MHCO Legal Counsel

Question. To assess a tenant for a utility or service charge for any billing period using the billing method described in ORS 90.532 (1)(b)(C)(ii) or (c) of this section, I understand that the landlord is to give the tenant a written notice stating the amount of the utility or service charge they are to pay and the due date for making the payment. According to the statute, the due date may not be less than 14 days from the date of service of the notice. The amount of the charge is determined according to ORS 90.534 or 90.536. If the rental agreement allows delivery of notice of a utility or service charge by electronic means, for purposes of this subsection, written notice includes a communication that is transmitted in a manner that is electronic, as defined in ORS 84.004.

Question: In reviewing the new form 2A, the Retail Installment Contract, does it act as the security agreement on the home, or is there something else that must be filed? Where is the security agreement filed?

Question: When can a manager refuse payment by check? If the name on the check does not match the resident's name can (or should) the check be refused? Should there be a park rule to back this up? If the manager refuses payment because of the name on the check and asks for a money order or cash, does that have to be in the rules? All of this stems from the concern of unauthorized residents becoming tenants simply because a manager accepts a check for space rent when they are not an approved tenant.

Question. In certain Oregon counties, dogs are required to be licensed and vaccinated, etc.
Are we allowed to enforce these same requirements/restrictions in our park with the residents?

Payments to Residents Upon Park Closure. This bill amends ORS 90.645 (Closure of Manufactured Dwelling Park) by increasing the required amount payable to residents as follows:

• From $5,000 to $6000 if the manufactured dwelling is a single-wide;
• From $7,000 to $8,000 if the manufactured dwelling is a double-wide; and
• From $9,000 to $10,000 if the manufactured dwelling is a triple-wide or larger;

The Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations of the Housing and Community Services Department is charged with establishing by administrative rule a process to annually recalculate these figures "to reflect inflation."

Comment: Without being involved with this legislation it is hard to know why a generally accepted and reliable index or set of indices was not identified. As the administrative rule takes place, we should watch to see what develops. All hearing and rulemaking notices are filed through the online filing system: http://sos.oregon.gov/archives/Pages/fileonline.aspx. To expedite the rulemaking process, agencies are encouraged to file a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Hearing specifying the hearing date, time and location, and to submit their filings early in the submission period. All notices and rules must be filed by the 15th of the month to be included in the next month's Oregon Bulletin and OAR Compilation postings.

Introduction. This bill is an attempt to deal with issues that had arisen between residents in some Oregon communities and their landlord regarding the physical condition of their homes. The result is a change to ORS 90.632 (disrepair and deterioration) which contains more detail than previously, but is nevertheless manageable.

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.

Question: A resident living alone passed away. It took some time for the estate to get underway because they had to search for heirs. An heir was located and was appointed as Administrator to act on behalf of the estate.

Shortly after the resident's passing, we began requesting that a Storage Agreement be signed but the estate was hesitant to do so until the Administrator was appointed. After the appointment the Administrator was initially cooperative, but unexpectedly changed his mind and is now threatening to bring all of the past due rent current, and then, out of spite, tear the home down while still on the space. Presumably, after doing so, we would expect the Administrator to cease all further space rental payments. How should we handle this?

In communities with elderly tenants, landlords are frequently confronted with the question "How do I deal with their home and their care providers when they leave, and with their estates?"

Most of the answers can be found in the abandonment statute, ORS 90.675. The underlying premise to remember in addressing all of these issues, is that if the resident leaves the community without properly disposing of their home, the landlord has no choice but to deal with it as an abandonment.

Question. Our community is updating our rules and regulations. Should we include anything about the use of drones flying over people's backyards? Can this be controlled for privacy's sake?

Civil Law. On the civil side (as opposed to the criminal side) of the law, the common law tort concepts of negligence, assault, invasion of privacy (applying the "reasonable expectation" test), and nuisance, still apply, as does the law of trespass to real property. In such cases, the plaintiff would have a right to sue for damages. However, with only limited exceptions, prevailing attorney fees are not available.

Airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), regulates airspace, including that which is above private land. So knowing the state, and federal laws, is critical before using drones.

Conclusion. As you can see, most of these prohibitions are found in one form or another, without the necessity of being addressed in your community rules. However, given their ubiquitous presence, especially by folks who are just hobbyists, I do suggest having some rules. Why? Because if someone was using a drone for their own prurient interests, e.g. flying over someone's fenced backyard, or for harassment purposes, it's far easier for management to take action against the perpetrator for a rules violation, than it is telling an offended or harassed resident to file a lawsuit or criminal complaint.

[1] Oregon law also identifies "critical infrastructure facilities" for which it is a violation of the law to fly a drone over them at an altitude of under 400 feet.

[2] All of which are addressed in the 2016 law.

Question. Our community is updating our rules and regulations. Should we include anything about the use of drones flying over people's backyards? Can this be controlled for privacy's sake?

Civil Law. On the civil side (as opposed to the criminal side) of the law, the common law tort concepts of negligence, assault, invasion of privacy (applying the "reasonable expectation" test), and nuisance, still apply, as does the law of trespass to real property. In such cases, the plaintiff would have a right to sue for damages. However, with only limited exceptions, prevailing attorney fees are not available.

Airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), regulates airspace, including that which is above private land. So knowing the state, and federal laws, is critical before using drones.

Conclusion. As you can see, most of these prohibitions are found in one form or another, without the necessity of being addressed in your community rules. However, given their ubiquitous presence, especially by folks who are just hobbyists, I do suggest having some rules. Why? Because if someone was using a drone for their own prurient interests, e.g. flying over someone's fenced backyard, or for harassment purposes, it's far easier for management to take action against the perpetrator for a rules violation, than it is telling an offended or harassed resident to file a lawsuit or criminal complaint.

[1] Oregon law also identifies "critical infrastructure facilities" for which it is a violation of the law to fly a drone over them at an altitude of under 400 feet.

[2] All of which are addressed in the 2016 law.