Search

There are three steps in a good disaster plan: planning, prevention and recovery. Knowing what to do in each step can help you reduce injuries and damage to your community.  This article discusses the planning segment of disaster preparedness.

Step 1: Learn all you can about the kinds of disasters that could possibly occur in your community - there may be some that you are not aware of.  Good resources for this information included your local emergency management office, the local American red Cross chapter or a state-level emergency preparedness agency.

For example, people at these organizations can help you lean whether your community is near a flood plain or a hazardous materials facility.  And, did you know that all 50 states and all U.S. territories are vulnerable to earthquakes?  In Oregon the risk of an earthquake is considered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be moderate to high.  On the Oregon coast even a moderate earthquake adds the additional threat of a tsunami.  Are you prepared?

When you have a list of all of the potential problems you might face, you can develop a plan on how to cope with each one. Some parts of each plan will be the same, including Steps 2 and 3 - later in this article.

Depending on the type of problems that might take place in your community, determine whether residents would ever need to evacuate or seek shelter.  If the answer is yes" to either or both questions

MHCO.ORG Editor's Note:  These new regulations out of Portland will only impact rental property inside the city limits of Portland.  MHCO and Phil Querin will review MHCO Forms and make necessary changes in light of these new Portland regulations.  Although these new laws do not impact the rest of the state, it does concern MHCO that Portland often sets the stage for future legislative action.  We will likely be fighting this type of regulation in the 2021 and 2023 Oregon Legislative Sessions.  

Oregonlive - Oregonian  June 19, 2019

The Portland City Council on Wednesday adopted a slate of new polices intended to make landlords more forgiving of criminal records and poor credit when screening prospective tenants.

The council voted 3-1 to approve what its champion, Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, called the most comprehensive reform of its kind in the country. Commissioner Amanda Fritz cast a no" vote; Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty was absent

This the second in a series of articles on disaster preparedness and how to safeguard your community, save lives and minimize damage.

For manufactured home communities, emergency management experts recommend putting together a committee of residents, with the following minimum responsibilities: 

• Working with management to develop an evacuation or shelter plan
• Setting up an emergency notification system for the community
• Conducting community education programs on disaster readiness
• Setting up evacuation practice drills
• Training residents on securing their property before evacuating
• Maintaining a list of residents with special needs
• Identifying members of the community with special skills, such as nurses, doctors or others trained in CPR or medical assistance, who could help in an emergency
• Preparing contact lists for relatives and next of kin

Generally speaking, this committee should consist of :

• Chairperson
• Training Coordinator
• Communications Coordinator
• Emergency supplies manager
• Residents with knowledge or experience in financial, insurance and legal issues

Depending on the size of your community, you may also want to appoint Block Captains, who will be responsible for maintaining data on their assigned neighborhoods and also be on call to warn residents in their area about an approaching emergency.  If your community has a large number of pets, you  may want to include someone on the committee to focus on animals.

There Are Two Major Roles For The Committee:

• Educating and training all residents about emergencies
• Actually coping with an emergency

As a manager or owner of a manufactured home community, provide the committee with excellent materials to use in doing their work, starting with this series of articles.

Committee Responsibilities:

The chair should plan and hold regular meetings of the committee to review the work that is being done.  He or she should be an active participant in other activities and lead by example.  In case of an actual emergency, the chairman and the community manager will be the center of operations and communications. The chairman can assign duties to committee members, such as maintaining a list of community members with special needs or residents with special skills or expertise.

The training coordinator should be responsible for planning and holding actual evacuation or other types of disaster drills, depending on what potential problems face your community.  For example, if the community has a central shelter that residents can use in case of a tornado, you should have a mock" emergency alert once or twice a year. Encourage everyone to participate. This will improve their own safety

Answer: This situation is not directly addressed in the Oregon manufactured housing laws. First, some general observations: The manufactured housing side of the landlord-tenant law regards the "space" as the "premises." For example, a resident in an apartment may not, without landlord permission, intentionally make major structural changes to the interior of the premises. However, most apartments have rules against this, or it is included in the rental agreement. Your space agreement or rules may have similar prohibitions regarding major changes to the space. In this case, however, you permitted the work to commence. It is unclear whether you had reviewed any plans, before the work started. You should have made this a condition of building the carport in the first place. What about permits? It is unclear whether they are required in your jurisdiction, but it is something you should always make sure is complied with. I am unclear what you mean when you say that other such structures are "free standing and permanent." If they are permanent, in the sense of being permanently affixed to the space, then presumably, you are treating these as structures that would remain if the home were sold and removed. However, your independent conclusion that a structure is "permanent" and therefor stays with the space is really not the complete issue; what does the resident believe? It was his money that presumably paid for the work, and he may have some say in whether he intended it to be a part of the home, and movable if the time came. The same issues pertain to the new buyer. While your opinion is important, so are those of your resident and his buyer. For this reason, I suggest that before doing this again, you might consider addressing it in the community rules. Some of the things that should be covered are the following: - Code compliance - Management pre-approval of completed drawings - Time to complete work - Your right to post a notice of non-responsibility for liens if the resident hires a contractor - Method of affixing to the ground - Safety of final structure and perhaps inspector sign-off - Who owns the structure upon completion? - Can it be removed upon sale and removal of the home (I suggest "yes" so long as the space is returned to its original condition and all holes are safely and completed filled, etc.) - Duty to keep the carport in good and safe condition - remember if it is a part of the space, absent agreement with the resident, it would be your duty, since you own the park. In this particular case, I suggest that if you have not pre-addressed these issues with your resident, he may believe this is his structure to do with as he sees fit. I really can't disagree, since you permitted the project and from your question, it appears no ground rules were established regarding ownership in the event the home was moved. However, if you permit the carport structure to be removed, you should insist that the space be returned to its original pre-construction condition. That's about the best you can do with this situation, although establishing rules - or at least agreed-upon terms - before construction commences again, is a good idea.

Answer: As to whether you or the resident is responsible for the condition of the ground upon which the home sits, it depends on whether the infestation existed at the time of commencement of the tenancy. If "yes," the it's your responsibility to abate; if "no" then it's the tenant's responsibility. Here is a summary of the applicable statute. I have highlighted that portion of the law which applies to your issue: ORS 90.730 [Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition.] provides in relevant part: - A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition. - The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home. - A landlord's habitability duty includes only the following: _ A sewage disposal system and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the sewage disposal system can be controlled by the landlord; _ If required by applicable law, a drainage system reasonably capable of disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water, approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order; _ A water supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained so as to provide safe drinking water and to be in good working order to the extent that the water supply system can be controlled by the landlord; _ An electrical supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the electrical supply system can be controlled by the landlord; _ At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin; _ Except as otherwise provided by local ordinance or by written agreement between the landlord and the tenant, an adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish in clean condition and good repair at the time of commencement of the rental agreement, and for which the landlord shall provide and maintain appropriate serviceable receptacles thereafter and arrange for their removal; and _ Completion of any landlord-provided space improvements, including but not limited to installation of carports, garages, driveways and sidewalks, approved under applicable law at the time of installation. - A rented space is considered unhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree as required by ORS 90.727. - A vacant space in a facility is considered unhabitable if the space substantially lacks safety from the hazards of fire or injury. - A facility common area is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks: _ Buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin; _ Safety from the hazards of fire; _ Trees, shrubbery and grass maintained in a safe manner; and _ If supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord to a common area, a water supply system, sewage disposal system or system for disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the system can be controlled by the landlord. - Note that the landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant is to perform specified repairs, maintenance tasks and minor remodeling only if: _ The agreement of the parties is entered into in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord; _ The agreement does not diminish the obligations of the landlord to other tenants on the premises; and _ The terms and conditions of the agreement are clearly and fairly disclosed and adequate consideration for the agreement is specifically stated. The term "vermin" is defined as: "Small insects and animals (such as fleas or mice) that are sometimes harmful to plants or other animals and that are difficult to get rid of." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vermin] That's a pretty broad definition, and I'm going to assume that "vermin" include ants. So the question is, was this condition one that existed at the commencement of the tenancy? If the resident had been at the space for years and never complained until now, I suspect they [or their exterminator] would have a tough time establishing when the problem first occurred. As you know, pests come and go; they could be seasonal, weather related, food related, hygiene related, etc. Chances are that if one resident has ants, others may as well. Had the resident come to you before hiring the exterminator, I would have suggested that you find out how widespread the problem was, and if it was prevalent throughout the community [or a specific area within the community] perhaps work out some cost-sharing arrangement along with a periodic maintenance schedule to eradicate the problem. That was not done here. However, good community relations suggests that you find out the breadth of the problem, and if it affects several residents, discuss a solution with all of them that works for your pocketbook, and the residents' budget. Whether you pay for the exterminator for one resident, might set a bad precedent, since it could encourage others to do the same. That's why you want to find out the scope of the problem.

Answer: The statute you are referring to is 90.302, and it provides the following: • A landlord may charge a tenant a fee for each occurrence of the following: o A late rent payment; o A dishonored check; o Removal or tampering with a properly functioning smoke alarm,smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm; o The violation of a written pet agreement or of a rule relating to pets in a facility; o The abandonment or relinquishment of a dwelling unit during a fixed term tenancy without cause; • A landlord may charge a tenant a fee for a second noncompliance or for a subsequent noncompliance with written rules or policies that describe the prohibited conduct and the fee for a second noncompliance, and for any third or subsequent noncompliance, that occurs within one year after a written warning notice. o The fee may not exceed $50 for the second noncompliance within one year after the warning notice for the same or a similar noncompliance or o $50 plus five percent of the rent payment for the current rental period for a third or subsequent noncompliance within one year after the warning notice for the same or a similar noncompliance. • The landlord must: o Give the tenant a written warning notice that describes:  A specific noncompliance before charging a fee for a second or subsequent noncompliance for the same or similar conduct; and  The amount of the fee for a second noncompliance, and for any subsequent noncompliance, that occurs within one year after the warning notice. Give a tenant a written notice describing the noncompliance when assessing a fee for a second or subsequent noncompliance that occurs within one year after the warning notice. Give a warning notice for a noncompliance or assess a fee for a second or subsequent noncompliance within 30 days after the act constituting noncompliance. • The landlord may terminate a tenancy for a noncompliance instead of assessing a fee, but may not assess a fee and terminate a tenancy for the same noncompliance. • The landlord may not deduct a fee from a rent payment for the current or a subsequent rental period. • The landlord may charge a tenant a fee for occurrences of noncompliance with written rules or policies as provided above for the following types of noncompliance: o The late payment to futility or service charge that the tenant owes the landlord; o The failure to clean up pet waste from the space; o The failure to clean up garbage,rubbish and other waste from the space; o For parking violations; o For the improper use of vehicles within the premises; o For smoking in a clearly designated nonsmoking area within the community other than the home; 1 o For keeping an unauthorized pet capable of causing damage to persons or property. • The landlord is not be required to account for or return to any fees to the tenant. • Other than for early termination of a fixed term lease (discussed above) a landlord may not charge a tenant any form of liquidated damages, however designated. • Nonpayment of a fee is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent (i.e. under ORS 90.394), but is grounds for a 30-day notice of termination for cause under 90.630 (1). • This law does not apply to: o Attorneyfeesawarded; o Applicant screening charges; o Charges for improvements or other actions that are requested by the tenant and are not required under the rental agreement or by law, including the cost to replace a key lost by a tenant; o Processing fees charged to the landlord by a credit card company and passed through to the tenant for the use of a credit card by the tenant to make a payment when:  The credit card company allows processing fees to be passed through to the credit card holder; and  The landlord allows the tenant to pay in cash or by check; or  A requirement by a landlord in a written rental agreement that a tenant obtain and maintain renter’s liability insurance. • NOTE: The fees must be described in a written rental agreement. o Since ORS90.100(38)defines“rental agreement”to mean“…all agreements,written or oral, and valid rules and regulations, it would seem that including the fines in the rules would suffice. 2

Because, while Oregon permits the medical use of marijuana, the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. _ 801, et seq., says that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, and possess marijuana, even when state law authorizes its use. Furthermore, federal law supersedes state law where there is a direct conflict between them. So, what does a landlord do when confronted by a card-carrying tenant claiming that he/she cannot be evicted for marijuana use and/or cultivation, because they have a legal right to do so under Oregon law. To second arrow in the tenant's quiver is the threat that "if you try to evict me, I will sue you under the federal Fair Housing laws that say you must grant me a reasonable accommodation [i.e. let me toke on the premises] because I have a "disability." Discussion. Clearly, this is a very complicated issue on several levels. Marijuana is a controlled substance under Federal Law, but under Oregon law, its use and cultivation in limited amounts are lawful with a medical marijuana card. The Oregon laws cover such things as grow-site registration; medical uses for marijuana; issuance of an identification card; and limitations on a cardholder's immunity from criminal laws involving marijuana. For those interested, the specific statutes should be consulted here. Based upon recent news reports, it appears that, subject to certain exceptions, there will be no effort by the federal Department of Justice to seek out and charge violators of the Controlled Substances Act in those states where the medical or recreational use of marijuana are legal. The Conundrum. In short, it appears that when it comes to enforcement of their rules and regulations, Oregon landlords are on their own; neither the feds, nor the state, will go after persons with lawfully issued medical marijuana cards. Furthermore, if a tenant has a valid card, then arguably he or she has some medical condition that has authorized its issuance. Is the landlord obligated under the Fair Housing laws to make a "reasonable accommodation" for their medical condition, and permit the tenant to continue their use or grow operation? If properly done, the answer may be "No." Here's why: In January 20, 2011, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") issued a Memorandum, the subject of which was "Medical Use of Marijuana and Reasonable Accommodation in Federal Public and Assisted Housing." While the Memo was limited to federal public and assisted housing, it can be regarded as a helpful - though perhaps not a "final" resource - on the issue. It is very complete and helpful for all landlords. It can be found at this link. Here is what the Memo directs: Public housing agencies '_in states that have enacted laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana must therefore establish a standard and adopt written policy regarding whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance for residents who are medical marijuana users. The decision of whether or not to allow continued occupancy or assistance to medical marijuana users is the responsibility of PHAs, not of the Department." Thus, HUD appears to be leaving it up to the state public housing authorities to decide whether the refusal to permit on-premises use of medical marijuana constitutes a fair housing violation. Between the lines, it appears that HUD will not directly investigate such claims, leaving it up to public housing agencies on the state level. While HUD's pronouncement is directed toward "public housing" is would be hard to believe private housing would be treated any differently. Oregon fair housing law is "substantially equivalent" to federal fair housing law. So, generally speaking, on the issue of medical marijuana, as goes the federal law, so goes state law. However, in the 2010 case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court held that employers do not have a legal duty to allow employees to use medical marijuana on the job. This case addressed many unanswered questions on the use of medical marijuana in Oregon, both from an employment and housing perspective. Additionally, a subsequent article [found here] by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon is helpful for landlords from the view of private fair housing enforcement. Thus, it appears that in Oregon, on both the federal and state levels, enforcement agencies are [for the time being at least] taking a laissez-faire approach to the medical marijuana issue. This means that landlords have it within their control, with little fear of a fair housing/reasonable accommodation claim, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises use of medical marijuana. However, the proscription should not be retroactive to tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards who have already signed their rental agreements or leases. Oregon Landlord-Tenant Laws. Oregon statutes permit landlords to enforce tenant violations of their rental agreements, rules, and general laws [not just the landlord-tenant laws]. It is my belief that the violation of a no medical marijuana policy would be enforceable on a going forward basis. The policy should not be retroactive - and it should so state. In summary, ORS 90.630 [Termination by Landlord] provides as follow: - After delivery of written notice, a landlord may terminate the rental agreement for cause and take possession in accordance with the state eviction laws [ORS 105.105 to 105.168], unless the tenant cures the violation. - Causes for termination are: _ Material violations of the rental agreement; _ Material violation by the tenant of his/her legal duties under [ORS 90.740]; _ Failure to pay rent. - The landlord's notice to the tenant must: _ Specify the acts and omissions constituting the violation; _ State that the rental agreement will terminate upon a designated date not less than 30 days after delivery of the notice; and _ If the violation may be cured under the law, so state and describe at least one possible remedy to cure it, designating the date by which the cure must occur. - If the violation described in the notice can be cured, and is cured by the designated date, the tenancy will not terminate; - If the tenant does not cure the violation, the rental agreement terminates as provided in the notice. - If the cause of a written notice relates to substantially the same act or omission that constituted a prior violation for which notice was given within the previous six months, the designated termination date must be not less than 20 days after delivery of the notice and no earlier than the designated termination date stated in the previously given notice. The tenant does not have a right to cure this subsequent violation. Miscellaneous Tips. Landlords, read the medical marijuana card! It must valid and current for Oregon. A California card, for example, would not suffice. [See, State v. Berrenger, 2010]. If there is no card, or no current card, the growing [not use] of marijuana may still be a violation of Oregon law. In such cases, issuance of a curable 30-day notice under ORS 90.630 may be appropriate. If other tenants are complaining about the odor [and many do], a landlord may consider looking to the "quiet enjoyment" provisions of the rental agreement, the rules, or the provisions in ORS 90.740(4)(i). Conclusion. Rental management companies and individual landlords in Oregon may wish to institute a written medical marijuana policy in their rules and/or rental agreements, dealing both with use and cultivation. Based upon current federal law, it does not appear to be a fair housing violation to prohibit medical marijuana in the landlord's rental agreement or rules. If such a policy exists, it should include management's right to decline a request for a reasonable accommodation. Remember, besides nonpayment of rent, there are only three ways to terminate a tenancy for cause: - Violation of the rental/lease agreement; - Violation of the rules; and - Violation of Oregon laws. This means that in Oregon, if a tenant engages in the legal use or cultivation of marijuana - i.e. with a valid card - doing so is not a violation of state law. If a landlord seeks to prevent such activity, the answer must then be found, if at all, in the rental agreement or the rules. Without an express prohibition contained in one of these documents, it may be difficult to bring an eviction action for legal marijuana use or cultivation - unless the tenant's conduct violates some other rule or provision in the rental agreement.

Answer: Generally the short answer is yes, the Federal Fair Housing laws apply to RV rentals. It also does not matter whether the RV rental is a vacation occupancy rental or a long-term rental. The discrimination laws apply either way.

Specifically, the Federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") prohibits discrimination in the rental of a "dwelling" based upon race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. "Dwelling" includes any vacant land which is offered for lease for locating any "structure" on it. A structure would include an RV.

(Note: State fair housing statutes also protect against discrimination based upon race, color, sex, marital status, source of income (excluding Section 8), familial status, religion, national origin, and disability. Some local ordinances [e.g., Portland and Eugene] protect against discrimination based upon age and sexual orientation.)

As such, and as an initial matter, landlords should avoid asking any questions of RV rental applicants related to these prohibited areas. The sole exception may be the age of a potential applicant if the RV section qualifies as a "55 or older" facility under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The qualifications for "55 or older" housing are very strict and you should always check with your attorney before asking age-related questions on your rental application.

During an RV tenancy, landlords must also be careful to avoid anything that might be interpreted as discriminatory. For example, rent increases should typically be made across the board to avoid discrimination allegations. Another thing to avoid is the uneven enforcement of your rules and regulations. Every RV tenant should be held equally accountable to follow the rules, and appropriate notices should be issued to every tenant who violates the rules to leave no room for any discrimination claims.

Reasonable Accommodation

The Fair Housing Act also prohibits acts that "discriminate against any person... in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling, because of a handicap of that person or any person associated with that person." The FHA defines discrimination as "a refusal to make reasonable accommodation in its rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a [disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The FHA obligates landlords to make "reasonable accommodations" in the "rules, policies, practices, or services," necessary to afford handicapped persons "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."

This means that if an RV tenant requests an "accommodation" for his or her handicap, the landlord is obligated to provide it unless it causes a financial or administrative burden. A typical example might be if a handicapped RV tenant requested an RV rental space closest to the park's RV restrooms/showers. In most cases, the landlord would need to accommodate this request if it were possible to accommodate the request without causing a "burden."

However, landlords need not provide housing to individuals whose "tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." A good example of this would be if an RV tenant requested to keep a pit bull as a "companion animal." In most instances, the landlord would be justified in rejecting this request since pit bulls are generally considered a dangerous breed.

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

Answer: Even though some of your RV tenants are short-termers, I always recommend a complete tenant background check no matter how long the anticipated tenancy. As a businessperson, you have an obligation to yourself to ensure that every RV tenant checks out with a background screening for criminal, credit and eviction history. As a landlord, you have an obligation by law to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by not allowing "bad seeds" into the park.

Most problems can be avoided by doing your due diligence at the beginning of the tenancy with a proper background screening. The fact that these particular tenants are more transient than usual doesn'tmatter.

In some cases, it is even more important to check on transient tenants. By way of example, one mobile home park client allowed a woman with an RV into the park without any background check. The woman ended up being a "professional tenant" who worked the system and dragged out the eviction process for several months. She later popped up at another mobile home client's park and pulled the same scam.

As for the structure of the rental agreement for transient tenants, the first thing to do is use MHCO Form 80 (Recreational Vehicle Space Rental Agreement). I typically recommend a simple month to month agreement so that you can evict on 30 days' written notice if things don't work out with a particular RV tenant. Weekly tenancies are also allowable, although most RV tenants want assurances of a longer tenancy. Finally, a short fixed term tenancy (i.e., 3 months) is also acceptable so long as you're comfortable with the tenant and have done the required background checks.

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

Answer: So long as the park reasonably believes under all the circumstances that the tenant has left behind the RV with no intention of asserting any further claim to it, the park does not need to file an eviction action. Instead, the park can treat the RV as abandoned property and issue an abandoned property notice.

The abandonment process for RVs is similar to that for abandoned mobile homes. Under ORS 90.425, the park must issue an abandonment notice for the RV. The notice must state that: (a) The RV and any other property left behind is considered abandoned; (b) The tenant or any lienholder or owner must contact the landlord within 45 days to arrange for the removal of the RV; (c) The RV is stored at a place of safekeeping; (d) The tenant or any lienholder or owner may arrange for removal of the RV by contacting the landlord at a described telephone number or address on or before the specified date; (e) The landlord will make the RV available for removal by appointment at reasonable times; (f) The landlord may require payment of removal and storage charges; (g) If the tenant or any lienholder or owner fails to contact the landlord by the specified date, or after that contact, fails to remove the RV within 30 days, the landlord may sell or dispose of the RV; and, (h) If there is a lienholder or other owner of the RV, they have a right to claim it.

The park must send the notice to the tenant's park address and any other known address for the tenant. The park must also conduct a title search on the RV and send the notice to any listed lienholder or other owners. The notice must be sent by regular first class mail, except that lienholders must also be sent the notice by certified mail.

The good news is that after the park issues the abandonment notice, the RV itself can be removed from the rented space to open it up for a new RV tenant. The abandoned RV simply has to be stored in a "place of safekeeping," such as an on-site storage lot.

Finally, if the RV remains unclaimed after the 45-day period, the park can either throw away or give away the RV if the park estimates that the current fair market value is $1,000 or less, or so low that the cost of storage and conducting an auction probably exceeds the amount that could be realized from a sale. If the estimated value is more than $1,000, the park must hold an abandonment auction using the procedures described by the abandonment statute. (As usual, retain experienced legal counsel if unfamiliar with the abandonment process and procedures.)

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com