“In 1988, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (“FHA”) was overhauled [by the] Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988…. Prior to the amendments, the Fair Housing Act prohibited various forms of housing-related discrimination based on ‘race, color, religion, or national origin.’ … In 1974, discrimination based on sex was added. … In 1988, prohibitions against housing discrimination based on ‘familial status’ …[was] added to the Act. Pub. L. No. 100-430, § 6, 102 Stat. 1619, 1620-21 (1988) [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq]….” United States v. Southern Management Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 917 (4th Cir. 1992).

The FHA as amended now prohibits refusals to negotiate for the rental of a dwelling space on the basis of familial status, as well as statements indicating such discrimination. Morgan v. HUD et al, 985 F2d 1451, 1457 (10th Cir. 1993) stated that manufactured home “lots are considered dwellings under and within the scope of the [FHA].” (Id. at 1454) Under the FHA, “familial status” is defined as one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) living with a parent or other designee having custody of the minor(s), i.e., families with children. 42 U.S. C. 3602(k)

Early on the courts begin analyzing familial status discrimination claims by first focusing on the language contained in the landlord’s rules and regulations. For example, the plaintiff buyers of a manufactured home in Morgan, cited above, contended in a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that the park owner had refused to allow the moibilehome sale because the buyers had a three year old son. The judge looked to the park rules, which were drafted by a tenants’ committee before discrimination based on familial status was prohibited, that expressly stated the park was “entirely an adult park” and “no children will be allowed in the park.” Even after the landlord agreed to retract this policy and the mobilehome was sold to a couple with children, after being notified by the buyer’s attorney the “adult only” policy was illegal, the administrative law judge found the landlord liable for discrimination under FHA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed.

This analytical approach used by courts and regulators of scrutinizing a manufactured home community’s rules for evidence of discrimination against families with children has continued to evolve and is even more prominent today as demonstrated by a recent federal case arising out of California.

Question: One of our long-time RV residents recently passed away. He didn't have any next of kin or friends who might want to claim his property. What can we do with his RV, pickup truck, and other personal property items on the space?

The 2015 Oregon Legislative Session convened this month with House and Senate Committees beginning their work the first week in February.  There are a wide variety of issues the Oregon Legislature will be dealing with - many being repeats from previous sessions such as education funding and taxes that never seem to go away.

The Manufactured Housing Landlord-Tenant Coalition continues to work on possible legislation.  The group has been meeting since June 2014 - at least once a month to address a variety of issues.  The issues have been significantly narrowed down as we rapidly approach the end of these negotiations.  The odds are that there will either be a compromise bill (typically know as the coalition bill) or we could face some nasty political battles on some onerous legislation.  The coalition provides a venue for both landlords and tenants to work through selected issues.  In general the coalition's work tends to be better thought out than most of the knee jerk legislative proposals we see from individual legislators. 

The biggest challenge of any negotiation process is the end - reaching a final compromise.   We all know, compromise is something that is not easily accomplished in today's political environment.  Perhaps the best sign of a successful compromise is when both sides are unsatisfied with the final product.  Having worked on coalition bills since 1999 most times both sides grumble their way to agreement.  I suspect this year will be no different.

Over the last six months MHCO has posted updates on the issues we have been working. There are now four issues in the proposed 2015 Coalition Bill.  Many of these issues are complicated and consume pages of proposed legal language.  We will spare you that in this report but will try to convey the key substance of each issue.  The following is a summary of where those issues stand in very broad brushstrokes:

1. Unpaid Taxes on Abandoned Homes

The County Tax Collector and the Oregon Department of Revenue have agreed to cancel all unpaid property taxes and special assessments as provided under ORS 311.790.  There is no limit on the market value of the home or limit on the amount of tax to be canceled.

In general, in order to obtain the tax cancelation of unpaid taxes on an abandoned home the landlord will be required to file an affidavit with the county tax collector stating that the landlord will sell the property in an arms length transaction to an unrelated buyer who intends to occupy the property in that facility.  Once the home is sold by the landlord another affidavit or declaration with the county tax collector would have to be filed stating that the landlord has sold the property, the sale price and description of any costs incurred by the landlord to improve the property for sale.

MHCO will create these affidavits as new MHCO Forms for community owners or managers to utilize. 

This is an issue MHCO has wanted to address over the past ten years.  We are very happy that the issue is finally resolved and the unpaid taxes on an abandoned home will be completely eliminated.  This will impact nearly every community in the state of Oregon.  

In addition, on a separate issue there will also be and increase in the yearly fee paid by community owners paid to Oregon Housing and Community Services.  The department will charge $50 for communities with more than 20 spaces and $25 for those communities with less than 20 spaces.  Under ORS 446.525 the special assessment levied annual upon each manufactured dwelling will increase from $6 to $10.  This  $10 assessment is to be paid by the tenants.

2. Habitability - Ground Support, Natural Gas and Garbage Cans

This issue has been significantly altered since it was first introduced last summer. 

One of the main concerns the residents have is being able to cancel a rental agreement or lease if the foundation of their home is partially washed away.  The proposed language is: For manufactured dwellings only

Question: We have a tenant whose son (age 65) is her caregiver. They spend winters in Southern California. The son/caregiver used to work for us a few years ago, but was fired due to his terrible attitude and disrespect for management. The situation has continued to worsen, and he has filed false complaints against the park with the DEQ over our wastewater.

He submitted a Temporary Occupant Agreement (MHCO #25) dated March 13, 2013, containing an expiration date of November 2049. Obviously, we would not accept that request. We have spoken to the Oregon Fair Housing Council, and they advised us that a resident is entitled to have the caregiver of their choice, and if we resisted he could possibly take the case to BOLI and we would not prevail, with a very costly defense.

Since then we sent him a revised Temporary Occupant Agreement, identifying that it was a "reasonable accommodation compromise," setting forth specific conditions limiting his interactions with management and physical proximity to the wastewater plant. After no response, we again spoke with a Fair Housing Council representative again, and they stated they would contact the resident and her care provider to ask them to send the signed agreement back to us. So far, we have never received it back, so currently, he does not have any written agreement with us for his occupancy, temporary or otherwise.

We are concerned that when his elderly mother passes away, he will apply for occupancy. We do not believe that he could pass our income requirements for residency. He currently does "handy man" jobs for other residents, and likely cannot demonstrate sufficient income.

Two weeks ago he took his mother to Southern California for the winter and returned without her. It is unclear if he will stay through the winter, or return to California. Can we write him a letter saying that as a caregiver, he is not allowed to be here without her?

Question: An occupant lives in a home that is sub leased from her father. The father, who is the official tenant on the lease, does not live in the home. The occupant has been in the house since the beginning of January. The occupant was asked at the time to complete and submit a criminal background check, but refused. So the occupant is living there as an unauthorized person. The father has given the occupant (his daughter) an eviction notice. They went to court, and the judge told them to come back in two weeks. This morning the occupant gave the community owner a money order for February rent. What should the community owner do with the money order. Should it be returned? Should the community owner issue a 24 hour notice since the occupant is there without another person in the home having signed a rental agreement? Or should the community owner give a no cause eviction?

As a Manufactured Home Park owner, there are many things to consider in regards to water submeter conversion in Oregon. "To Submeter or Not to Submeter?"