MHCO Legal Counsel

Question: My question is about which notice for my situation, a 30-day for cause or a deterioration & repair notices. A long term resident has constructed a few different makeshift structures including a shed carport/garage and an add-on room attached to his home. All of these have been in place more than 12 months but past park ownership didn't mind. All of the structures were built without permission, contrary to his rental agreement, and without building permits from the city (also contrary to his rental agreement) and none of the structures conform to local building code that requires permits. We are not requesting that the resident re-build the structures during a specific time frame - we want the structures removed. Because these structures have been in place for more than 12 months do we need to give him a deterioration notice allowing up to a 6 months extension for them to be removed or can/should we give him a 30-day for cause notice?

Question. We have a grandmother in the park who takes care of an 8 month old grandchild while the mother works full time during the day. The mother of baby does not live in the park. The grandmother also takes care of an 11-year old girl during summer break while the mother works. The grandmother states the children do not stay overnight at her house and that the daughter picks them up after she gets off work. The grandmother does not "babysit" for money as these are her own daughter's kids.

The grandmother's husband passed away and a sister of the grandmother has since moved in and they are both on a new rental agreement as of Oct. 2014.

Our park rules state additional occupants must be age 40 or over and that guests/relatives can stay overnight for 30 days out of the year only.

What is your opinion on this situation? Should I tell the grandmother she is ok to watch over the children or should she be told she cannot babysit over 30 days per year? Or, is it OK for her to babysit the kids if they are not staying overnight at the house. I'm not clear on this issue and

our park owner and myself wish to get your opinion before we proceed.

Answer. I'm confused. May I assume the grandmother or her sister are at least 55 years old? If so, they qualify both as to the requirement that there be at least one occupant 55+, and as to the second person requirement. That should be the end of the age issue.

As for the babysitting, this is not a for-profit enterprise, so presumably does not violate any rules you might have for such situations. So all it is is family visiting, which is permissible under the rules. So long as the children are not staying overnight, I do not understand there to be a 30-day limit on this. If they do stay overnight, it appears there is a 30-day cap. But you don't say whether the 30-days is consecutive or cumulative. Unless there is some reason to believe the grandmother is lying about the children staying overnight (and even then, there is the 30-day rule) I don't see anything that suggests a violation. I know of nothing under the 55+ housing law that places restrictions on family visitors under age 55. In fact, as you may know, 55+ parks are permitted to have up to 20% of their spaces rented to families (which is not something should consider for a variety of reasons). However, the point is that the presence of children in a 55+ park does not, per se' cause the park to lose its 55+ designation.

I believe this situation demands a practical approach. Is the babysitting situation causing a problem, e.g. noise, disruption, children in street, lack of supervision, etc? Are other residents complaining? If none of these consequences are occurring, I don't see a concern, or a need to start counting days, etc. If the situation is not being abused, I'd leave it alone. You may want to privately discuss this with the grandmother, just to make sure she understands that it is important that she monitor her grandchildrens' activity at all times, just to make sure other (less child-friendly) residents don't complain.

The take-away here is that while rules are important, so long as they are not being abused, the need to be concerned primarily arises when there are complaints from other residents. If no one is complaining and the rules are not being blatantly abused, it does not seem necessary to become concerned.

Question. Recently I learned that a resident/homeowner in our community had entered the military and was in basic training. The serviceman's partner is living in their home in our manufactured home community. The partner came to speak with me about selling their house as the partner will be moving to whatever base the serviceman is assigned, when basic training is completed. They are thinking they will sell in September. We don't know whether the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Law has any special provisions for service members. What can you tell us?

Question. We would like to institute a policy allowing us to do a background check on all guests who stay at a property for 14 days or more. Is there something in ORS Chapter 90 that gives the landlord this right? Would this have to be in the rental agreement or rules? Is it enforceable?

Question. I read some articles that MHCO published about trees, but am still seeking a little clarification about tree roots. Our situation is this: A long term resident has a very large tree on their space. I don't believe the tree was planted by them or their family. It is not a hazardous tree but does have a DBH of more than 8". The tenant recently reported a blockage with the sewer lateral on their space (not the main park line). We hired a company to clear the blockage which was tree roots. Is the park owner or the resident responsible for tree roots growing underground that affect a resident's plumbing? Is the resident's sewer lateral (and other underground utilities for that matter) considered their personal property and the repair or upkeep to keep roots clear the park owners responsibility? Any clarification you can provide is much appreciated.

Question. I am getting push back from a resident in our Park who says that I cannot enforce Section 8 in MHCO Form No 11 (Ten Day Notice of Intent to Sell Manufactured Home) relating to the requirement that the selling resident must provide us with a "....copy of a current written inspection report from an Oregon-certified and licensed home inspector, verifying that as of the date of the inspection:

• the dwelling, including, but not limited to all heating, cooling, and electrical systems and all appliances located therein, are safe from the hazards of fire;
• the dwelling has a smoke alarm approved under applicable law;
• the dwelling has operable storm water drains on the roof;
• all electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in, on, or about the dwelling, are in operable and safe condition, and that the connections to those systems have been maintained, and
• that any modifications to the home or its heating, cooling or electrical systems comply with all local, state and federal codes and regulations in existence at the time of the modification."

Section 8 also provides that "The cost of this inspection shall be the responsibility of the TENANT, but may be negotiated with the prospective purchaser as part of the sale transaction."

Pet Issues.

There is almost no greater issue that can create problems for landlords, than whether tenants can retain a pet they have brought into the community. How can owners and managers take control of the issue?

First, landlords should check their current rules and rental agreement. Although landlords who have previously permitted pets in the community, cannot retroactively prohibit them to tenants who already have pets living with them. Nor can they retroactively prohibit a type of pet that had previously been permitted. However, going forward, i.e. for new tenants, landlords should make sure that their rules place appropriate limitations on the size and type of pets that can be brought into the park. Rules should be drafted broadly to prohibit pets, e.g. breeds of dogs, that have a reputation for aggressiveness, or dogs of a particular size, or both.

Secondly, consistency is important. That is, landlords should be careful not to make exceptions or ignore violations of the pet rules. Otherwise, the landlord will be accused of either being arbitrary or "playing favorites." Selective prosecution of tenants for violation of the pet rules does not play well with judges and juries.

Lastly, in all cases, landlords should make sure that their tenants sign pet agreements for their animals. Oregon law expressly permits this. The MHCO agreement follows the statutory guidelines and assures that the tenant has liability insurance coverage. It also permits landlords to assess fines for violations of the rules.

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. How should we deal with non-residential structures locate on residents' spaces -- such as park-owned carports, or structures built by residents themselves, such as sheds? MHCO has Form 52 which addresses liability from contractors, but I cannot find anything that deals with indemnifying management against resident claims occurring from use of these structures.

Question. Our park is on a well water. A few weeks ago, several homes had their pipes underneath their homes burst, leaving no pressure for water to deliver to the other homes in the community. The park was out of water for 6 days. A tenant in the park has told my onsite manager that he will deduct $15 a day from the rent. I told my manager not to accept his rent fearing that I will waive my rights to collect full rent which I feel that the park is entitled to. I have further instructed my manager to charge a late fee on the 6th day of the month, and then issue a 72 hour notice.

It is my belief that what occurred was not the fault of the park. I cannot allow this to occur, because every other tenant will then think that they can withhold rent when minor incidents happen. The tenant remains firm in his stance. I see my only avenue here is to file an eviction. Any suggestions?