Question: A pedophile is released from prison and moves in with his mother in a manufactured home community. He is not an authorized occupant or tenant. Residents are upset. What are the landlord's options? Is it limited to just serving a 30 day notice for unauthorized resident?
Question: A pedophile is released from prison and moves in with his mother in a manufactured home community. He is not an authorized occupant or tenant. Residents are upset. What are the landlord's options? Is it limited to just serving a 30 day notice for unauthorized resident?
Dianne Daines PO Box 3419 Kirkland, WA 98083 Phone: 425-827-8774 Email: ddaines@totemagencies.com Website: www.totemagencies.com
Question: A resident passed away in our community. There was a person living in the home at the time under a Temporary Occupant Agreement. However, it does not expire for several more months. Rent is paid up until the end of the month. What should the landlord do? Can he/she give a notice longer than the 24 hour notice of eviction which seems cruel given the circumstances? Should he/she use a 30 day notice? Should management accept rent from the temporary occupant for the following month?
Question: A resident passed away in our community. There was a person living in the home at the time under a Temporary Occupant Agreement. However, it does not expire for several more months. Rent is paid up until the end of the month. What should the landlord do? Can he/she give a notice longer than the 24 hour notice of eviction which seems cruel given the circumstances? Should he/she use a 30 day notice? Should management accept rent from the temporary occupant for the following month?
Background. The Fair Housing Act (“FHA” or “Act”) was passed in 1968, and has been an important fixture in the law ever since. Essentially, its purpose was to prohibit discrimination in the sale and rental of residential housing. At the time, there were five main protected classes, i.e. groups of persons entitled to the protection of the Act. Those classifications were race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In 1988, the FHA was amended to include two additional protected classifications: disability and familial status.[1]
The language of the Act makes it illegal “(t)o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”[2] [Underscore mine.] In other words, certain conduct is prohibited if it is “because of” another’s race, color, etc.
Notwithstanding the text of the Act suggesting that Fair Housing claims may only be based upon intentional forms of discrimination, for many years several lower federal courts have ruled otherwise; i.e. holding that certain actions, though “facially neutral” (i.e. with no proof of improper motive), may constitute a violation of the Act if they adversely impact a protected class. This is the premise underlying the principle of “disparate impact”; the consequence rather than the motivation can be found to violate fair housing law. For a more detailed background on disparate impact, see my post here.
When reduced to its lowest common denominator, the ultimate question raised by disparate impact theory is whether the FHA forbids actions that may have a statistically adverse impact upon members of a protected class, even though those actions were not motivated by any intent to discriminate.[3]
Background. The Fair Housing Act (“FHA” or “Act”) was passed in 1968, and has been an important fixture in the law ever since. Essentially, its purpose was to prohibit discrimination in the sale and rental of residential housing. At the time, there were five main protected classes, i.e. groups of persons entitled to the protection of the Act. Those classifications were race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In 1988, the FHA was amended to include two additional protected classifications: disability and familial status.[1]
The language of the Act makes it illegal “(t)o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”[2] [Underscore mine.] In other words, certain conduct is prohibited if it is “because of” another’s race, color, etc.
Notwithstanding the text of the Act suggesting that Fair Housing claims may only be based upon intentional forms of discrimination, for many years several lower federal courts have ruled otherwise; i.e. holding that certain actions, though “facially neutral” (i.e. with no proof of improper motive), may constitute a violation of the Act if they adversely impact a protected class. This is the premise underlying the principle of “disparate impact”; the consequence rather than the motivation can be found to violate fair housing law. For a more detailed background on disparate impact, see my post here.
When reduced to its lowest common denominator, the ultimate question raised by disparate impact theory is whether the FHA forbids actions that may have a statistically adverse impact upon members of a protected class, even though those actions were not motivated by any intent to discriminate.[3]
Abandoned RVs
Question: A mobile home park has a separate RV section. One long-time RV resident recently moved out because of illness, but left behind his RV, which is old and in poor condition. Does the park need to file an eviction action to clear out the space for a new tenant? What can the park do with the RV itself?
Abandoned RVs
Question: A mobile home park has a separate RV section. One long-time RV resident recently moved out because of illness, but left behind his RV, which is old and in poor condition. Does the park need to file an eviction action to clear out the space for a new tenant? What can the park do with the RV itself?