Skip to main content

Phil Querin Q&A: Tree Limb Falls On A Residents House

Question: A tree limb fell through a resident's roof. I told him what I believed the recently enacted state law was, but don't know if I was thorough enough. Under the old law, tree maintenance was the tenants' responsibility -- period; regardless of whether the landlord or tenant planted and regardless of size. The resident says I should make the space safe. I told him to take it up with the City of Portland as I wanted to take the tree out when I first developed the property and they said I had to keep the tree. I told the resident hat my policy had been to split the tree removal cost with the resident and he agreed. What are my rights here?

Phil Querin Q&A: More Questions on Water Sub-Metering

Question: I have been investigating the process and costs involved with installing submeters at my 180-space community and converting to a 'submeter billing method'. At the same time as the submeter conversion, I want begin billing for common area fees and utility bills under a 'pro rata billing method'. As far as I understand, that scenario is covered in the statutes. Here is my dilemma: The local municipality doesn't charge much of anything for actual water usage...it ends up only being about $6 per month/per space to pay for all water usage in the community. The way the city gets their money is by constantly adding and increasing 'utility fees' like storm drain, public safety, etc. After running my numbers, I am beginning to question why I even want to go to the expense of installing water meters at all, because if it just ends up raising the monthly out-of-pocket cost for my senior residents, and even If they reduce their water usage significantly, they will only be able to realistically save a dollar or two per month. What I would like to do instead is just begin a 'pro rata billing method' for my community electricity, garbage, natural gas and city utility fees. I would obviously offset their rent amount commensurate with the previous 12 months' total bills. What I cannot figure out after reading the statutes is this: Can I begin a pro rata billing method for the above mentioned items, with 180 days' written notice, WITHOUT converting to a submeter billing method at the same time?

Phil Querin Q&A: More Questions on Water Sub-Metering

Question: I have been investigating the process and costs involved with installing submeters at my 180-space community and converting to a 'submeter billing method'. At the same time as the submeter conversion, I want begin billing for common area fees and utility bills under a 'pro rata billing method'. As far as I understand, that scenario is covered in the statutes. Here is my dilemma: The local municipality doesn't charge much of anything for actual water usage...it ends up only being about $6 per month/per space to pay for all water usage in the community. The way the city gets their money is by constantly adding and increasing 'utility fees' like storm drain, public safety, etc. After running my numbers, I am beginning to question why I even want to go to the expense of installing water meters at all, because if it just ends up raising the monthly out-of-pocket cost for my senior residents, and even If they reduce their water usage significantly, they will only be able to realistically save a dollar or two per month. What I would like to do instead is just begin a 'pro rata billing method' for my community electricity, garbage, natural gas and city utility fees. I would obviously offset their rent amount commensurate with the previous 12 months' total bills. What I cannot figure out after reading the statutes is this: Can I begin a pro rata billing method for the above mentioned items, with 180 days' written notice, WITHOUT converting to a submeter billing method at the same time?

Comparison of Current Law to Compromise Legislation - (Community Sale Notification Process - Removal of "Right of First Refusal" Language from Current Statute)

Current Oregon law (adopted in 1989) already requires manufactured home park landlords/owners to notify park residents prior to a sale to another owner and to negotiate a possible sale to the residents. ORS 90.760, 90.800 to 90.840. Unfortunately, both landlord and tenant advocates recognize that the current law is seriously flawed and doesn't work for either side. HB 4038A fixes those problems.1.Under current law, it is unclear whether and to whom an owner must give notice of the owner's interest in selling the park, or what that notice must say.a. ORS 90.760 allows an undefined tenants association to give notice to the owner of its interest in buying the park before the owner indicates an interest in selling. Apparently, this notice is good forever, even if the tenants die/move or if there is a different owner. No-one keeps track of these notices. And tenants generally do not think about buying their park until there is some indication that the owner wants to sell, so they don't give the advance notice to the owner.b. ORS 90.810 appears to require notice from the owner even if the tenants have not previously notified the owner of their interest in purchasing the park.HB 4038A amends the law to require an owner to give notice to all tenants, without advance registration, or, if there is an active tenant group with which the owner has met during the past 12 months, to that group only, whenever the owner is interested in selling or has received an offer to buy which the owner is considering. And it defines what must be in the notice. And it requires that a copy go to the Oregon Housing & Community Services Department. And it provides a safe harbor for minor errors in giving the notice. Sections 1, 3(3).2. Under current law, owners are required to negotiate in good faith with the tenants and to give the tenants a 14 day right of first refusal to buy the park. ORS 90.820. a. This duty is completely open-ended, with no time limit on the duty or on the owner's duty to negotiate. b. Owners strongly dislike the concept of a right of first refusal. On the other hand, tenants think that 14 days isn't enough time. c. There is no provision regarding what financial information an owner must share with the tenants in the negotiations. d. There is no provision making shared financial information confidential, and no provision providing a remedy to owners if tenants violate a confidentiality duty. e. There is no provision regarding what steps the tenants must take in the negotiation. f. This duty would apply to an owner even if the owner has a time-sensitive offer from another buyer. g. Good faith" is not the right duty to apply in a commercial real estate transaction.The proposed legislation (HB 4038A) removes the right of first refusal language

Occupancy By Who's Standard (Part 1 of 2)

By Jo Becker, Education/Outreach Specialist, Fair Housing Council Serving Oregon and SW WashingtonI recently read an article on screening by a representative of a NW property management firm. In it was included the company's screening requirements, as well as what was apparently their stock occupancy standard for all units: Maximum occupancy of no more than two (2) persons per bedroom."There is a growing body of case law across the country in which housing providers - both landlords and condo / homeowners' associations - have lost cases in which they've had two-people-per-bedroom policies. At this point

Recreational Vehicle Question and Answer with Attorney Mark Busch

An owner of a mobile home park allows RVs to stay in spaces within his mobile home park. He has them sign an RV nonresident agreement which states that they are not residents and they sign a set of rules and regulations that are different from what the mobile home residents sign. Over the weekend the landlord called the sheriff to evict one of the RVs that had fallen behind in their rent. The sheriff refused to evict the RV as a squatter for trespassing and told the landlord that the RV tenant does, in fact, have certain tenant rights under the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act. The landlord obviously disagrees believing that the RV is transient and since they have fallen behind in their rent, they are a squatter and should be immediately removed from the property for trespassing. How does the landlord deal with this? Does the RV resident have tenant rights even though it is an RV and they signed an RV agreement? How should the landlord proceed with an eviction since the sheriff will not remove the RV? Can the landlord turn off the utilities to the RV?Answer:The last thing the landlord should do is turn off utilities to the RV. Under Oregon law, RV residents do qualify as tenants

Phil Querin Q&A: Selling Park-owned Carports to Residents

Question: At my park we would like to offer the park-owned carports for sale to the residents for $1. I am under the impression that if we require this of all residents that we would have to give a rent reduction equivalent to the value of the carports. Is this true? And if this is a voluntary program (i.e. the residents can buy them if they want and then turn them into enclosed garages), would a rent reduction still be required?

Phil Querin Q&A: Selling Park-owned Carports to Residents

Question: At my park we would like to offer the park-owned carports for sale to the residents for $1. I am under the impression that if we require this of all residents that we would have to give a rent reduction equivalent to the value of the carports. Is this true? And if this is a voluntary program (i.e. the residents can buy them if they want and then turn them into enclosed garages), would a rent reduction still be required?

Subscribe to