Having a one-size-fits-all approach also can lead to fair housing trouble when it has a discriminatory effect on people protected under fair housing law. One example involves occupancy policies: If they’re too restrictive, they can have a discriminatory effect on families with children.
This article is informational only and is not intended as legal advice. Always consult with a competent attorney before undertaking any legal action.
On January 1, 2024, Oregon House Bill 2634 went into effect. HB 2634 contained some important changes to the laws governing RV parks and RV tenants.
First, HB 2634 cleared up an ambiguity regarding which landlord-tenant laws apply to RV tenants. Even if an RV is located in a manufactured home park, the laws covering RV tenants are the same laws that cover tenants living in apartments, duplexes, single-family home
rentals, etc. The specialized set of laws covering tenants who own their homes and rent spaces in manufactured home parks do NOT apply to RV tenants.
Most importantly, the “vacation occupancy” period for RVs has been expanded from 45 days to 90 days. This means if you have a written agreement that complies with the vacation occupancy requirements in HB 2634, those RV occupants do not become “tenants” under Oregon law. As such, they may be asked to vacate at any time without issuing an eviction notice or going to c
The Basics. Except where the physical condition of the home is at issue, a landlord may terminate the space rental agreement by giving the tenant not less than 30 days’ notice in writing if the tenant:
Termination for Continuing Violations. In manufactured housing communities, the type of conduct that would make a tenant subject to this 30-day termination notice is the failure to maintain the space which is required under the rules or rental agreement.
Legal Risk: People who are in this country illegally can’t sue for discrimination under the FHA if that’s the sole reason they experience discrimination. Explanation: In January 2003, HUD issued a memo clarifying that the FHA “does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status”; nor, the memo adds, does the law bar discrimination based on “immigration status or resident alien” status. However, undocumented aliens and non-U.S. citizens who get excluded may have valid grounds to sue for other forms of discrimination, including religion, race, and especially national origin. Rule: FHA protections extend to every person in the U.S., regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Stated differently, a person doesn’t have to be a U.S. citizen to sue for discrimination.
Solution: There are five steps you can take to minimize discrimination risks when dealing with undocumented aliens:
Over the next couple months, MHCO will focus on the most significant new FHA “protected classes.” Analysis will explain the legal basis for extending FHA protection to the group and list the practical measures landlords can take to manage liability risks when dealing with members of each group. We’ll conclude the analysis of each new emerging protected class with a quiz question enabling you to apply the principles to a real-life situation involving an applicant or tenant from that particular group.
Emerging Protected Class: Housing Voucher Holders & Others with Nontraditional Sources of Income
Legal Risk: “Source of income” discrimination is among the fastest growing areas of fair housing litigation, generating 1,713 complaints in 2022, a year-over-year increase of 39.8 percent, according to the NFHA.
Question: Oregon passed a law last year that prohibits housing providers from implementing community rules prohibiting residents from having daycare facilities in their homes. Among other things, the law states that housing providers can require residents with these facilities in their homes to provide proof of insurance. However, I’m unclear as to what type of insurance and how much we should be requiring. At our park there are two residents offering daycare services in their homes and we’d like to follow-up and require liability insurance. What type of insurance should we require of them and in what amounts? Is there anything more we ought to be doing in response to this change in Oregon law? Thanks.