MHCO Legal Counsel

Disrepair, Deterioration & MHCO Form 55


By way of refresher, ORS 90.630 pertains to curable maintenance/appearance violations relating to residents’ spaces.  However, if the violation relates to the physical condition of the home’s exterior, ORS 90.632 applies, to address repair and/or remediation that can take more time to cure, either due to the weather, the amount or complexity of the work, or availability of qualified workers.


As a result, SB 277A, which became law on June 14, 2017 (“Effective Date”), will apply: (a) To rental agreements for fixed term tenancies – i.e. leases – entered into or renewed on or after the Effective Date; and, (b) To rental agreements for periodic tenancies – i.e. month-to-month tenancies – in effect on or after the Effective Date.


MHCO has significantly changed its current form No. 55 to address the changes in the new law. The major issue going forward is for managers and landlords to be able to recognize when to use Form No. 55 to address disrepair and deterioration conditions, versus Form No. 43C, which is appropriate for violations relating to maintenance and appearance of the space.


Phil Querin Q&A: Rent Increases With Legislative Action Pending (90-Day Rent Increase Notices Sent Before 2023 Legislation Becomes Law)

90-Day Rent Increase Notices Sent Before 2023 Legislation Becomes Law


Question:  All indications are that the 2023 legislature is going to revisit the rent increase formula currently in effect, and once passed it would likely become law immediately upon the Governor’s signature. How can landlords deal with having already issued a September 2022 90-day rent increase notice if the 2023 rent cap is legislatively reduced before the landlord’s previously-issued September 2022 increase goes into effect?


Using MHCO Form 30 (Abandonment Form) and Form 30A (Personal Property Abandonment)


Introduction. First, let’s start with the basics: There are two main types of property, real and personal. (There is a third category, a hybrid actually, called a “fixture,” which was originally personal property that when securely attached to the real property becomes a part of it. Removal would cause damage to the structure. Fixtures transfer with the structure unless removed by pre-agreement before closing of the sale. In residential housing, attached light fixtures are the main example.) For purposes of this article, we  will ignore fixtures.


Querin Article: Important Ruling for Landlords - Shepard Investment Group v. Ormandy, 320 Or App 521 (2022)

Introduction. A recent ruling from the Oregon Court of Appeals should be of interest to landlords, including those owning manufactures housing communities. Many provisions in the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Act apply a multiplier for the landlord’s violation of a statute.


A case in point is 90.315(4), a utility billing statute which allows that aggrieved tenants may recover the greater of “one month’s periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged” for each individual violation. In Shepard, the plaintiff sought to apply the statute in an ongoing manner for every month the alleged violation existed. It does not require a calculator to conclude that an alleged violation that existed for 12 months (the statute of limitations under the Act) can amount to a sizeable claim against the landlord – and especially so if brought as a class action on behalf of the entire Park.


Phil Querin Article: A Cautionary Tale for Landlords When Calculating Past Due Rent – Hickey v. Scott


Holding. In late July 2022, the Oregon Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hickey v. Scott, 370 Or 97 (2022) that addressed the application of ORS 90.394(3).[1] The Court ruled that when issuing a termination notice for nonpayment of rent, the landlord must specify the “correct amount due to cure the default.” Hickey, 370 Or at 101. If the court determines that the tenant owes a lower amount than the amount specified in the notice, the court must dismiss the FED.



Phil Querin Q&A: Three Questions on Temporary Occupants

Question 1 The law and MHCO ocupancy agreement both state that a landlord can screen an occupant for conduct or criminal history but not for credit history or income level.  If after screening a temporary occupant, the findings reveal that they have civil case(s) and/or eviction matters relating to previous rental history where the derogatory rental reference is financial (not necessarily bad personal conduct).  Can this be grounds for denial? 


Subscribe to MHCO Legal Counsel