- Form 21 Pet Agreement. The form now includes a “Notice of Rights Under ORS 90.530” which summarizes management’s rights and restrictions. It is contained at the top of the first page so it can’t be missed. Generally, it informs residents about the landlord’s right to control pet activities, the maximum of $50 on fines, and liability insurance.
Several years ago it appears that the fair housing advocates “discouraged” limitations on breeds based upon fair housing issues. I have retained the restriction for obvious reasons[1] but limited it to the following which I believe will provided a good level of protection: If (a) your liability insurance carrier will not insure the Park against claims arising from injuries based upon a dog’s breed; and (b) you are unable to obtain financially reasonable substitute coverage elsewhere, you should retain the restriction. [2]
The Agreement further clarifies that service and assistance animals are not “pets” under the Park rules and regulations. Pets fees are not permitted. This is not to say they may be allowed to run free without safety and sanitation restrictions. Activity restrictions are still appropriate.
The Agreement also addresses the “reasonable accommodation” provisions under the Fair Housing and Americans with Disability laws.[3]
- Form 43 Notice to Vacate for Continuing Violation. The revised form addresses and clarifies that violations under the Pet Agreement may also constitute violations of Oregon’s Landlord-Tenant law.
- Form 43A Notice to Vacate for Distinct Act. The revised form addresses and clarifies that violations under the Pet Agreement may also constitute violations of Oregon’s Landlord-Tenant law.
- Form 48 Pet Violation Notice. The revised form clarifies that violation of the Pet Agreement can only result in a fine, but that Management reserves the right to alternatively issue a notice of termination under Oregon’s Landlord-Tenant law.
Members with questions or concerns on the changes should direct them to MHCO.
[1] All one needs to do is read the occasional newspaper articles on dog maulings to appreciate the risk. Putting this in perspective, which liability would you sooner face: (a) A multi-million-dollar damage claim after a child has been permanently disfigured from being mauled, or (b) a nasty letter from the Oregon Fair Housing Council?
[2] This is my opinion only. It is not “legal advice.” Landlords should rely upon their own legal counsel’s advice.
[3] See MHCO Q&A article: “Assistance” Animals – When Do They become A Ruse?”
