.
• A maintenance man refuses to make repairs unless a tenant gives him nude photos of herself.

Hostile environment harassment occurs when a housing provider subjects a person to severe or pervasive unwelcome sexual conduct that interferes with the sale, rental, availability, or terms, conditions, or privileges of housing or housing-related services. HUD offers these examples:

• A landlord subjects a tenant to severe or pervasive unwelcome touching, kissing, or groping.
• A property manager makes severe or pervasive unwelcome, lewd comments about a tenant’s body.
• A maintenance man sends a tenant severe or pervasive unwelcome, sexually suggestive texts and enters her apartment without invitation or permission.

Combatting sexual harassment remains a top priority for federal enforcement officials, who continue to come down hard on owners and managers accused of sexual harassment against prospects, applicants, or residents.

Example: In August 2019, the owner and manager of rental properties in New York agreed to pay $850,000 to resolve allegations that he sexually harassed numerous female applicants and residents for nearly three decades. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that the landlord subjected former residents and prospects to unwanted sexual intercourse, sexual advances and comments, groping or other touching of their bodies without consent, and offers to reduce or eliminate security deposits and rent in exchange for sexual contact. The complaint also accused him of taking or threatening to take adverse action against residents when they refused or objected to his advances.

“The sexual harassment of the vulnerable female applicants and tenants in this case by their landlord is an egregious and intolerable violation of federal civil rights law,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue to pursue any depraved landlords and others who prey upon vulnerable women” [U.S. v. Waterbury, New York, August 2019].

Rule #6: Don’t Discriminate Based on Disability

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on disability. Under fair housing law, disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The list of impairments broadly includes a wide range of physical and mental conditions, including visual and hearing impairments, heart disease and diabetes, HIV infection, and emotional illnesses. Examples of major life activities include seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and speaking. In sum, the law protects anyone with a physical or mental impairment that’s serious enough to substantially affect activities of central importance to daily life—even if it isn’t obvious or apparent.

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to deny housing to people—or to treat them less favorably than others—because of a disability.

Example: In October 2019, the owner and manager of a California community agreed to pay $50,000 to resolve a fair housing claim by a resident who alleged that her lease was illegally terminated based on her disability. In her complaint, the resident claimed that the community terminated her lease because throughout her tenancy she experienced multiple medical emergencies that required the assistance of an ambulance to transport her to the hospital. Allegedly, the property manager received complaints from other residents about these emergencies.

“Housing providers cannot terminate or decline to renew a lease simply because they disfavor tenants with disabilities,” Kevin Kish, Director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said in a statement.

Tip: Although the disability rules protect those recovering from past drug addiction, it specifically excludes anyone who is currently using illegal drugs. The law also excludes individuals with disabilities whose tenancy would constitute a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others—or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others—unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation. Nevertheless, federal guidelines warn against a blanket policy that excludes anyone based upon fear, speculation, or stereotypes about disabilities. Instead, the law requires an individualized assessment of whether that particular applicant or resident poses such a threat based on reliable objective evidence of current conduct or a recent history of overt acts.

Rule #7: Carefully Consider Reasonable Accommodation and Modification Requests

In addition to the general rules banning disability discrimination, the FHA imposes affirmative duties on housing providers—with respect to reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and accessibility design features—to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the same opportunity as everyone else to have full use of the community.

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, practices, or services if necessary for an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the housing. In general, communities are required to make an exception to the rules, when requested, if it’s both reasonable and necessary to allow an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community. Common examples include a request to keep an assistance animal in a community with a no-pet policy or a request for a reserved parking spot in a community that doesn’t have assigned parking.

Example: In August 2019, a New Jersey HOA agreed to pay $30,000 to resolve allegations of discrimination against a resident with disabilities by denying her the right to have a dog as an assistance animal. According to the HUD charge, the community allegedly required the resident, who has hearing and sight disabilities, to cage her animal in common areas and use the service entrance when entering and exiting the building with the animal.

“No person with a disability should be denied the reasonable accommodation they need to make a home for themselves,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Example: In March 2019, the owners and managers of a San Diego apartment complex agreed to pay $17,000 to resolve allegations that they denied the request of a resident with disabilities for a designated parking space close to the building. The HUD complaint was filed by the resident, who uses a wheelchair, alleging that his request for an assigned parking space in the development’s garage had been denied. He said that the community later allowed him to park in non-assigned accessible spaces in the garage, but it wouldn’t give him the key necessary to enter the garage and to use the elevator. As a result, the resident said that whenever he wanted to enter the garage, he had to wait for another resident to open the gate, then follow that person in so he could use the elevator.

“To a person with mobility limitations, a designated parking space can mean the difference between merely living in a development and truly being able to call a place home,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Tip: The FHA also makes it unlawful to refuse to allow reasonable modifications to the unit or common use areas, at the applicant or resident’s expense, if necessary for the individual with a disability to fully use the housing. Reasonable modifications are structural changes to interiors and exteriors of units and to common and public use areas, such as lobbies, main entrances, and parking lots. Examples include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for people in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for persons in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible, or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area.

Rule #8: Abide by Rules Banning Discriminatory Advertising

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. Liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. Instead, the focus is on whether the statement would suggest a preference to an “ordinary reader or listener.” The rules apply not only to verbal and written statements, but also to all advertising media, including newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and the Internet.

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

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

Rule #9: Watch Out for Potential Retaliation Claims

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with” anyone who has exercised a fair housing right—or anyone who assisted others in exercising that right. Because discrimination and retaliation are separate violations under fair housing law, you could face liability for retaliation if you take adverse action against a resident solely because he filed a discrimination complaint against you—even if the discrimination claim is ultimately dismissed.

Watch out for potential retaliation claims when dealing with requests for reasonable accommodations or modifications by or on behalf of individuals with disabilities. The law protects people from retaliation for exercising their right to make disability-related requests.

Example: In March 2019, the owner and manager of a California rental community agreed to pay $6,000 to settle allegations that they refused to remediate mold at the property as a reasonable accommodation for a couple with disabilities and retaliated against them for asking that the mold be removed. In their HUD complaint, the couple alleged that the owners retaliated against them for making the reasonable accommodation request by increasing their rent and issuing a notice terminating their lease.

“Reasonable accommodation requests aren’t requests for special treatment. They are what many individuals with disabilities need to live in the place they call home,” Anna María Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement.

Rule #10: Abide by Applicable State and Local Fair Housing Laws

To avoid fair housing trouble, it’s important to comply with not only the FHA, but also applicable state or local fair housing laws. Often, these state and local laws extend fair housing protections beyond federal requirements to ban discrimination based on:

Marital status: Nearly half the states prohibit housing discrimination based on marital status, which generally means being single, married, divorced, or widowed.

Age: Many state and local laws ban discrimination based on age, though there are significant differences in how the laws apply because of the way they define age.

Sexual orientation and gender identity: Many state and local fair housing laws ban discrimination based on sexual orientation; of those, many, but not all, also cover gender identity or transgender status.

Source of income: Many state and local fair housing laws also cover lawful source of income to ban discrimination against people based on where they get their financial support. The specifics of the laws vary, but they generally apply to wages, retirement benefits, child support, and public assistance. Of those, many, but not all, also cover housing subsidies, most notably Section 8 housing vouchers.

Military status: Some state and local laws offer some form of fair housing protection for military status. The laws generally prohibit discrimination against active duty members and veterans of the armed forces, reserves, or state National Guard.

Other protected classes: Some state and local laws ban discrimination based other factors, such as status as survivor of domestic violence, genetic information, HIV status, lawful occupation, political beliefs or affiliation, student status, alienage or citizenship, personal appearance, or arbitrary personal characteristics.

Don’t relax your focus once the holidays are over—religious discrimination claims could arise at any time of year. Fair housing law makes it unlawful to exclude or otherwise discriminate against applicants or residents because of their religion. If you explicitly or implicitly suggest that you have a preference for—or against—members of certain religious groups in the way you advertise, market, or operate your housing community, you could be accused of violating fair housing law.

This month, we’ll review the law and suggest eight rules to follow to help you avoid claims of religious discrimination during the holidays—and all year long. Then, you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing based on a number of characteristics, including religion. Among other things, it’s unlawful to:

• Deny housing to anyone because of his religion;
• Steer or discourage anyone from living in your community because of his religion;
• Impose different terms or conditions because of his religion;
• Harass or retaliate against anyone because of his religion; or
• Make statements—oral or written—that indicate a preference for or against anyone because of his religion.

Taken together, these provisions prohibit communities from treating people differently based on their religious beliefs or practices. For example, you can’t show favoritism toward people who share your religious beliefs—or bias against those of other religious faiths.

Furthermore, you could run afoul of fair housing law by treating people differently simply because they do—or do not—attend religious services or identify with a religious faith. The FHA doesn’t define “religion,” but fair housing experts believe it’s broad enough to prohibit discrimination against individuals who are not affiliated with a particular religion or do not ascribe to particular religious beliefs.

Coach’s Tip: The FHA includes a narrow exemption that allows religious organizations, which own or operate housing for noncommercial purposes, to limit occupancy or give preferential treatment to members of the same religion, as long as membership in the religion is not restricted on account of race, color, or national origin.

FOLLOW 8 RULES FOR AVOIDING

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Rule #1: Make Everyone Feel Welcome at Your Community

At the holidays—and all throughout the year—it’s important to make all prospects, applicants, and residents feel welcome, regardless of their religious beliefs or practices.

As communities have become more religiously and culturally diverse, your residents may celebrate a variety of religious holidays. Many celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah, while others may observe religious holidays that may be unfamiliar to you. Some celebrate cultural or spiritual occasions, such as Kwanzaa or the winter solstice, while others don’t celebrate any holidays at all. Regardless of whether or how they celebrate the holidays, all are protected from discrimination under the FHA—and can’t be treated differently because of their beliefs or practices.

Rule #2: Leave Religion Out of the Leasing Process 

Take a close look at your application policies and procedures to ensure that your community doesn’t exclude or otherwise discriminate against applicants based on their religious affiliation or beliefs.

Example: In July 2019, the Justice Department announced a settlement in a fair housing case alleging that a Michigan community discriminated on the basis of religion by prohibiting non-Christians from owning homes at the summer resort community.

In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that a nonprofit municipal association owned the community’s land and leased lots to members who owned the cottages built on those lots. Specifically, the complaint alleged that from 1986 to 2018, the association’s bylaws required that in order to become a member of the association and thus eligible to own a cottage, an individual must, among other things, be “of Christian persuasion” and obtain a letter of recommendation from the pastor (or designated leader) of the church the individual attends.

Under the settlement, the association agreed to amend its bylaws, articles of association, and membership application materials to eliminate the religious restriction on membership [U.S. v. The Bay View Association of the United Methodist Church, Michigan, July 2019].

Rule #3: Make Sure Advertising and Marketing Practices Don’t Suggest Religious Preference

Check to ensure that your advertising and marketing practices and materials don’t suggest a preference for or against anyone based on her religion.

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to make, print, or publish any notice, statement, or advertisement that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. According to federal regulations, you may not use “words, phrases, photographs, illustrations, symbols or forms which convey that dwellings are available or not available to a particular group of persons because of…religion.” According to HUD, that means that advertisements may not include explicit preferences—such as “Christian community”—or limitations—such as “No Jews.” It’s also unlawful under the FHA to advertise that you prefer only those who are members of an organized religion.

Don’t forget: Fair housing law doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent to establish liability for making discriminatory statements. Instead, the focus is on whether the statement would suggest an unlawful preference to an “ordinary reader or listener.” Even if you don’t intend to discriminate against applicants or residents based on their religion, you could unintentionally suggest you have such a preference for members of one religion over another. Though unlikely, by itself, to lead to a fair housing complaint, evidence of an implied preference could be used against you if there is other evidence of religious discrimination.

For example, HUD has said that advertisements of descriptions of the housing community, such as “apartment complex with chapel,” or services, such as “kosher meals available,” do not on their face state a preference for persons likely to make use of those facilities and are not violations of the FHA. But that doesn’t mean that you should emphasize religious amenities, such as your community’s proximity to a particular church or other house of worship, according to fair housing experts, who warn that they may suggest a preference for members of that faith. 

HUD observes that in some cases, the name of the housing community—such as the “Roselawn Catholic Home”—or use of a religious symbol—such as a cross—in an advertisement could indicate a religious preference. Nevertheless, HUD says that it won’t be considered a fair housing violation if the ad includes a disclaimer to indicate that the housing community doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and other protected characteristics. In most cases, however, fair housing experts caution against use of religious symbols in your advertising or marketing materials unless there are special circumstances such as, for example, when it’s part of a registered trademark or logo.

Rule #4: Aim for Inclusiveness During the Holiday Season

This time of year, many communities put up decorations, send greetings, or host festivities to promote good cheer. There’s nothing wrong with decorations and festivities to mark the holiday season, as long as they don’t appear to be promoting a particular religion or religious holiday. It’s unlawful to express a preference for—or against—anyone based on religion, so celebrating only one religious holiday—to the exclusion of others—could lead to a fair housing problem.

You can’t go wrong with secular messages, such as “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays,” and seasonal displays featuring lights, evergreens, icicles, and snowflakes. You can even include pictures of Santa Claus and signs that say, “Merry Christmas,” which have been recognized by HUD as secularized terms and symbols that don’t violate fair housing law.

When it comes to decorating common areas, it’s sometimes hard to know where to draw the line between religious and secular and symbols. Our experts warn against putting up nativity scenes, but opinions were mixed with respect to menorahs and Christmas trees. Some experts say that communities should avoid using them and any other decorations with religious connotations when decorating common areas. Others suggest calling it a “Holiday tree” and decorating it with seasonal, nonreligious lights and ornaments. Still others say menorahs and Christmas trees have become secularized—like “Merry Christmas” and Santa Claus—so it’s fine for communities to include them among other holiday decorations with other nonreligious, seasonal themes.

Coach’s Tip: Many communities hold parties and other special events during the holidays. While such events are a great amenity for your residents, make sure that the events are not religious or used to promote a particular holiday. Fair housing experts warn against calling it a Christmas party or playing Christmas carols with religious themes. Instead, keep the celebration neutral by calling it a holiday party or winter celebration and playing music celebrating winter themes. Invite all residents, regardless of their religious affiliations. Make sure residents know all are welcome but avoid any impression that they must attend holiday events.

Rule #5: Allow Residents to Display Religious Decorations Inside Their Units

Most of our fair housing experts warn against allowing residents to decorate lobbies, hallways, and other common areas since it’s up to the community to maintain them in a religiously neutral manner. Inside their units, however, residents should be allowed to display holiday decorations, including personal religious items, as long as they are in keeping with community rules.

It can get more complicated when dealing with holiday decorations on the unit’s front door, and unit interiors that are visible from outside, such as windows, patios, and balconies. As a general rule, communities have the right to enforce rules related to the appearance of those areas, but the rules must apply consistently to religious and secular objects alike. Some communities allow residents to hang religious decorations on their front doors and windows, while others have rules banning decorations of any kind in outdoor areas.

But be careful: Taking a hard line against outside decorations whatsoever may be effective, but it could trigger a complaint that the community is interfering with a resident’s religious rights.

Example: Earlier this year, a court overturned a jury verdict in a dispute between an Idaho couple and a homeowners association involving their Christmas display. The dispute dates back to 2015, when the couple notified the HOA that they intended to buy a home in the subdivision and needed a quick answer about whether the board would oppose use of the property for their Christmas program. The homeowners’ stated reason for hosting the Christmas program was to support various charities and engage in ministry.

In response, the HOA indicated that the program would violate certain community rules and pointed out that some residents were non-Christians or of other faiths. The HOA said it didn’t intend to discourage the couple from becoming part of the community, but it didn’t want to become entwined in expensive litigation to enforce longstanding rules and fill the neighborhood with hundreds of people and possible “undesirables.”

The couple bought the home and in 2015, and in 2016 they hosted the Christmas program, which involved decorating the exterior of the home with 200,000 lights, a nativity scene with a live camel, and characters in costume. Commercial busses were used to transport people to and from the program; the busses were parked in front of their home and adjacent properties. Many other people drove to the event and parked throughout the neighborhood. Hundreds of people attended the program on a nightly basis; in total, thousands attended over each five-day period.

Facing opposition from neighbors, the homeowners sued the HOA, accusing the community of discrimination and harassment against them because they were Christian. After a series of proceedings, the case went to a jury, which sided with the homeowners and awarded them $75,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

In the latest ruling, the court overturned the verdict, ruling that the jury was unfairly prejudiced by evidence of alleged threats made by neighbors because of the Christmas program. The ruling is pending an appeal [Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., Idaho, April 2019].

Coach’s Tip: As an alternative to a blanket rule banning any outside decorations, some communities permit residents to put up decorations related to holidays and other occasions—both religious and secular—on the doors and windows of their units, or on outdoor patios and decks, subject to size and space limitations. If you go that route, it’s a good idea to impose time limits to require removal of the items within a certain period after the related event.

Rule #6: Treat Residents Consistently—Regardless of Religion

Adopt policies and practices to ensure that your community doesn’t treat residents differently based on their religious affiliation or beliefs. The FHA bars communities from discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling—such as higher fees or more onerous lease terms—or the provision of services or facilities at the housing community—such as withholding or delaying maintenance services—on the basis of religion. The law also prohibits communities from steering applicants to certain areas within the community because of their religion. Make sure that your entire staff understands that they may not give preferential treatment to members of their religion or less favorable treatment to members of other faiths.

It’s also unlawful to hold residents to different standards of conduct just because they are members of a particular religion. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, for example, HUD warned that a housing community could be accused of religious discrimination if it acts improperly in response to complaints from neighbors about Muslim residents. While communities must be responsive to complaints from residents, HUD says that you should take action against residents only when based on legitimate property management concerns. As an example, HUD cites a neighbor’s complaint about a Muslim resident’s weekly meeting of Muslim men, whom the neighbor says appear to be “unfriendly” and might be “up to something.” If the visitors don’t disturb other residents in their peaceful enjoyment of the premises, HUD says that the housing provider could face a discrimination complaint if it asks the resident to refrain from having Muslim guests without evidence of any violation of established community rules.

Rule #7: Allow Equal Access to Your Common Areas

Allow your residents equal access to the community’s common areas, including amenities, without regard to religion and other protected characteristics. HUD regulations state that it’s unlawful to limit use of the privileges, services, or facilities associated with a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

For example, some communities allow residents to use the community’s common room for family parties and similar functions. If you allow residents to reserve the room for various types of activities, then you must make it available to residents regardless of whether they want to use it for secular or religious purposes. It’s unlawful for communities to allow residents to reserve the room for card games and other social events, but to deny it to a resident who wants to use the room for a prayer meeting, according to the Justice Department.

And all residents must have equal opportunity to use amenities, regardless of their religious or cultural background. If you permit a resident to hold a Christmas party in the room, then you must allow a Jewish resident to use the room for a Hanukkah party.

On the other hand, be careful that any religious accommodations don’t infringe on the rights of others to use and enjoy your common areas. You could face a discrimination claim if you restrict access to your amenities to accommodate religious practices of a majority of your residents in a way that denies equal access to other residents.

Example: In April 2019, an appeals court ruled that a New Jersey condo community’s pool schedule discriminated against women in violation of fair housing law. Roughly two-thirds of the residents of the 55-plus community were Orthodox Jews. To accommodate Orthodox principles regarding modesty, the community adopted rules for pool use designating certain hours when only members of a single sex were allowed to swim. Though the number of hours for each sex was roughly the same, the large majority of hours in the evening were reserved for men.

The court concluded that the pool schedule discriminated in its allotment of different times to mem and women in addition to using sex as its criterion. The schedule allowed women to swim less than four hours after 5 p.m. on weeknights, compared with more than 16 hours for men. Women with regular-hour jobs had little access to the pool during the work week, and the schedule appeared to reflect particular assumptions about the roles of men and women [Curto v. A Country Place Condo. Assoc., Inc., New Jersey, April 2019].

Rule #8: Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment By or Against Residents

Take steps to enforce rules to prevent religious harassment or other misconduct by or against residents. You shouldn’t be expected to police the behavior of your residents, but you should make it clear that bullying or any other forms of harassment based on protected characteristics won’t be tolerated.

If you receive a complaint from a resident about religious harassment by a neighbor, then it’s important to investigate and act swiftly to resolve the problem. Unless you take such complaints seriously, you could be accused of tolerating religious discrimination at your community. That could lead to a fair housing complaint and, depending on the circumstances, potential liability if a court finds that you knew about the neighbor’s religious harassment but didn’t do enough to stop it.

Example: Earlier this year, the Supreme Court let stand a ruling reinstating fair housing claims against an Illinois retirement community for harassment and retaliation. In her complaint, the resident alleged that she endured months of physical and verbal abuse by other residents because of her sexual orientation, and that despite her complaints, the community did nothing to stop it and in fact, retaliated against her because of her complaints. Further proceedings were needed to determine whether management had actual knowledge of the alleged harassment and whether they were deliberately indifferent to it [Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, Illinois, August 2018].

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

Answer. This issue is not dissimilar to one asked recently where the hospitalized resident's sister came as a concerned family member and, bringing her small child, wanted to stay at the home which was located in a 55+ community.

My response then, s here, is that ORS Chapter 90, like most laws, is enacted to address essentially 80% of the most commonly observed landlord-tenant issues. That leaves the other 20% to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, i.e. as they arise. This situation raises issues that do not have a direct answer under the law.

Here, the issue deals, perhaps more directly, with what authority management has to permit friends and family to reside in the home of the comatose resident? Without some assurance that any of these folks would be permitted to stay in the home, the answer is a bit easier than whether a visiting sister with a small child is in violation of the 55+ park rules (she was not).

The most conservative answer is, to me, the best one; unless there is some basis for granting consent, I would not permit anyone to occupy the home, other than the resident. You have no knowledge of the visitor's backgrounds, and permitting them to encamp in the resident's home could pose problems to other residents.

The Oregon landlord-tenant law contains nothing one could point to that would authorize management to turn over possession to friends and family. Even family alone, should not be permitted access. There are simply too many things that could go wrong, and families can do strange things when a member passes away.[1]

• Like taking items from the home that now belong to the estate;
• Like moving in and claiming the home was "inherited";
• Like selling the home and retaining the proceeds, etc.

And what if the resident recovers? Will there be issues when he/she wants to return home, and one or more persons are staying there? What if valuables are missing?

The take-away is this: Absent some fairly clear instructions from the resident, or the attorney-in- fact under a durable power of attorney, the downside in permitting occupancy far outweighs any upside. Your explanation should be simple and straight forward: Oregon law does not authorize you to turn over possession of a resident's home to any unauthorized third parties. Under no circumstances should you accept any rent payments from them.

Lastly, if the friends and family are already staying in the home, you have a different set of problems. These folks are squatters, in that they did not enter into possession under any legal claim of right. ORS 90.100(43) defines a "Squatter" as:

... a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit. "Squatter" does not include a tenant who holds over as described in ORS 90.427 (7).

Accordingly, you should first try to get them to vacate immediately and peaceably. If they refuse, your only alternative is to file for eviction against them. You do not need a written notice, since this case does not arise under the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. You should contact an attorney familiar with eviction law, who can assist you in using the proper summons and complaint. (See, ORS 105.126) Once filed, the case will proceed in much the same fashion as all other evictions.

[1] Remember that the abandonment law has a specific protocol upon death of a resident living alone. Management is required to secure the home, issue a 45-day letter, and give the estate the same rights as a lienholder, with the obligation to pay storage fees and maintain the home until removal or resale. And no one may occupy the home. See, ORS 90.675(21).

Multnomah County landlords temporarily won’t be able to evict tenants who can’t pay rent due to coronavirus.

County Chair Deborah Kafoury and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler announced Tuesday that they have signed emergency orders that ban eviction of tenants who fall behind on rent due to coronavirus-related challenges.

They also announced the county will open hundreds of new shelter bedsin public buildings and other spaces for people experiencing homelessness and Portland’s economic development agency will provide $150,000 in grant to aid businesses in Portland’s Jade District along 82nd Avenue. They said city and county government meetings will be held virtually for the time being.

Under the temporary eviction moratoriums, tenants will have up to six months after March 26, when city and county state of emergencies end, to repay any rent they owe, officials said. The moratoriums apply to people whose jobs are shut down, whose work hours are reduced, who miss work to provide child care due to school closures or who are unable to work because they or a relative are sick from the virus.

Tenants will have to provide letters of proof from their employer, school, doctor or other source to verify their hardship. Landlords who don’t comply with the order could be sued and liable for civil damages as well as other sanctions.

“Yes, everyone should pay their rent on time," Kafoury said. "But for people who are losing their wages due to COVID-19 and find themselves unable to pay rent, we want you to be able to stay in your home.”

Kafoury said discussions are underway with the state courts and county sheriff’s office “to make changes that will keep people housed during this emergency.” She did not elaborate on what those changes would be.

On Monday, Multnomah County Circuit Court suspended all eviction hearings and trials that were scheduled through March 27 and indicated they will be rescheduled for after March 30.

Kafoury said the county will continue to offer motel vouchers for some people who are in shelters and hotels and motels will be banned from refusing occupancy to any of them. She also said some of the newly opened beds will provide space for people who show symptoms of coronavirus and allow them to recuperate.

Wheeler said the grant money for small businesses is being made available first to Portland’s Jade District because the shopping and dining district, centered on Southeast 82nd Avenue and Division Street, is home to many Asian business owners, some of whom seen their revenue drop by as much as 60% amid the coronavirus crisis. There are plans to expand the aid to other businesses throughout the city in the future, Wheeler.

Affected business owners should call 311 for more information, he said.

Wheeler said a city task force was created Monday dedicated to coming up with ideas to help ailing small and large Portland employers and employees. A commercial eviction prevention strategy and other financial relief are also in the works and city officials plan to meet with bank authorities to see if aid can be provided for Portland landlords, Wheeler said. He called on Oregon legislators to increase rental assistance programs statewide.

The mayor said he was proud to hear stories from all over the city of people providing meals and other help to one another during the outbreak.

“We’re in this together. You’re not alone,” Wheeler said. “We will get through this and we’ll get through it together.”

On Monday, Home Forward, the Multnomah County housing authority, announced the same moratorium on evictions for its own buildings.

The moratorium doesn’t go far enough, said Margot Black, co-chair of Portland Tenants United and candidate for City Council. She wants total rent forgiveness -- meaning that renters wouldn’t have to pay back the rent they miss during the state of emergency.

“When this recession or depression hits, we’re not going to be able to pay rent for a long time,” Black said. “It’s not like when things get back to normal, whatever that normal looks like, we can carry a six month rent debt with us and figure out a payment plan.”

Protesters interrupted Tuesday press conference to demand that same, including one person who threatened to cough on Wheeler.

Wheeler acknowledged that forgoing rent payments for six months could hurt some landlords. He said the city of Portland will be calling on banks and credit unions to extend loan repayment timelines in some circumstances.

Answer.Under SB 608 rent increases are limited to 7% plus the September-to-September average change in the CPI, for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor in September of the prior calendar year (“the CAP”)

To increase rent on a month-to-month tenancy, the Landlordmust:

• Give 90-days’ advance written notice (MHCO Form 49)

• Increases may not exceed theCAP.

• Note: For manufactured housing communities in the City of Portland,  Ordinance 30.01.085 provides for the payment of Relocation Assistance for tenants when the rent increase is 10% or more.

The writtennotice must state:

• Amount of rentincrease;
• Amount of the new rent (i.e. total of old rent plusincrease);
• Facts supporting the Exemption,[1]if the increase is above the CAP;  and
• The date on which the increase becomes effective.

No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (“the Department”) is required to calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage under theC AP for the following calendar year as seven percent (7.00%) plusthe September annual 12-month average change in the in the CPIas most recently published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department ofLabor. For the calendar year 2021 that figure is 9.2% (i.e. 7.00% + 2.20%).

To your question as to whether the effective date of the rent increase amount is based on when the notice was sentor when it became effective, I view this as largely academic, since the “annual 12-month average change” is based upon a calculation of the percent change relative to the previous July through August. Thus, the maximum rent CAP of 9.20% will apply to the calendar year 2021, beginning on January 1, and will be known 90 days before January 1, 2021. If the notice is hand-delivered, or nailed and mailed on October 1, 2020, it would be both legal when sent, and legal when it became effective.[2] 

If your rent increase was over the correct maximum figure of 9.20%, but failed to set forth the facts supporting your exemption, you would be in violation of the CAP, which could make you liable to the tenant for 3X the monthly rent, plus actual damages, costs and attorney fees. Also, being wrong would invalidate your increase notice.

Answer. MHCO Form No. 21 (Pet Agreement) provides that:

*** in the event of breach of this Pet Agreement, subject to Oregon law, Management reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to: (a) immediatelyterminate this Pet Agreement and demand removal of the pet(s) and/or (b)terminate the Rental Agreement in accordance with ORS 90.630 or 90.400.[2]

So, if your tenant signed this form, one option you have is to demand removal of the pet. Alternatively, you could proceed under ORS 90.630.

However, your question points up a difference today between the continuing violation form (No. 43) and the one for distinct and separate violations. (No.43 A).

In the past, all violations were given the same period to cure, i.e., 30-days. But changes to the law in 2019 recognized a distinction between violations involving (a) ongoing conduct and (b) those involving separate and distinct events of misconduct. 

This made sense, since certain violations, such as speeding through the community, could violate a Rule, but once issued, had to be followed by another repeat violation notice for the second or subsequent violation within the next six months. 

Now that the law has bifurcated these two types of violations, MHCO developed the two different termination forms.

ORS 90.630 (Termination by landlord) provides, in part, that:

“*** (e)xcept as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the landlord may terminate a rental agreement for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days’ notice in writing before the termination date designated in the notice, if the tenant: *** (b) Materially violates a rental agreement provision related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy;

It defines the two distinct types of conduct:

1. Ongoing Conduct:  *** (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, conduct is ongoing if:

      (a) The conduct is constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing; and

      (b) The violation does not involve a pet or assistance animal.[3]

2. Separate and Distinct Conduct: *** (B) If the violation involves conduct that was a separate and distinct act or omission and is not ongoing, at least three days after delivery of the notice;

      (d) [The notice must state] that the violation is conduct that is a separate and distinct violation and that the date designated for correcting the violation is different from the termination date; and

      (e) At least one possible method by which the tenant may correct the violation.

Discussion. You have treated the pet problem as “ongoing” and issued Form No. 43. But that form and the statute prohibit its use for pet violations. However, the statute does not impose such a limitation for separate violations. Accordingly, Form No. 43 A would be appropriate.  I agree that the distinction can be blurry, since repetitive single acts, such as speeding through the community, could be viewed as “ongoing.” But ignoring the niceties of the distinction, we can agree that the separate act of a pet violation, is best treated using Form 43 A.

However, the take-away here is that requiring the use of Pet Agreements is preferable; it has the benefit of finality, since it allows you to demand removal of the pet, rather than the tenant.[4]

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).