Answer: This situation is not directly addressed in the Oregon manufactured housing laws. First, some general observations: The manufactured housing side of the landlord-tenant law regards the “space” as the “premises.” For example, a resident in an apartment may not, without landlord permission, intentionally make major structural changes to the interior of the premises.
Answer: A temporary occupant is not supposed to be paying the rent. You are not allowed to screen for the occupant’s ability to pay, because they are not a tenant. Your acceptance of rent from the occupant creates an appearance that the occupant is really a tenant. Secondly, the law says that a temporary occupant may not live in the home unless there is a tenant there as well.
Answer: For purpose of addressing this issue, I will assume that the community currently includes the operating costs for the well in the base rent, i.e. it is not a charge to residents outside of base rent that is allocated to them on a prorata (i.e. per space) basis. Well water is not something you may separately charge the residents for under ORS 90.532.
Answer: It’s easy to get confused. There is a lot to remember. Generally all of the answers are contained in ORS 90.630 [Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent].
Answer: This is a good – and important – question. Here are some points to always remember: 1. A resident who is renting the home is not under the manufactured housing section of Oregon’s residential landlord-tenant law (“ORLTA”) which is contained in ORS Chapter 90. This means that you do not treat non-owner residents the same way you would as if they were renting an apartment or home.
Answer: The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) is treated like any other lienholder. It is critical that before the 45-day letter is sent, the park check with the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (“DCBS”) to determine if there are any lienholders on title. We understand that DOR is now showing up on the DCBS records.
Answer: First, this is not an issue that is addressed – or can be addressed – in our “hazard tree” discussions that the MHCO has been having recently in the landlord-tenant coalition meetings. This tree is not located in the park, so is not strictly a landlord “habitability” issue. However, under certain circumstances it could be.
Answer. It is unclear if there ever was an actual agreement between landlord and tenant that the overpayments were to be applied toward late fees. For purposes of this question, I will assume there was an understanding of sorts [what tenant intentionally overpays, without a reason?], but presumably not in writing; hence, this dispute.
Charlie Kamerman
PO Box 69
Eagle Creek, OR 97022
(503) 655-0888