Ask anyone who works on a Senior Living Community how they like their job and I can almost guarantee that they will tell you they have a love-hate relationship with it. Most employees will tell you that they love working with seniors; that they are a nice group of people, and they have a bond with them that they have never experienced while working on a multi-family community.  They will also tell you of the heartaches and troubles of a senior community; and this is not just the obvious complications of dealing with an aging resident population. You will hear about the vast disparity between “the new senior” and “the elderly,” the trends seniors are setting, the financial issues many seniors are facing, the troubling issue of increasing mental illness in seniors, and the demands seniors are making on staff. How does all this affect not only the senior market, but how will it affect the market at large? How do we stay on top of trends, and how do we assist the employees in this highly specialized market segment? 

Holding. In late July 2022, the Oregon Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hickey v. Scott, 370 Or 97 (2022) that addressed the application of ORS 90.394(3).[1] The Court ruled that when issuing a termination notice for nonpayment of rent, the landlord must specify the “correct amount due to cure the default.” Hickey, 370 Or at 101. If the court determines that the tenant owes a lower amount than the amount specified in the notice, the court must dismiss the FED.

Question 1 The law and MHCO ocupancy agreement both state that a landlord can screen an occupant for conduct or criminal history but not for credit history or income level.  If after screening a temporary occupant, the findings reveal that they have civil case(s) and/or eviction matters relating to previous rental history where the derogatory rental reference is financial (not necessarily bad personal conduct).  Can this be grounds for denial? 

The disparate impact rule also opens the door for groups that the FHA doesn’t list as protected classes to sue for housing discrimination, as illustrated by an important case from Pennsylvania.

Situation: A domestic violence victim tells her landlord that she’s being stalked by her ex-boyfriend and needs to move out. When the landlord refuses to let her out of the lease, she sues for discrimination and failure to accommodate. The landlord asks the court to dismiss the case because domestic violence victims aren’t a protected class under the FHA.

While enforcing legitimate and nondiscriminatory rental and community policies is allowed, an Oregon case serves as a reminder how policies that look neutral on their face may still be illegal if they have the effect of excluding people the FHA protects.  

Situation: A landlord rejects a black prospect with a credit score of 680 because her husband’s credit score is below the community’s 600 minimum. After the prospect sends the landlord an eloquent letter complaining about the “inequitable” credit score policy and its impact on “marginalized communities,” the landlord reaches out and tries to negotiate an arrangement with her. But she never sees the email. Testers later gather evidence suggesting that the landlord applies the policy selectively to exclude minorities. And even though she never actually applies for a rental, the prospect sues for racial discrimination.

Exempting a disabled tenant’s service animal from a no-pets policy is a common kind of reasonable accommodation. But a Florida case deals with what a landlord can do when those accepted service animals create a nuisance for other tenants.

 

 Fees for “Additional Occupants” or “Extra Vehicles” may be problematic. Rental agreements sometimes contain a space for “extra vehicle fees” or “extra occupant fees.” These fees may be problematic considering the limitations found in ORS 90.302.

A somewhat odd case out of California illustrates another important qualifier of the landlord’s duty to provide a requested accommodation.

Situation: A tenant with “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS), which causes him to be physically and neurologically affected by radiofrequency emissions from cell phone equipment, asks the city to remove a cell tower near his unit. The city refuses, noting that the tower’s placement is based on requirements of federal environmental law. So, the tenant sues the city and homeowners association for disability discrimination.