Skip to main content

Phil Querin Q&A: Landlord vs. Tenant Responsibility For Condition of Grounds

Question: A resident in our community has ants in her home. She says they are coming from the ground around the home and has had an exterminator out who confirms that the infestation is coming from the ground. The resident demands that we pay for the exterminator and that the infestation be controlled at the expense of management. WE do not believe it is our responsibility. What are your thoughts?

Phil Querin Q&A: Landlord vs. Tenant Responsibility For Condition of Grounds

Question: A resident in our community has ants in her home. She says they are coming from the ground around the home and has had an exterminator out who confirms that the infestation is coming from the ground. The resident demands that we pay for the exterminator and that the infestation be controlled at the expense of management. WE do not believe it is our responsibility. What are your thoughts?

Senate Banking Committee Approves GSE Reform Bill - Financial Regulation Relief Moves Forward

Senate Banking Committee Approves GSE Reform Bill (Editor's Note: MHCO has been working with the Oregon Congressional Delegation to move this Federal Legislaton forward in Washington DC. If you contacts with any of the members or staff of the Oregon Congressional delegation please let the MHCO office know. This is a very important piece of Federal Legislation and we do not want to miss any opportunity to help pass this legislation. Thank you.) On May 15th, the Senate Banking Committee approved legislation (currently unnumbered) on a 13-9 vote that would eliminate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and overhaul the nation's secondary housing finance market.The bill, authored by Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) and ranking member Mike Crapo (R-ID), now moves to the full Senate. A floor vote this year appears unlikely after several key Democrats on the panel voted against the plan out of concern that it goes too far in eliminating the current system and does not do enough to preserve affordable housing finance options.The bill expands on legislation introduced last year by Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Mark Warner (D-VA) and replaces Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a system where the government would explicitly guarantee big losses in the housing market but that relies on the private sector to play a larger role than it currently does in funding new mortgages.Included in the Johnson-Crapo bill are provisions explicitly requested by MHI that would allow manufactured home loans, including those secured by personal property, full access to the newly envisioned secondary market system.Included in the legislation is a provision requiring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to review the impact HOEPA High-Cost Mortgage and Loan Originator provisions are having on credit availability in the manufactured housing market. The language also directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to complete a study on how these provisions impact credit available to those seeking to purchase manufactured housing. The provisions, which were requested by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), were adopted during mark up. Despite strong objections from majority members of the committee over any efforts to include Dodd-Frank-related amendments, the Manchin provisions represented a compromise approach and will serve to ensure that the CFPB remains focused on the need to provide the manufactured housing market with relief from recent rulemakings.Committee Prepares for Recorded Vote on Manufactured Housing LegislationOn May 22nd, the House Financial Services Committee is scheduled to take recorded votes on a number of measures reforming portions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Included in this will be the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act (H.R. 1779). The committee marked up a number of measures on May 7th. H.R. 1779 was approved by voice vote, but a recorded vote was requested. While the measure is expected to formally be approved by the committee next week, the recorded vote is an opportunity to underscore the bipartisan support that exists for the bill. Once approved by the committee, the measure will await floor consideration.During the mark up, the measure received bipartisan support from the committee's ranking member Maxine Waters (D-CA) and bill cosponsor Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL). Others speaking in strong support of the measure included Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Reps. Andy Barr (R-KY), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Steve Pearce (R-NM).The bill would amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) to change the criteria by which home loans are classified "high-cost" while keeping in place strong consumer protections. Sponsored by Representatives Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), and Gary Miller (R-CA), the bill is cosponsored by 113 House Members on both sides of the aisle. The legislation would also clarify that manufactured home retailers and salespersons would not be considered loan originators unless they receive compensation from a lender, mortgage broker or loan originator. The CFPB "loan originator" definition effective since January, is based on traditional mortgage market roles that do not equate with the business model of the manufactured housing industry, including lending and retail sales practices. Without this clarification, manufactured home buyers will be unable to receive guidance on the limited manufactured home financing resources available.

Phil Querin Q&A: Resident Improvements and Building Code Compliance

Question: I have a resident who was given permission to build a permanent carport. Most all of the carports in our park are free standing and permanent which is my preference. However, he constructed the permanent carport by boring holes in the ground and filling them with concrete and inserting metal mounts to which he fastened 4x4 uprights for the carport. Building it this way, in my opinion, made it part of the real property. I was there when construction started but was absent when it was completed. What now complicates matters is that he recently decided to sell the manufactured home, including the carport. This would not have been an issue had the buyer not planned on moving the home. I believe that since the carport is now permanently affixed to the ground, it cannot be sold as movable personal property along with the home. He also attached the carport to the manufactured home which may complicate things, as well. What are my rights here?

Phil Querin Q&A: Resident Improvements and Building Code Compliance

Question: I have a resident who was given permission to build a permanent carport. Most all of the carports in our park are free standing and permanent which is my preference. However, he constructed the permanent carport by boring holes in the ground and filling them with concrete and inserting metal mounts to which he fastened 4x4 uprights for the carport. Building it this way, in my opinion, made it part of the real property. I was there when construction started but was absent when it was completed. What now complicates matters is that he recently decided to sell the manufactured home, including the carport. This would not have been an issue had the buyer not planned on moving the home. I believe that since the carport is now permanently affixed to the ground, it cannot be sold as movable personal property along with the home. He also attached the carport to the manufactured home which may complicate things, as well. What are my rights here?

Manufactured Home Dealer's License - What You Need to Know

Do I need a license to sell manufactured homes?Yes. Individuals or entities that sell a manufactured home on behalf of another person have always required a license. If I am a licensed real estate agent, can I sell manufactured homes?In some cases, real estate brokers will need an MSD license. If a manufactured structure is sold separate from the sale of the land, this is considered a personal property transaction and requires an MSD license. The sale of a manufactured structure and land in a single transaction is a real estate transaction and requires a real estate license (but not an MSD license). I sell Park Model structures. Do I need a DFCS dealer's license to sell these structures?Yes. Except for person-to-person sales, any individual or entity engaged in selling manufactured homes is required to get a license. If you are a park owner and you sell less than 10 manufactured homes in a year, you may apply for a limited license. You can apply for either license online at https://licensesonline.dcbs.oregon.gov/MyLicense Enterprise/ What is the purpose of a limited dealer's license?The limited license allows a park owner to sell up to ten homes per year within the licensee's park without having to obtain a full dealer license. ORS 446.706 What are the bonding requirements for a manufactured structures dealer?A bond or letter of credit is required before a license is issued. The bond must be submitted with your application on a Division of Finance and Corporate Securities surety bond form (Form 440-2966) . How do I apply for a manufactured structures dealer license?To apply for a regular or a limited license, submit a completed application form to the Division of Finance and Corporate Securities. Alternatively, you can take advantage of the department's online licensing system - License 2000/My License. This system provides licensees a robust set of tools to apply for, renew, update, or check license status via the web. More information can be found online at https://licensesonline.dcbs.oregon.gov/MyLicense Enterprise/. How do I make changes to my manufactured structures dealer license?If dealers need to change the street address, mailing address, or the DBA or ABN on their license, a correction to the license must be submitted and a $30 fee applies. Please note, the legal name on the license cannot be changed, only the DBA or ABN. As a dealership, if I want to open another sales center, do I need another license?Dealer licenses are good for one location only. If a dealer has, or intends to open, a branch office at a different location under the same business name and license, the dealer must apply for a supplemental license. Does a dealer need a trip permit to move a new home between dealer inventory lots?No. New homes identified as dealer inventory may be moved between a dealer's inventory lots provided the dealer has obtained a supplemental dealer license for the lots in question. Please note that a trip permit is required whenever a used home is moved from one site or dealer location to another. As a dealer, am I subject to taxation on a home I have installed as a spec home?If you have a supplemental license for the home's location, the home is considered inventory.See ORS 446.576 How should a dealer handle a spec home that is placed in a manufactured home park?The statute makes provisions for a dealer to license a park as a dealer site from which the home can be sold. In essence, this means that the initial placement of a spec home on a lot in a park, before it has actually been sold, would be viewed as movement from a dealer lot to a dealer lot. Can an Escrow Agent complete the sales transaction of a manufactured structure on behalf of my dealership?Yes, provided the conditions specified in ORS 446.591 are met. Who should I contact if I have any questions about dealer licensing?Licensing Staff (503) 378-4140dcbs.dfcsmail@state.or.us

Phil Querin Q&A: Married Couple Divorce - They Qualified Based Upon Joint Income - Now What?

Question: A few years ago, a married couple originally applied together for residency in our community. They have since divorced and one of them has moved out. They qualified for occupancy based upon their joint income. The party retaining possession would clearly not qualify today. How do we deal with this?

Phil Querin Q&A: Married Couple Divorce - They Qualified Based Upon Joint Income - Now What?

Question: A few years ago, a married couple originally applied together for residency in our community. They have since divorced and one of them has moved out. They qualified for occupancy based upon their joint income. The party retaining possession would clearly not qualify today. How do we deal with this?

Subscribe to