Question. A tenant is being forced to move his home because of a landslide. The home is currently in ABC Park and the tenant wants to move it to XYZ Park. However, there are a couple of trees blocking the home from being moved out. Management of ABC Park claims the trees aren't dead so they can't cut them down. Is the home forced to stay in ABC Park because of the trees blocking and keeping the home from moving? If the trees have to be cut down - who pays? Does ABC Park have any obligation to pay for the move since the home is being forced out because of the landslide?

Question. I have a question about the MHCO Temporary Occupant Agreement (MHCO Form 25). I have a friend who is a tenant in a park. He allowed a woman to move into his home with him. The landlord, the woman and he then signed a MHCO Temporary Occupant Agreement. I do not know what the duration was, i.e. month-to-month or for a fixed term.

After a while the tenant realized this was a big mistake and asked her to leave; she refused. As I understand it, the landlord has also asked her to vacate, and she again refused. The park owner does not really want to push the issue in court. She has told the tenant that he will have to have her legally evicted if he wants her out.

Recently, after she left town for several days, the tenant changed the door locks. Upon returning and being unable to gain access, she called the County Sheriff's Office. The responding deputy told the tenant/home owner that he could not require her to leave the premises. He even said that if she forced entry, she could not be arrested for the trespass. He said she had established residency at the home, and had full legal right to remain there until a court eviction occurred. She has been in the home beginning approximately December 2016. The woman has never paid any rent.

I would think she was committing a criminal trespass where either the landlord or the tenant revoked consent to her being at the space. What can he do? I am interested in case I have this situation in my community.

The following items are a compilation of "lessons learned" from some of the cases I have been involved with over the years. Many of you have attended MHCO seminars where I've discussed them.

But it never hurts to be reminded....

Question. A couple of posts ago, I addressed a questions regarding the roots of a non-hazard tree located on the resident's space interfering with their sewer line.

There were some follow-up questions I will address below. However, here's the caveat: This is not legal advice, and community owners and managers should confer with their own legal counsel. Also, my answers are merely my opinions, and others have every right to disagree. Who is ultimately right is up to the judge before whom the matter is submitted.

Here are the follow-up questions:

A tree that was never known by anyone including the tenant, or the landlord, to be considered a "hazard tree" prior to a windstorm, later falls and does no damage. This tree was neither planted by the current tenant, nor the community.[1]

Question No. 1. Given that there was no negligence by anyone, is the damage done by the windstorm considered an Act of God?

Question No. 2. With the tree now uprooted and lying on the ground, does it now present a hazard or meet the definition of a "hazard tree" thereby shifting the obligation to "maintain" a hazard tree to the Landlord?

Question No. 3. Does maintaining a tree include tree removal?

Question No. 4. Who is legally responsible to pay the expenses associated with the disposal of the tree?

Answer. Wow! Asking me if God caused a windstorm could get me in trouble. What if I'm wrong?

This afternoon the Senate Committee on Human Services amended HB2004A with a dash 9 amendment that DOES NOT include rent stabilization, rent control or the elimination of the preemption of local rent control. The dash 9 amendment is attached below and replaces all of the language from the original HB 2004 that was introduced in January 2017. The bill moved this afternoon out of the Senate committee on a party line vote. Some Portland Democratic Senators have expressed their disappointment that the bill contains no rent control. That may ultimately doom the bill but not likely.

MHCO will have Phil Querin review and prepare a full analysis if the legislation passes the Senate and House. With just 6 weeks left in the legislative session time is getting short. MHCO will continute to monitor legislative developments and send updates when necessary.

A copy of the dash 9 amendment is posted at the top of this article.

Question. Recently the insurance company for our manufactured home community inspected the community. Afterwards I received a notice in the mail from the insurer that they would terminate the insurance on the park unless a trampoline owned by one of the home owners was removed. The trampoline is located within the resident's fenced-in space. The park rules do not mention trampolines or playground items like swings. Since there are no rules addressing this how do I go forward trying to remove the trampoline if the home owner is not cooperative?