Publication of Submeter or Pro Rata Bills – Tenant Inspections. ORS 90.582 has very specific requirements for landlords who bill tenants for water using a pro rata billing method or for landlords who bill their tenants via submeter for water. 

The basic rule is that landlords must make reasonable accommodations to the point of undue hardship. Most resonable accommodations cases were decided on the basis of reasonableness, including an Arizona case posing the question of whether it’s reasonable to expect a landlord to introduce a whole new service or activity for a tenant with disabilities.

Nearly half of the cases this year address a landlord’s FHA duty to make reasonable accommodations. In most of these cases, the requested accommodation was purportedly necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and public and common use areas. These cases offer insight into how far the duty to accommodate goes, including a key case out of Kentucky that sheds light on a landlord’s right to verify the requestor’s disability and need for the accommodation.

Question: Is it permissible for a manager to pass on to tenants third-party billing fees for submetering?

We’re all pretty familiar with what the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) says. The real challenge is figuring out what it actually means, as in real life. If you use Fair Housing Coach, it’s a good bet that you’re among the vast majority of landlords who are committed to principles of fair housing and try hard to comply with the rules. The problem is that those rules can be vague, confusing, and even contradictory. The only sure way to find out if you’re meeting all of the requirements is to get sued for discrimination and submit to the judgment of the investigator, court, or fair housing tribunal. Of course, that’s hardly a practical strategy; in fact, the whole point of compliance is to avoid getting embroiled in investigation and litigation in the first place.  

Luckily, there’s a better approach. Look at the actual cases involving other landlords and draw the appropriate lessons. Knowing what landlords did right and wrong enables you to make informed judgments about and improve the effectiveness of your own compliance efforts. Regrettably, you may not have the time or legal training to track down and analyze the cases—or the budget to hire an attorney to do it. The good news is that we did the heavy lifting for you. This month’s lesson breaks down the key FHA rulings from 2021, explaining not just who won and who lost, but why and what practical compliance lessons you can take from the case.

Background  In 2021, HB 2364 was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor modifying the requirements in ORS 90.842 et. al., which requires manufactured home park owners to give their tenants an opportunity to compete to purchase a park prior to selling to a third party. I have brushed off the questions and answers submitted in 2015 as an update to the new law. 

Please note that there are some significant changes with the 2021 law, including a substantial penalty to owners who do not follow the law. I would encourage you to review the changes closely and let me know if you have any further questions. For some of the minor changes, I have bolded and italicized the changes. Any owner who has received an offer to purchase their manufactured home park that they intend to consider, or are entertaining executing a listing agreement with a broker to sell their park, should reach out to legal counsel who have familiarity and experience with this law.  Any broker who is working with an owner should also seek legal counsel to ensure the process is being followed. 

Question: What can you tell me about ORS 94.762 requiring landlords to install the infrastructure for Electric Vehicle charging stations in manufactured housing communities, RV parks and floating home communities?  Is the impact and responsibility of the landlord the same in each of those housing options?

In a recent case, a tenant claimed she needed an emotional support animal for a mental disability and asked the homeowners association board for an exemption from the community’s no-pet policy. Since the tenant’s disability isn’t readily apparent, the landlord asked her for verification. She provided a medical note listing her diagnosis. Although the disease is an officially recognized illness, the board wanted more information about the disability and how it affects her “major life activities.” When she refused to provide the information, the landlord moved to evict her.

Did the landlord’s request for more information about the disability go too far?

Question:  I am wondering if you can tell me how to get rid of an abandoned vehicle in our community? I have legally evicted some tenants from an owner owned home. They finally left, but I need to know how to get rid of the vehicles they left behind.

Question:  Can you evict for no cause in an RV park on a month-to-month rental agreement?