Search

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability—what’s known as “protected classes.”

Congress added familial status to the list of federally protected classes when it amended the FHA in 1988. In a nutshell, the familial status provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. Specifically, the FHA’s ban on discrimination based on familial status apply to one or more children under 18 living with:

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

The familial status provisions also apply to pregnant woman and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of one or more children under 18.

Nevertheless, Congress recognized the need to preserve housing specifically designed to meet the needs of senior citizens. Consequently, the 1988 amendment created an exemption from the FHA’s familial status requirements for communities that qualified as “housing for older persons.” Congress later amended the law in the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA), resulting in the current version of the federal exemption for senior housing.

The exemption allows senior housing communities that meet specific requirements to legally exclude families with children. The exemption applies to housing communities or facilities, which are governed by a common set of rules, regulations, or restrictions. A portion of a single building isn’t considered a housing facility or community, according to HUD. The senior housing exemption applies only to the FHA’s familial status provisions; communities must still abide by the law’s protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability.

The law describes three types of communities that are eligible for the senior housing exemption:

1. Publicly funded senior housing communities: Housing communities where HUD has determined that the dwelling is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly persons under a federal, state, or local government program;
2. 62-and-older communities: Communities intended for, and occupied solely by, persons who are 62 or older; and
3. 55-and-older communities: Communities that house at least one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older.

7 RULES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

IN SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES

Rule #1: Comply with Technical Requirements for Senior Housing Exemption

Senior communities must adopt policies and procedures to ensure strict compliance with the technical requirements of the senior housing exemption. If you don’t comply with the law’s requirements, then you lose the exemption, which in essence makes your community automatically liable for excluding or discriminating against families with children. 

Complying with the law governing the 62-and-older exemption is relatively straightforward. To qualify, the community must be intended for and occupied solely by persons aged 62 and older. For example, HUD regulations explain that a 62-and-older community would have to refuse the application of a 62-year-old man whose wife is 59. In the same vein, a community would lose its exemption if it allowed continued residency by a current resident who married someone under the age of 62.

Complying with the law governing the 55-and-older exemption is more complicated. To qualify, the community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

• At least 80 percent of the occupied units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older;
• The community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as “55 or older” housing; and
• The community must comply with HUD’s regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

1. 80 percent rule. To meet this requirement, a community must ensure that at least one person 55 or older lives in 80 percent of its occupied units. The law doesn’t restrict the ages of the other occupants in those units. Furthermore, there are no age limits for the occupants of the other 20 percent, so communities may accept families with children, although they don’t have to do so.

The 80 percent rule applies to the percentage of “occupied units,” which includes temporarily vacant units if the primary occupant has resided in the unit during the past year and intends to return on a periodic basis. That means that a unit would count toward the 80 percent requirement if its 55-year-old occupant resided in the unit for only part of each year.

To maintain eligibility for the exemption, it’s a good idea to ensure that more than 80 percent of your occupied units are occupied by at least one person aged 55 or older. If you skate too close to the line, your community could be forced into a difficult situation—for example, if a 60-year-old resident dies, leaving a 54-year-old surviving spouse.

To prevent just such a problem, HUD advises communities to plan with care when renting the 20 percent portion of the remaining units to incoming households under age 55. Such planning should address notice to incoming households under the age of 55 regarding how the community will proceed in the event that the 80 percent requirement is threatened.

2. Intent to operate as senior housing. A community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to operate as housing for persons 55 years of age or older. HUD offers some examples of the types of policies and procedures to satisfy this requirement, including:

• The written rules, regulations, lease provisions, or other restrictions;
• The actual practices of the community used to enforce the rules;
• The kind of advertising used to attract prospective residents to the community as well as the manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; and
• The community’s age-verification procedures and its ability to produce, in response to a familial status complaint, verification of required occupancy.

3. Verification of occupancy. To qualify under the 55-and-older exemption, communities must able to produce verification of compliance with the 80 percent rule through reliable surveys and affidavits.

HUD regulations require communities to develop procedures to routinely determine the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant is 55 or older. The procedures may be part of the normal leasing arrangement. And, every two years, communities must update, through surveys or other means, the initial information to verify that the unit is occupied by at least one resident age 55 or older.

In addition, communities must establish procedures to verify the age of the occupants in units occupied by persons 55 and older through reliable documentation, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, immigration cards, military identification, and other official documents that show a birth date. HUD regulations also allow a certification signed by any member of the household aged 18 or older asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 or older.

Rule #2: Market Your Community as Senior Housing

For 55+ communities, it’s essential to ensure that your advertising and marketing doesn’t undercut your ability to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

To qualify for the senior exemption, the law requires communities to demonstrate an intent to provide housing for older persons. The manner in which your community is described to potential residents is among the relevant factors listed in HUD regulations to determine whether a community has complied with the intent requirement. Using the wrong words to describe yourself not only may trigger a fair housing complaint, but also undercut your ability to demonstrate your intent to operate as “55 or older” housing.

As an example, fair housing expert Doug Chasick points to the increasing number of housing developments that market themselves as “Active Adult” or “Empty Nester” communities. Yet, he points out, using the term “Adult Only” housing was outlawed back in 1988, when President Reagan signed amendments to the FHA into law. He says that some state and local enforcement agencies claim that using these phrases are always illegal because they’re incompatible with the intent requirement.

HUD doesn’t take it that far. It’s true that HUD regulations state that “Phrases such as “adult living,” “adult community,” or similar statements in any written advertisement or prospectus are not consistent with the intent that the housing facility or community intends to operate as housing for persons 55 years of age or older. But HUD says that the use of these terms does not, by itself, destroy the community’s ability to meet the intent requirement, according to HUD. If a facility or community has clearly shown in other ways that it intends to operate as housing for older persons, meets the 80 percent requirement, and has in place age verification procedures, then HUD says that the intent requirement can be met even if the term “adult” is occasionally used to describe it.

That’s not to say that Chasick says it’s a good idea to use those terms in your advertising or marketing materials. In fact, he recommends against it unless you want to be caught up in an expensive investigation or enforcement action. Instead, Chasick recommends using words like “senior housing,” “senior living community,” “a 55 and older community,” or even a “55 and Better Community” when describing your community to demonstrate your intent to operate as housing for older persons.

Coach’s Tip: Chasick warns against using the phrase “active adult” in your advertising and marketing materials. Every senior should be welcome, whether they’re active or not, he says.

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Race or Other Protected Characteristics

The FHA’s senior housing exemption is limited: It offers protection from federal fair housing claims based upon familial status as long as your community meets the FHA’s requirements to qualify as housing for older persons. It doesn’t exempt senior housing communities from any claims based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability, or other characteristic protected under state or local law.

That means that senior communities must take steps not only to qualify under the senior housing exemption, but also to ensure they don’t exclude or otherwise discriminate against applicants or residents based on race or other protected characteristic. For example, senior communities must adopt nondiscriminatory policies and procedures governing the application process and treatment of residents in addition to complying with the age-verification and other requirements to qualify for the senior housing exemption. And train your staff to apply those policies consistently to all applicants and residents, regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability, or other characteristic protected under state or local law.

Rule #4: Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment by or Against Residents

Take steps to enforce rules to prevent harassment or other misconduct by or against residents. If a resident complains about being harassed by other residents based on her race, sex, or any other protected class, then you should take the complaints seriously.

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. Depending on the circumstances, you could face liability under fair housing law if you knew that a resident was subjected to severe and persistent abuse from other residents, but you did nothing to stop it.

Example: In August 2018, a federal court reinstated a fair housing case against an Illinois retirement community for harassment and retaliation. The complaint alleged that the resident 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.

Fair housing law prohibits discriminatory harassment that creates a hostile housing environment. To prove the claim, the resident had to prove that: (1) she endured unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic; (2) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to interfere with her tenancy; and (3) there was reason to hold the community responsible.

The resident’s complaint satisfied the first and second requirements. She alleged that she was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on her sex, and the community agreed that the court’s earlier ruling—that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation qualifies as discrimination based on sex—applied equally to housing discrimination claims. And the alleged harassment could be viewed as both severe and pervasive—for 15 months, she was bombarded with threats, slurs, derisive comments about her families, physical violence, and spit.

The complaint also satisfied the third requirement. When the case goes back for further proceedings, the focus will be on the management defendants to determine whether they had actual knowledge of the severe harassment that the resident was enduring and whether they were deliberately indifferent to it. If so, then they subjected the resident to conduct that the FHA forbids [Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, August 2018].

Editor’s Note: The appeals court’s ruling—that discrimination based on sexual orientation qualifies as sex discrimination—applies to all the states within the court’s jurisdiction, including Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. But more recently, a court in Missouri came to the opposite conclusion—that discrimination claims based on sexual harassment don’t qualify as sex discrimination—and dismissed a complaint filed by a married lesbian couple who alleged that a senior living community turned them away because of their sexual orientation [Walsh v. Friendship Village of South County, January 2019].

Rule #5: Watch for Potential Disability Discrimination Claims

Senior housing communities must pay particular attention to fair housing protections for individuals with disabilities. The FHA prohibits communities from excluding individuals with disabilities or discriminating against them in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the tenancy.

Example: In December 2018, the owners and operators of a California senior housing complex agreed to pay $2,500 to resolve claims that they violated state fair housing laws by denying housing to a prospective resident because she has a disability.

In her complaint, the prospect alleged that the property manager initially approved her tenancy application but rescinded the approval after meeting her and seeing that she uses a wheelchair. The prospect’s daughter had handled most aspects of the application process, including viewing the unit. When the prospect arrived in a wheelchair to sign the lease, the property manager allegedly refused to rent her the unit and accused her and her daughter of misrepresenting the prospect’s identity by bringing other individuals to view the unit.

“The Fair Employment and Housing Act promises that all tenants, regardless of disability, have equal access to housing,” Kevin Kish, Director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, in a statement. “Housing providers have a legal obligation to eliminate unlawful bias from every stage of the housing application process.”

Fair housing law bans discrimination against applicants and residents because they—or someone they’re associated with—is a member of a protected class. HUD says that the FHA’s disability provisions were intended to prohibit not only discrimination against the named tenant, “but also to prohibit denial or housing opportunities to applicants because they have children, parents, friends, spouses, roommates, patients, subtenants or other associates with disabilities.”

Example: In December 2018, HUD announced that a New Jersey condo association representing residents of a 55-and-older condominium development has settled a complaint alleging that it refused to sell a condo to a man with disabilities and his wife because the couple planned to have their adult disabled daughter live with them. The settlement requires the association to pay a $9,000 civil penalty to the United States, undergo fair housing training, and make changes to the associations’ bylaws as they relate to reasonable accommodations. The wife, now a widow, is pursuing claims against the association in state court. The association denies that it discriminated against the family.

“No family whose members have disabilities should be denied the reasonable accommodations 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. “Hopefully, today’s ruling will remind homeowner associations of their obligations under the Fair Housing Act and encourage them to follow the law” [Secretary, HUD v. Tamaron Association, December 2018].

Senior communities must be prepared to comply with the full array of disability protections. For example, the FHA requires communities to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. The law also requires owners to permit residents with a disability, at their expense, to make reasonable modifications to the housing if necessary to afford them full enjoyment of the premises.

Example: In December 2017, the owner and property manager of a California community agreed to pay $11,000 to resolve a HUD complaint alleging disability discrimination against a resident with a mobility impairment. According to her complaint, the resident requested to have a live-in aide and a key to a locked gate near her unit to make it easier for her to come and go. In both instances, she said that the owner and property manager asked her intrusive questions about her disability, challenged whether she really had a disability, asserted that the development was for individuals who could live independently, and ultimately denied her requests.

“Residents with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations that allow them to use and enjoy their home, without unnecessary and invasive questioning,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work with housing providers to ensure they meet their obligation to comply with national fair housing laws.”

Example: In December 2018, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced that a settlement has been reached with the remaining defendants in two federal lawsuits against the operators of dozens of nursing homes and assisted living facilities for allegedly refusing to make American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter services available to deaf and hard-of-hearing residents. Though denying the allegations, the defendants in the latest settlement agreed to pay $245,675 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the case.

The FHJC says that the settlements in these cases ensures that deaf and hard-of-hearing people will have access to ASL services and other auxiliary aids and services as a reasonable accommodation in 61 nursing homes and 35 assisted living facilities in the New York City region. The settlement agreements reached with the defendants in these two cases also yielded a total monetary recovery of nearly $1.2 million in damages and attorney’s fees.

Rule #6: Review ‘Independent Living’ Requirements

Depending on the circumstances, you could face a fair housing complaint for imposing independent living requirements on applicants or residents. Courts have found that a policy requiring applicants to demonstrate an ability to live independently violates fair housing laws protecting individuals with disabilities [Cason v. Rochester Housing Authority, August 1990].

Example: In September 2017, the owner and managers of a 41-unit community in California agreed to pay $18,500 to resolve allegations of discrimination against elderly residents with disabilities who relied on support from caregivers. A fair housing organization filed the complaint on behalf of an elderly resident facing eviction after returning from the hospital with support from a part-time caregiver. Allegedly, the owner and property manager said that they didn’t want the “liability” of her remaining in her home, threatened to call the county to have her “removed,” ordered her to move out, and asked invasive questions about the extent of her disabilities. According to the organization’s complaint, its investigation corroborated the resident’s allegations and revealed that testers calling for disabled relatives were told that the complex was for “independent living” and people who “can take care of themselves.”

Example: In Michigan, fair housing advocates recently sued an affordable senior housing apartment complex, alleging that the community applies “independent living” requirements to force residents with disabilities to move, even if those residents are meeting all the requirements of the lease. The complaint asks the court to recognize the community’s practices as discriminatory and prevent the complex from forcing tenants with disabilities to leave their homes when they remain capable of meeting all of their lease obligations.

“Civil rights laws ensure that people with disabilities can decide for themselves where and how to live in the community of their choosing,” says Susan Silverstein, Senior Attorney at AARP Foundation. “The law doesn’t allow landlords to refuse to accommodate tenants with disabilities,” adds a lawyer for the Michigan Clinical Law Program, “and it certainly doesn’t allow landlords to refuse to let tenants age in place just because they might need some outside help.”

Example: And in New York, fair housing advocates and two individuals sued the state and four adult care facilities, alleging that they maintained and enforced blanket policies barring wheelchair users, regardless of their individual needs or abilities, and steered applicants who use wheelchairs to nursing homes.

One of the individual plaintiffs, an elderly woman with disabilities, alleged that she was barred from returning to one of the communities once she began using a wheelchair. According to the woman, the community tried to evict her because of an internal policy barring admission of people who use wheelchairs and state health department regulations that supported such policies at these and other facilities.

The lawsuit also alleges that New York State promotes disability discrimination through its regulations and policies, including its policy permitting adult homes to ban wheelchair users from admission. Until recently, state health department regulations stated that adult homes and assisted living programs should not admit or retain people who are “chronically chairfast.”

The state has since amended the regulations to eliminate the phrase “chronically chairfast” and to add language that operators may not exclude individuals solely because they primarily use a wheelchair for mobility and must make reasonable accommodations as necessary to comply with the law. Last fall, the court issued an order directing the community to allow the elderly woman to return to her home. The case is still pending in federal court.

Rule #7: Comply with Applicable State and Local Laws

It’s critical to review applicable state and local fair housing laws because the laws affecting senior housing may vary substantially, depending on your location. For example, HUD points out that federal fair housing law doesn’t cover age discrimination, which is a protected characteristic under some state and local fair housing laws.

Moreover, HUD notes that some state and local governments with fair housing laws that have been determined to be substantially similar to the federal law may not include an exemption from the familial status discrimination for housing for older persons.

Alternatively, some state or local laws impose different standards for the senior housing exemption. In California, for example, the legislature adopted more stringent requirements on senior housing than is required under the FHA “in recognition of the acute shortage of housing for families with children” in that state. The law imposes specific requirements related to accessibility, common areas, and refuse collection.

Still other state and local laws apply an older version of the federal exemption. Under the original 1988 legislation, 55-and-older communities had to have “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons” to qualify for the exemption.

Though Congress eliminated the “significant services and facilities” requirement from federal fair housing law, some states didn’t follow suit. In Georgia, for example, communities are still required to furnish “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons” to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

Coach’s Tip: HUD urges communities to check all relevant state, local, and federal laws, as well as any requirements imposed as a term of governmental financial assistance before implementing policies and procedures that limit residents’ eligibility. Because of the complexity of the issues involved, you should get legal advice from an attorney well versed in the legal requirements for senior housing issues in your jurisdiction. 

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

Coach Source

Douglas D. Chasick, CPM, CAPS, CAS, ADV. RAM, CLP, SLE, CDEI: The Fair Housing Institute, Inc.; Norcross, GA;

Answer: ORS 90.100 (Definitions) provides as follows:

(13)"Essential service" means: (b) For a tenancy consisting of rental space for a manufactured dwelling, floating home or recreational vehicle owned by the tenant or that is otherwise subject to ORS 90.505 to 90.850: (A)Sewage disposal, water supply, electrical supply and, if required by applicable law, any drainage system; and (B)Any other service or habitability obligation imposed by the rental agreement or ORS 90.730, the lack or violation of which creates a serious threat to the tenant's health, safety or property or makes the rented space unfit for occupancy. (Emphasis added.)[1]

Bottom line:Providing phone service is not defined as an "essential service" under Oregon's landlord-tenant law, and therefore is not required to be provided. Since most people have cell phones, I see little inconvenience in not having a land line - with the exception of the infirm or elderly, who may not have cell phone service. I would hope that for such residents, neighborhood efforts by other tenants would possibly provide welfare checks, since a phone line could be a life line in some instances.

The only exception to the above would be if the park's rental or lease agreement provided for phone service. In such case, the absence of it could arguably be construed as '_a serious threat to the tenant's health, safety or property... ."

[1]ORS 90.730 (Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition) provides:

(1) As used in this section, "facility common areas" means all areas under control of the landlord and held out for the general use of tenants.

(2) A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition. The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home. A landlord's habitability duty under this section includes only the matters described in subsections (3) to (6) of this section.

(3) For purposes of this section, a rented space is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks:

(a) A sewage disposal system and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the sewage disposal system can be controlled by the landlord;

(b) If required by applicable law, a drainage system reasonably capable of disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water, approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order;

(c) A water supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained so as to provide safe drinking water and to be in good working order to the extent that the water supply system can be controlled by the landlord;

(d) An electrical supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the electrical supply system can be controlled by the landlord;

(e) A natural gas or propane gas supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the gas supply system can be controlled by the landlord, if the utility service is provided within the facility pursuant to the rental agreement;

(f) At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;

(g) Excluding the normal settling of land, a surface or ground capable of supporting a manufactured dwelling approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained to support a dwelling in a safe manner so that it is suitable for occupancy. A landlord's duty to maintain the surface or ground arises when the landlord knows or should know of a condition regarding the surface or ground that makes the dwelling unsafe to occupy; and

(h) Completion of any landlord-provided space improvements, including but not limited to installation of carports, garages, driveways and sidewalks, approved under applicable law at the time of installation.

(4) A rented space is considered unhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree as required by ORS 90.727.

(5) A vacant space in a facility is considered unhabitable if the space substantially lacks safety from the hazards of fire or injury.

(6) A facility common area is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks:

(a) Buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;

(b) Safety from the hazards of fire;

(c) Trees, shrubbery and grass maintained in a safe manner;

(d) If supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord to a common area, a water supply system, sewage disposal system or system for disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the system can be controlled by the landlord; and

(e) Except as otherwise provided by local ordinance or by written agreement between the landlord and the tenant, an adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish in clean condition and good repair at the time of commencement of the rental agreement and for which the landlord shall provide and maintain appropriate serviceable receptacles thereafter and arrange for their removal.

(7) The landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant is to perform specified repairs, maintenance tasks and minor remodeling only if:

(a) The agreement of the parties is entered into in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord;

(b) The agreement does not diminish the obligations of the landlord to other tenants on the premises; and

(c) The terms and conditions of the agreement are clearly and fairly disclosed and adequate consideration for the agreement is specifically stated. [1999 c.676 _6; 2007 c.906 _40; 2011 c.503 _10; 2013 c.443 _2; 2015 c.217 _7]

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.

2. It prohibits landlords from requiring as a condition of occupancy, that residents enter

   into consignment agreements with the landlord.

3. It prescribes the specific conditions under which a landlord may sell a resident's home

   on consignment:

a. The landlord must be licensed to sell dwellings under ORS 446.661 to 446.756;

i. The license may be held by a person other than the community owner, so long as there is common ownership between them;

b. The landlord and resident must first enter into a written consignment contract that specifies at a minimum:

1. The duration of the contract, which, unless extended in writing, may not exceed 180 days;

2. The estimated square footage of the home, together with the make, model, year, vehicle identification number and license plate number, if known;

3. The price offered for sale of the home;

4. Whether lender financing is permitted, and the amount, if any, of the

   earnest money deposit;

5. Whether the transaction is intended to be closed through a state-licensed

   escrow;

6. All liens, taxes and other charges known to be in existence against the

   home that must be removed before the resident can convey marketable

   title to a prospective buyer;

7. The method of marketing the sale of the home (e.g. signs posted in the

   community; Internet advertising; print publications, etc.);

8. The form and amount of compensation to the landlord (e.g. fixed fee

   with amount stated; commission percentage, etc.); and

ix. In determining the resident's net sale proceeds, the order by which the gross sale proceeds will be applied toward payoff of the liens, taxes, actual costs of sale, landlord compensation, and other closing costs.

c. Within 10 days after a sale, the landlord is to pay the resident their share of the sale proceeds, and provide a written accounting for all funds received;

d. The above-described process (i.e. through a written consignment agreement with landlord acting as the resident's representative) is the only permissible way a landlord may recover any commission, fee (however designated), or retain a portion of the sale proceeds of a resident's home in the community.

4. In cases in which a landlord is attempting to sell a home under ORS 90.680 and so is a resident in the community, the following new rules will apply:

1. If a landlord advertises a home for sale within the community, a resident selling their home may do so as well, by posting a sign in a similar manner and location;

2. A landlord may not knowingly make false statements to a prospective purchaser about the quality of a resident's home also being offered for sale;

3. Note: Nothing prevents a landlord from selling a home to a prospective purchaser at a price or on terms, including space rent, that are more favorable than the price and terms offered for homes offered by residents.

5. Miscellaneous:
a. If a landlord requires a prospective purchaser to submit an application for

occupancy, upon request from the purchaser, the landlord must provide, a copy

of the application;

2. Upon a prospective resident's request for a copy of the rental/lease agreement,

   the landlord may require payment of a reasonable copying charge;

3. If the prospective purchaser agrees, a landlord may provide these requested

   documents in an electronic format;

4. When a landlord considers an application for tenancy from a prospective

   purchaser of a resident's home, the landlord shall apply substantially similar credit and conduct screening to a prospective purchaser of a home from the landlord;

5. A landlord or resident who sells a home located inside the community is required to deliver title to the purchaser within 25 business days after completion of the sale;

6. If the sale by the landlord or resident includes paperwork whereby the seller is carrying back a contract or security interest and the purchaser is paying some or all of the purchase price with installment payments, where applicable, the landlord or resident is required to notify the county that the purchaser is responsible for property tax payments;

7. If a person violates ORS 90.680 three or more times within a 24-month period, a person damaged thereby has a cause of action against the violator for the damages caused as a result of the third or subsequent violation or $500, whichever is greater.

Without getting into all the case details, suffice it to say that because of an inadvertent mistake on a background check, the couple claimed that they had become “tenants” (they were not) and refused to leave the park.  This forced the park to issue a formal eviction notice and go to court, at which point the guests demanded what turned out to be a two-day jury trial.  (NOTE:  While uncommon, defendants in an eviction case are entitled to a jury trial under Oregon law if they demand one.)

Before the actual trial, the case dragged on for over two months primarily due to court scheduling issues.  In the meantime, the couple harassed other park residents with their “beliefs” and promoted their hate speech websites by handing out unsolicited flyers.  The couple then represented themselves at trial and mostly used it as a forum to rant to the jury about their beliefs.  The jury returned a verdict for the park, so the couple will soon be evicted by the sheriff.

For RV parks, this highlights the need to include in your guest registration documents Oregon’s “vacation occupancy” language stating that: (1) the occupants rent the RV space for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence, (2) the occupants have a principal residence other than at the RV space, and (3) the period of authorized occupancy does not exceed 45 days. This prevents occupants from becoming “tenants” and should allow you to have them removed as trespassers if they refuse to vacate upon request.  Also be sure to NEVER accept monthly payments from guests, which could arguably make them “tenants.”  Only charge and accept daily rates from vacation occupants and never let them stay more than 45 days.

This case also reinforces the need for all landlords to conduct thorough background checks on every tenant applicant.  There are numerous online tenant screening companies offering this service.  A tenant screening service can reveal important information that Oregon landlords can consider when denying an applicant.  This includes, among other things, negative credit history, certain criminal convictions, prior evictions, and other information that might threaten the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises for other residents.

Answer. Oregon law requires that unless exempted, an individual must use a "mortgage loan originator" ("MLO") [e.g. mortgage bankers or mortgage brokers] license if he/she:

• Takes a residential mortgage loan application; or
• Negotiates the terms or conditions of a residential mortgage loan.

It is the second of these two requirements that affect you as a park owner re-selling formerly abandoned homes. You must either use a MLO or be covered by an exemption. However, as you will see under the Oregon MLO laws below, the statute is not limited only to "abandoned homes" - just "previously owned homes."

The Safe Act. The federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Lending Act ("S.A.F.E. Act") of 2008 requires that MLOs register with the Oregon Department of Business and Consumer Services ("DCBS"). As required by the S.A.F.E. Act, all states must adopt their own set of laws governing MLOs. Oregon's version is found at ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB"), a Dodd- Frank created mega-agency, and DCBS have taken the position that the S.A.F.E. Act applies not only to third-party loans, but also to seller-carried transactions, including manufactured homes both inside and outside of parks.

Oregon MLO Laws. An individual may not engage in business as a mortgage loan originator in Oregon without first:

• Obtaining and maintaining a MLO license; and
• Obtaining a unique identifier from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ("NMLS").

Oregon Exemptions to MLO Laws:

• A registered MLO acting within the scope of their employment;
• One who offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan with or on behalf of the individual's spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild or a relative in a similar relationship with the individual that is created by law, marriage or adoption;
• One who offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan that is secured by a dwelling that served as the individual's residence;
• An Oregon-licensed attorney [subject to limitations]:
• An individual licensed as a manufactured structure dealer under ORS 446.691 and who:
  • Offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan related to a sale for occupancy of a previously owned manufactured dwelling in a manufactured dwelling park three (3) or fewer times in any 12- month period; and
  • Uses a written sale agreement form with the purchaser that: (a) complies with the requirements of ORS 646A.050, 646A.052 and 646A.054; (b) with any applicable administrative rules; and (c) any other applicable requirements for residential mortgages for manufactured dwellings.
  • Note: This exemption does not permit the individual to hold more than eight (8) residential mortgage loans at any one time.
• An individual who is licensed as a limited manufactured structure dealer, and who:
  • Has an ownership interest in a manufactured dwelling park;
  • Offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan related to a sale for occupancy of a previously owned manufactured dwelling in any manufactured dwelling park in which the individual has an ownership interest, five (5) or fewer times in any 12-month period; and
  • Uses a written sale agreement form with the purchaser that: (a) complies with the requirements of ORS 646A.050, 646A.052 and 646A.054, (b) with any applicable administrative rules, and (c) with any other applicable requirements for residential mortgages for manufactured dwellings.
  • This exemption does not permit the individual to hold more than twelve (12) residential mortgage loans at any one time.
• An employee of a licensed manufactured structure dealer is not subject to the MLO licensing requirements if the employee:
  • Performs only administrative or clerical tasks; and
  • Receives only a salary or commission that is customary among dealers and employees of dealers.
• An employee of a dealer may become subject to the licensing provisions if the CFPB determines, in a guideline, rule, regulation or interpretive letter that this exemption granted is inconsistent with requirements set forth in 12 U.S.C. 5101 et. seq. (S.A.F.E. Act)

Answer. Oregon law requires that unless exempted, an individual must use a "mortgage loan originator" ("MLO") [e.g. mortgage bankers or mortgage brokers] license if he/she:
- Takes a residential mortgage loan application; or
- Negotiates the terms or conditions of a residential mortgage loan.

It is the second of these two requirements that affect you as a park owner re-selling formerly abandoned homes. You must either use a MLO or be covered by an exemption. However, as you will see under the Oregon MLO laws below, the statute is not limited only to "abandoned homes" - just "previously owned homes."

The Safe Act. The federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Lending Act ("S.A.F.E. Act") of 2008 requires that MLOs register with the Oregon Department of Business and Consumer Services ("DCBS"). As required by the S.A.F.E. Act, all states must adopt their own set of laws governing MLOs. Oregon's version is found at ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB"), a Dodd- Frank created mega-agency, and DCBS have taken the position that the S.A.F.E. Act applies not only to third-party loans, but also to seller-carried transactions, including manufactured homes both inside and outside of parks.

Oregon MLO Laws. An individual may not engage in business as a mortgage loan originator in Oregon without first:
- Obtaining and maintaining a MLO license; and
- Obtaining a unique identifier from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ("NMLS").

Exemptions to MLO Laws:
- A registered MLO acting within the scope of their employment;
- One who offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan with or on behalf of the individual's spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild or a relative in a similar relationship with the individual that is created by law, marriage or adoption;
- One who offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan that is secured by a dwelling that served as the individual's residence;
- An Oregon-licensed attorney [subject to limitations]:
- An individual licensed as a manufactured structure dealer under ORS 446.691 and who:
o Offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan related to a sale for occupancy of a previously owned manufactured dwelling in a manufactured dwelling park three (3) or fewer times in any 12- month period; and
o Uses a written sale agreement form with the purchaser that: (a) complies with the requirements of ORS 646A.050, 646A.052 and 646A.054; (b) with any applicable administrative rules; and (c) any other applicable requirements for residential mortgages for manufactured dwellings.
o Note: This exemption does not permit the individual to hold more than eight (8) residential mortgage loans at any one time.
- An individual who is licensed as a limited manufactured structure dealer, and who:
o Has an ownership interest in a manufactured dwelling park;
o Offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan related to a sale for occupancy of a previously owned manufactured dwelling in any manufactured dwelling park in which the individual has an ownership interest, five (5) or fewer times in any 12-month period; and
o Uses a written sale agreement form with the purchaser that: (a) complies with the requirements of ORS 646A.050, 646A.052 and 646A.054, (b) with any applicable administrative rules, and (c) with any other applicable requirements for residential mortgages for manufactured dwellings.
o This exemption does not permit the individual to hold more than twelve (12) residential mortgage loans at any one time.
- An employee of a licensed manufactured structure dealer is not subject to the MLO licensing requirements if the employee:
o Performs only administrative or clerical tasks; and
o Receives only a salary or commission that is customary among dealers and employees of dealers.
- An employee of a dealer may become subject to the licensing provisions if the CFPB determines, in a guideline, rule, regulation or interpretive letter that this exemption granted is inconsistent with requirements set forth in 12 U.S.C. 5101 et. seq. (S.A.F.E. Act)

Answer.  First, let’s deal with the vacant mobile home next door to the troublesome neighbor. You need to review your community rules and the rental/lease agreement to see what restrictions might apply. 

The MHCO Rental/Lease Agreement contains a quiet enjoyment provision similar to ORS 90.740which requires that the tenant “…(b)ehave, 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.”[1] 

I assume you have already contacted the problem tenant and requested he/she refrain from such conduct. I would elevate this to a written warning, so you have documentation in the file should he refuse to stop.

The next step, if he/she continues, is, depending upon the applicable provisions of your rules and rental/lease agreement, to issue a notice of termination under ORS 90.630(1)(b) for a material violation of a “… rental agreement[2]provision related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy….”

And thanks to a 2019 legislative change, ORS 90.630now provides that a 30-day notice of termination may be issued if the prohibited conduct is a “…separate and distinct act or omission *** the tenant “…may avoid termination by correcting the violation by a designated date that is at least three daysafter delivery of the notice.” (Emphasis added.) If substantially the same conduct is repeated with six month after the termination date, a landlord may issue a non-curable 20-days’ notice of termination.[3]

As to the other tenant interfering with your manager’s efforts to rent an RV space, the manufactured housing section of ORS Chapter 90,[4]does not apply, so you must look to that portion of the landlord-tenant law that applies to all other rentals, such as homes and apartments, etc.[5]

You still need to review your rules and rental agreement for a quiet enjoyment provision, or use the statutory equivalent found in ORS 90.325(1)(g). The non-manufactured housing termination for cause statute, ORS 90.392applies. It contains the same “distinct act” and non-curable “repeat violation” provisions. It providesfollows:

· The notice must:

• Specify the acts and omissions constituting the violation;
• State that the rental agreement will terminate upon a designated date not less than 30 days after delivery of the notice; and
• If the tenant can cure the violation, state that the violation can be cured, describe at least one possible remedy to cure the violation and designate the date by which the tenant must cure the violation.

· If the violation described in the notice can be cured by the tenant by a change in conduct, repairs, payment of money or otherwise, the rental agreement does not terminate if the tenant cures the violation by the designated date.

· The designated date must be:

o At least 14 days after delivery of the notice; or

o If the violation is conduct that was a separate and distinct act or omission and is not ongoing, no earlier than the date of delivery of the notice as provided in ORS 90.155.

· If the tenant does not cure the violation, the rental agreement terminates as of the termination date provided in the notice.

· If substantially the same act or omission occurs with six months of the designated termination date, the notice of termination must be not less than 10 days after delivery of the notice, and the tenant does not have a right to cure the violation.

Lastly, I regard this conduct as a different type of activity than the normal Chapter 90 violations. You might consider discussing this with your attorney, since it clearly interferes with your ability to run your business. The loss of potential tenants can have serious financial consequences. Perhaps a letter to the troublesome tenants would be appropriate, warning them of financial claims if the conduct continues. 

Answer:  My answer requires that I make some assumptions:

• When you say “pre-approved” I will assume he has not received a final approval;
• I will assume that somewhere in your application paperwork it states that the landlord-tenant relationship does not commence until the rental or lease agreement is signed.
• I will assume that management did not say or do anything to cause the applicant to believe he could purchase the home before final approval.
• Accordingly, I will assume that the person is NOT legally a tenant in your community.

ORS 90.303(3)(Evaluation of Applicant)[1]provides that when evaluating the applicant, the landlord may consider criminal conviction and charging history if the conviction or pending charge is for conduct that is: 

     (a) A drug-related crime; 

     (b) A person crime; 

     (c) A sex offense; 

     (d) A crime involving financial fraud, including identity theft and forgery; or 

(e) Any other crime if the conduct for which the applicant was convicted or     charged is of a nature that would adversely affect: 

  (A) Property of the landlord or a tenant; or 

(B) The health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of residents, the landlord or the landlord’s agent.  (Emphasis added.)

So, under the facts of your question (subject to my assumptions), you are within your rights to decline the applicantat the present time.[2]  Since he is not legally a “tenant” under ORS Chapter 90, the landlord tenant law would not apply, so I would notsuggest proceeding under the abandonment statute, ORS 90.675(Disposition of Manufactured Dwelling). 

There is no “limit” on how long an approved applicant has to sign the rental agreement in ORS. But there is nothing preventing you from inserting this requirement in your application paperwork.[3]

So that he could recoup the cost of the home, I would try to reach out to him and propose, subject to a carefully drafted agreement, that he could sell the home to an approved tenant. Have him enter into a storage agreement with monthly payments, but no occupancy.  

While technically you would not be subject to the park-sale statute, ORS 90.680(Sale of Dwelling), you could use it for guidance when screening other applicants for tenancy.

Because, while Oregon permits the medical use of marijuana, the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. _ 801, et seq., says that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, and possess marijuana, even when state law authorizes its use. Furthermore, federal law supersedes state law where there is a direct conflict between them. So, what does a landlord do when confronted by a card-carrying tenant claiming that he/she cannot be evicted for marijuana use and/or cultivation, because they have a legal right to do so under Oregon law. To second arrow in the tenant's quiver is the threat that "if you try to evict me, I will sue you under the federal Fair Housing laws that say you must grant me a reasonable accommodation [i.e. let me toke on the premises] because I have a "disability." Discussion. Clearly, this is a very complicated issue on several levels. Marijuana is a controlled substance under Federal Law, but under Oregon law, its use and cultivation in limited amounts are lawful with a medical marijuana card. The Oregon laws cover such things as grow-site registration; medical uses for marijuana; issuance of an identification card; and limitations on a cardholder's immunity from criminal laws involving marijuana. For those interested, the specific statutes should be consulted here. Based upon recent news reports, it appears that, subject to certain exceptions, there will be no effort by the federal Department of Justice to seek out and charge violators of the Controlled Substances Act in those states where the medical or recreational use of marijuana are legal. The Conundrum. In short, it appears that when it comes to enforcement of their rules and regulations, Oregon landlords are on their own; neither the feds, nor the state, will go after persons with lawfully issued medical marijuana cards. Furthermore, if a tenant has a valid card, then arguably he or she has some medical condition that has authorized its issuance. Is the landlord obligated under the Fair Housing laws to make a "reasonable accommodation" for their medical condition, and permit the tenant to continue their use or grow operation? If properly done, the answer may be "No." Here's why: In January 20, 2011, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") issued a Memorandum, the subject of which was "Medical Use of Marijuana and Reasonable Accommodation in Federal Public and Assisted Housing." While the Memo was limited to federal public and assisted housing, it can be regarded as a helpful - though perhaps not a "final" resource - on the issue. It is very complete and helpful for all landlords. It can be found at this link. Here is what the Memo directs: Public housing agencies '_in states that have enacted laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana must therefore establish a standard and adopt written policy regarding whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance for residents who are medical marijuana users. The decision of whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance to medical marijuana users is the responsibility of PHAs, not of the Department." Thus, HUD appears to be leaving it up to the state public housing authorities to decide whether the refusal to permit on-premises use of medical marijuana constitutes a fair housing violation. Between the lines, it appears that HUD will not directly investigate such claims, leaving it up to public housing agencies on the state level. While HUD's pronouncement is directed toward "public housing" is would be hard to believe private housing would be treated any differently. Oregon fair housing law is "substantially equivalent" to federal fair housing law. So, generally speaking, on the issue of medical marijuana, as goes the federal law, so goes state law. However, in the 2010 case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court held that employers do not have a legal duty to allow employees to use medical marijuana on the job. This case addressed many unanswered questions on the use of medical marijuana in Oregon, both from an employment and housing perspective. Additionally, a subsequent article [found here] by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon is helpful for landlords from the view of private fair housing enforcement. Thus, it appears that in Oregon, on both the federal and state levels, enforcement agencies are [for the time being at least] taking a laissez-faire approach to the medical marijuana issue. This means that landlords have it within their control, with little fear of a fair housing/reasonable accommodation claim, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises use of medical marijuana. However, the proscription should not be retroactive to tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards who have already signed their rental agreements or leases. Oregon Landlord-Tenant Laws. Oregon statutes permit landlords to enforce tenant violations of their rental agreements, rules, and general laws [not just the landlord-tenant laws]. It is my belief that the violation of a no medical marijuana policy would be enforceable on a going forward basis. The policy should not be retroactive - and it should so state. In summary, ORS 90.630 [Termination by Landlord] provides as follow: - After delivery of written notice, a landlord may terminate the rental agreement for cause and take possession in accordance with the state eviction laws [ORS 105.105 to 105.168], unless the tenant cures the violation. - Causes for termination are: _ Material violations of the rental agreement; _ Material violation by the tenant of his/her legal duties under [ORS 90.740]; _ Failure to pay rent. - The landlord's notice to the tenant must: _ Specify the acts and omissions constituting the violation; _ State that the rental agreement will terminate upon a designated date not less than 30 days after delivery of the notice; and _ If the violation may be cured under the law, so state and describe at least one possible remedy to cure it, designating the date by which the cure must occur. - If the violation described in the notice can be cured, and is cured by the designated date, the tenancy will not terminate; - If the tenant does not cure the violation, the rental agreement terminates as provided in the notice. - If the cause of a written notice relates to substantially the same act or omission that constituted a prior violation for which notice was given within the previous six months, the designated termination date must be not less than 20 days after delivery of the notice and no earlier than the designated termination date stated in the previously given notice. The tenant does not have a right to cure this subsequent violation. Miscellaneous Tips. Landlords, read the medical marijuana card! It must valid and current for Oregon. A California card, for example, would not suffice. [See, State v. Berrenger, 2010]. If there is no card, or no current card, the growing [not use] of marijuana may still be a violation of Oregon law. In such cases, issuance of a curable 30-day notice under ORS 90.630 may be appropriate. If other tenants are complaining about the odor [and many do], a landlord may consider looking to the "quiet enjoyment" provisions of the rental agreement, the rules, or the provisions in ORS 90.740(4)(i). Conclusion. Rental management companies and individual landlords in Oregon may wish to institute a written medical marijuana policy in their rules and/or rental agreements, dealing both with use and cultivation. Based upon current federal law, it does not appear to be a fair housing violation to prohibit medical marijuana in the landlord's rental agreement or rules. If such a policy exists, it should include management's right to decline a request for a reasonable accommodation. Remember, besides nonpayment of rent, there are only three ways to terminate a tenancy for cause: - Violation of the rental/lease agreement; - Violation of the rules; and - Violation of Oregon laws. This means that in Oregon, if a tenant engages in the legal use or cultivation of marijuana - i.e. with a valid card - doing so is not a violation of state law. If a landlord seeks to prevent such activity, the answer must then be found, if at all, in the rental agreement or the rules. Without an express prohibition contained in one of these documents, it may be difficult to bring an eviction action for legal marijuana use or cultivation - unless the tenant's conduct violates some other rule or provision in the rental agreement.

Answer:  Oregon House Bill 4213 prohibits residential evictions (including eviction notices) based on nonpayment of rent or other charges owed to the landlord, and further prohibits no-cause evictions against residential tenants through September 30, 2020.  The federal government through the CDC issued an order placing a nationwide ban on nonpayment residential evictions through December 31, 2020.  (Under both, rent is deferred, not waived, although HB 4213 waives late fees and gives tenants until March 31, 2021 to repay past-due amounts.)

Oregon HB 4213 protects tenants from nonpayment and no-cause evictions until September 30, 2020.  After that, the CDC order takes over to protect tenants ifthey submit a sworn declaration to the landlord stating that the tenant:  (1) has used best efforts to obtain all available government housing assistance, (2) does not expect to earn more than $99,000 in 2020, or no more than $198,000 if filing taxes jointly, (3) is unable to pay full rent due to lost income, lost employment, or extraordinary medical expenses, (4) is using best efforts to make timely partial rent payments as circumstances permit, (5) if evicted is likely to become homeless or will need to move to “a new residence shared by other people who live in close quarters,” (6) understands that rent, late fees and other lease charges must eventually be paid in full, and (7) understands that after December 31, 2020, the landlord may evict the tenant if past-due payments are not made in full.

The bottom line is that RV parks should NOT be issuing anynonpayment notices (i.e., 72-hour rent nonpayment notices or otherwise) or no-cause notices to tenants until at least October, which is when the statewide eviction moratorium under HB 4213 is scheduled to end.  And while I have my doubts about the legality and enforceability of the CDC order, I also recommend that landlords notissue any nonpayment notices until the end of the year ifa tenant submits the required declaration.  There are potential criminal penalties for landlords who violate the CDC order, which together with the cost of litigation make it entirely too risky to ignore.

The other issue is whether HB 4213 and the CDC order apply to short-term, “vacation occupants” in an RV park?  The answer is “no.”  In Oregon, “vacation occupants” are not covered by the protections given to “tenants” by HB 4213 and ORS Chapter 90.  The CDC order also exempts properties “rented to a temporary guest or seasonal tenant as defined under the laws of the State, territorial, tribal, or local jurisdiction.”

A “vacation occupant” under Oregon law meansoccupancy in a dwelling unit (which includes an RV rental space), that has all of the following characteristics:  (a) The occupant rents the unit for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence; (b) the occupant has a principal residence other than at the unit; and (c) the period of authorized occupancy does not exceed 45 days.  So long as your temporary RV park guests fall into this category, they cannot exercise any tenancy-based rights under either state or federal law to avoid being removed from the park for nonpayment.  However, be careful to ensure that your temporary guests actually fit this category, preferably with a written registration agreement specifying that they are, in fact, vacation occupants.

As usual, you should consult with a knowledgeable attorney before you resume issuing nonpayment or no-cause eviction notices.  Also be sure to check whether your county or local municipality may have enacted a broader moratorium that could cover short-term RV guests.