Search

One decision can make a significant difference in monthly payments: whether to finance the mobile home with a personal property loan or a mortgage.

Personal property loans, known as chattel loans, have much higher interest rates than mortgages. To some owners of manufactured homes, refinancing chattel loans into mortgages could reduce monthly housing expenses.

Get the latest refinance rates

Refinancing a mobile home

To qualify for refinancing as a mortgage:

• The home must be on a permanent foundation that meets standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• The manufactured home must be titled as real estate rather than as personal property.
• The homeowner has to own the land that the manufactured home is on. An important exception to this rule is explained below.

Big difference in interest rates

In 2012, about 68 percent of all manufactured-housing purchase loans were considered higher-priced mortgage loans, and many of them were chattel loans, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Interest rates on chattel loans range from 7 percent to 12.75 percent, says Ken Rishel, founder of Rishel Consulting Group in Chicago. The loans are usually for 15 or 20 years.

In contrast, the average rate for a 30-year fixed-rate loan has been well below 5 percent for all of 2014.

Rishel, whose company makes chattel loans of at least $5,000, says the interest rates are risk-based, and chattel loans are often the only choice for borrowers with poor credit. Chattel loans are the main option for owners whose mobile homes are not permanent foundations.

Converting to a new title

Some states have eased the process of converting a personal property title into a real estate title, making refinancing possible, says Marc J. Lifset, an attorney with McGlinchey Stafford in Albany, New York.

Lifset helped financial institutions lobby for the approval of that legislation in Alaska, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

"The legislation provides a clear definition of when the home is real estate and when it is not," he says. "It makes the process more certain. In many states, the definition was murky."

Getting a real estate title

A real estate attorney or title company can help with a title conversion as a first step to refinance. Owners of manufactured homes need to provide:

• A certificate of title to the home or a copy of the manufactured certificate of origin.
• The deed to the land where the home with the permanent foundation is located.

Once the owner has the real estate title in hand, the next step is to find lenders that provide mortgages on manufactured homes. The rest of the process is similar to closing a mortgage on any residential property.

Borrowing on leased land

Under some circumstances, owners of manufactured homes leasing a lot at a mobile home community can get mortgages -- even if they don't own the land beneath their feet.

The Federal Housing Administration offers a program known as Title I, designed for owners whose mobile homes are on a permanent foundation but are within a manufactured housing community.

Among the requirements for a Title 1 mortgage:

• The mobile home must be the borrower's primary residence.
• The home has to be on a rental site in a manufactured home park that conforms to FHA guidelines.
• The lease agreement must meet FHA standards.

It's not easy to find mobile home communities that meet the FHA's strict guidelines, says Rishel, whose company makes chattel loans in land-lease communities. "Not many landlords participate on the Title I program."

Few lenders offer Title I mortgages. One is 21st Mortgage, which is owned by Clayton Homes, one of the nation's largest manufacturers of mobile homes.

Costs of switching title

When a mobile home is titled as personal property, the owner pays personal property taxes. When it's titled as real estate, the owner pays real estate taxes. In many states, property taxes tend to be higher.

"The consumer has to do the math on how much they are going to save by lower interest rates, compared to how much more taxes they may be paying and what the closing costs are going to be" in a refinancing, Lifset says.

Another potential downside: If the owner has to build a permanent foundation to refinance a chattel loan, that expense has to be taken into account. Building a new foundation could cost $10,000 to $15,000, Rishel says.

"Refinancing is a valuable thing but for a limited number of people who live in manufactured homes," he says.

MHCO would like to thank Ken Rishel for providing this article:

Answer. Yes. A housing provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation if the request was not made by or on behalf of a person with a disability or if there is no disability-related need for the accommodation. In addition, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable - i.e., if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. The determination of undue financial and administrative burden must be made on a case-by-case basis involving various factors, such as the cost of the requested accommodation, the financial resources of the provider, the benefits that the accommodation would provide to the requester, and the availability of alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs." [Emphasis included in original.]

Answer. Caveat: I am answering this question as a hypothetical situation, and no intent is made to render a legal opinion about an actual situation. Here are my thoughts:

1. Owner No. 1, who had knowledge of the situation has potential liability to the affected residents and Owner No. 2. Intentional non-disclosure of material information is fraudulent and actionable. While it would be important for Owner No. 1 to disclose the condition to residents, it is a habitability situation, and, given the materiality, not waivable. In other words, unless and until the instability issue is resolved, the space should not be rented out, and Owner No. 1's liability for placing a home on the space is not reduced by disclosing it.

A more difficult issue is whether Owner No. 1 has liability to other residents who are not affected by the unstable ground, but claim that they would not have rented a space in the community had they known of the issue. If, after a thorough evaluation of the entire community, it is determined that the instability is limited exclusively to one area, I submit that disclosure to existing non-affected and new residents is still the wisest course, and likely would entail no liability to Owner No. 1. But non-disclosure leaves open the door for residents, new and existing, to claim that they cannot sell their homes because the community has been stigmatized.

1. As for Owner No. 1's liability to Owner No. 2, it would be based primarily upon the principle of indemnification. Although much depends upon the terms of sale (e.g. how broad was the "AS-IS" clause?)[1], I would like to say that Owner No. 2 should have no liability to the residents, since he was completely unaware of the adverse condition. But law and life are never so simple.

First, Owner No. 2 now has the absolute duty of providing safe and habitable premises to the residents, i.e. the space and common areas. As a landlord, he assumed this risk, and will likely have direct liability to the residents - even though he had no forewarning of the problem. From a public policy standpoint, the law would say he was in the best position to insure against these risks, as they are a cost of doing business.

However, since Owner No. 1's non-disclosure was a material (e.g. would he have purchased the property had he known?) Owner No. 2 would likely seek recovery against him for the fraudulent concealment.

[1] Although I have seen very broad "AS-IS" clauses in commercial transactions, they are normally couched in terms of the buyer assuming all risks of loss for matters about which neither side is aware. I do not believe the clause can be used to shield a seller from intentional non-disclosure of material issues. In other words, at the time of agreeing to "AS-IS" language in the sale agreement, a buyer has a right to believe the seller has disclosed all material information.

1. If the provider doesn'tqualify based on the background check[1] then you don't have to accept them into the Community;
2. If they violate rules of the community when they are already in the Community you can require they leave. (Of course if they are not on an Occupancy Agreement, this could mean removing the tenant if the caregiver refuses to leave, and the tenant doesn'tforce them to do so);

• You can pre-qualify the person as a care provider, i.e. required a letter or similar proof from a doctor or someone, saying the tenant needs someone 24/7;
• If they can't provide that proof, then you don't have to allow them into the Community as a care provider (although I can't imagine it would be very hard to obtain such proof);
• You have to give the tenant a choice (assuming the person qualifies under the background check), i.e. they can be on an Occupancy Agreement or go onto a Rental Aagreement. You can't automatically say, "OK, you must go on an Occupancy Agreement."
• It is believed that if the tenant understands the risk of allowing the caregiver to be a tenant (i.e. if the caregiver is disruptive, the current tenant may have to leave also), that they will voluntarily opt to put the person on the Occupancy Agreement. (Note: This doesn'taddress the problem where the person doesn'tfinancially qualify to be on the Rental Agreement, but I suspect FHCO would say it's a "reasonable accommodation" by the L to waive that financial requirement.) This approach may be slightly unrealistic in those cases in which the tenant wants the caregiver there, and defers to what the caregiver says.

[1] Remember, you cannot require financial capacity if they are to be an occupant, but you can if they are to be a tenant.

The importance of customer service can vary depending on the product or service, customer or industry. The manufactured housing industry can provide a customer with many areas of satisfaction. We have the opportunity to provide a nice, safe community to live in. We provide housing for first time home buyers, the family that needs more home choices for a better price, or just simply, an empty nester that wants to down size. Let's face it, we can provide all the features and products, but it's the level of service that helps influence the customer. Here are some customer services skills to remember when you're working with a customer.

• You should have patience. Take the time to truly figure out what they want. They'd rather get competent service rather than be rushed out the door.

• Be Attentive. Listen to your customers, and pay attention to their body language or terms used to describe their problems or concerns. Consider this,"what it is that your customers are telling you without saying it".

• Have Clear Communication. It's okay to find out about your customer, but make sure you're getting to the

  problem at hand. When it comes to important points that you need to relay clearly to customers, keep it

  simple and leave nothing to doubt.

• Use positive language. It's an important part of persuasion; customers create perceptions about you and

  your company based off the language that you use. Here is an example without positive language: "Our home site is not available at this time, so we have no vacancies.'' Here is an example with positive language: "We have a resident that is removing their home next month, and we will have a vacant home site. We can submit your application for the community, and once we have the approval we can reserve the site for you." Small changes that utilize "positive language" can greatly affect how the customer hears your response. The first response was abrupt and impersonal and can be taken wrong by customers. The second example is stating the same thing, but focuses on when and how the customer will get to their resolution rather than focusing on the negative.

• Acting Skills. Every great community manager or sales representative will need the acting skills necessary to maintain their usual cheery persona in spite of dealing with some people who may be just plain "grumpy".

• Have the ability to Read Customers. You won't always be able to meet your customers face-to-face, and in today's world, you may not hear a customer's voice. However, you still need to understand the basic principles of behavior, the psychology to reading your customer's current mind set. This part is known as the personalization process, it takes knowing your customers to create a personal experience for them. This skill is essential, if you miss-read them, you might end up confusing them, and then you could lose them. Look, read and listen to subtle clues about their current mood, patience level and personality, your customer interactions will be more positive.

• Be a Calming Presence. Do not let a heated customer force you to lose your cool; your job is to do your best to be the "rock" for customers who think the world is falling down around them.

• Have Tenacity. Put in the extra effort. Your driving motivator should be, never "cheat" your customers with lazy service.

• Willingness to learn. Those who don't seek to improve what they do, whether it be property management or marketing a product, will get left behind by the people willing to invest in improving their skills.

These are just some of the skills of providing good customer service. They take practice, but once you have mastered them, you will find that your customers will appreciate the experience they had with you.

Tom Petitt is Vice President of Commonwealth Real Estate Services. He can be reached at:

18150 SW Boones Ferry Road

Portland, OR 97224

503-244-2300 Fax 503-768-4660

Answer. RS 90.680(6)(b) provides as follows:

The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant. Reasonable cause for rejection includes, but is not limited to, failure of the prospective purchaser to meet the landlords conditions for approval as provided in ORS 90.510 (Statement of policy) (5)(i) or failure of the prospective purchasers references to respond to the landlords timely request for verification within the time allowed for acceptance or rejection under paragraph (a) of this subsection. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the landlord shall furnish to the seller and purchaser a written statement of the reasons for the rejection.

What this means is that the only prohibition is against unreasonable rejections. That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. But whatever criteria you have, it must be applied consistently to all prospective applicants.

However, note that besides situations in which the prospective tenant fails to timely respond, the source of relevant screening criteria is to come from your Statement of Policy. So check that to see what criteria you have.

Similarly, Oregon law requires that you must inform your current resident in the rental agreement as to what criteria you will use, so check that, as well. In other words, you cannot make up screening criteria on the fly.

The MHCO rental and lease agreements have a number of criteria set out, and as long as you confine yourself to them you should be in good shape. You will note that they are general in nature, and do not set limits on the age or type of criminal convictions.

In checking with John VanLandingham, he reminds me that ORS 90.303 currently provides that a "landlord cannot consider arrests (unless the charge is still pending), but can consider convictions if the conviction relates to conduct relevant to being a tenant, which includes most everything. In consulting with screening companies, we were told that most don't report crimes older than 5 or 7 years."

There is a move afoot to apply limitations on criminal records in hiring. See the discussion on the Internet relating to "Ban the Box," here.

Answer: In a guest blog dated March 13, 2015, Jo Becker, Educational/Outreach Specialist for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (“FHCO”) posted an article for the Willamette Valley MLS titled: “Screening without Social Security Numbers: There are Options!”  The post is set out in full at this link.

What I’ve set forth below is a summary of Ms. Becker’s points, with some editorial comment of my own.  First and foremost, this is not to be used as legal advice, as everyone’s factual situation is different.

Mr. Obama’s controversial (my word, not hers) amnesty program will result in approximately 4 million U.S. residents who are undocumented, coming into the United States.  Although they will have an opportunity to apply for work permits and social security numbers, many may still not have SSNs when seeking housing.

In pointing  out that “…the Fair Housing Act and Oregon law apply to everyone present in the US, regardless of immigration status” Ms. Becker suggests that there are alternatives to screening other than requiring proof of a SSN.  Though she recognizes the “importance of thorough tenant screening,” she states that:

 “…criminal history information can be acquired without an SSN and, of course, current and past landlords can provide rental history and references. Applicants may be able to provide other information such as proof of “x” number of recent months’ paid utility bills, rent, or other regular monthly bills that can show a pattern of timely payment.”

However, regardless of a landlord or manager’s willingness to rent or lease space to all who qualify, the litmus in screening is really what the screening company requires.  Ms. Becker suggests that rather than issuing a “flat no,” landlords and managers say to the applicant “show me what you can.”[1]   She states that:

“…your screening company should be able to give you an informed estimate about how much time and money an evaluation could cost.  Costs may vary so shop your screening company.  Once you have a cost estimate, inform the consumer and, if you wish and do so consistently, you may then pass this cost on to them if they want to continue with the application.”

This suggestion makes the following assumptions: (a) That the applicant actually has some reliable identifying information sufficient to permit the a company to complete the screening process; (b) The company is capable of completing the screening process – even for an increased fee – that does not rely upon a SSN; and (c) That the screening report will provide equally reliable information as if the applicant had tendered a SSN. 

Ms. Becker notes that an alternative to a SSN is an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number). Here is what the IRS says about ITINs:

• ITINs are for federal tax reporting only, and are not intended to serve any other purpose. IRS issues ITINs to help individuals comply with the U.S. tax laws, and to provide a means to efficiently process and account for tax returns and payments for those not eligible for Social Security Numbers (SSNs). 
• If you do not have a SSN and are not eligible to obtain a SSN, but you have a requirement to furnish a federal tax identification number or file a federal income tax return, you must apply for an ITIN.
• By law, an alien individual cannot have both an ITIN and a SSN.
• For more information, go to link here.

Based upon the above, this leads me to believe – or at least suspect – that the use of an ITIN is really only appropriate if the individual has a federal income tax reporting obligation and is unable to obtain a SSN.  So the question landlords and managers should ask their screening company is whether it can even use the ITIN for purposes of tenant screening.  If the company can do so, and the background check can be accomplished with a comparable level of accuracy as with a SSN, then the following rules should apply:

1. If applicants do not have a SSN, but do have an ITIN, their application should be processed.
2. Make sure that the use of the ITIN in lieu of the SSN is applied evenly and consistently to ALL applicants.

If your screening company does not use the ITIN for tenant screening, are you legally required to find one that does?  I will leave that question to your own attorney.  As for me, if I could pass on the added cost, if any, to the applicant [as Ms. Becker’s article suggests], and the company can provide equally reliable and prompt service, I would personally consider doing so.  

However, Ms. Becker notes in her article that:

“After having consulted with screening companies and the credit bureaus, it does not appear that this will allow a credit report to be pulled in the same way that an SSN does.”  [Underscore mine.]

That statement does not sound like a ringing endorsement by Ms. Backer of her own suggestion that landlords use an ITIN in lieu of the SSN.  In any event, it’s worth a try.

So setting the ITIN issue aside, the FHCO’s position is that:

“…a refusal to review alternative documentation when a SSN is not available will have a negative and disparate impact on individuals whose national origin is not the US, thereby having a disparate impact on that protected class.  Therefore, a policy or practice of not accepting applicants because they do not have a SSN is not appropriate.  That said, we feel that passing on actual additional costs of screening in a situation like this as a legitimate business expense that could be passed on to the applicant. [Underscore mine.]

Here is where Ms. Becker and I part company.  What she is saying is that: (a) Since members ostensibly of a protected class [e.g. Mr. Obama’s four million invitees - who will be given an opportunity to apply for SSNs] will be adversely affected; (b) By insisting exclusively on the SSN as the sole screening tool, it indirectly singles them out, and that’s discriminatory.  That is what she means when she says it creates a “disparate impact.”  So even if a manager or landlord has no intent to discriminate – i.e. they are applying the SSN requirement to ALL applicants, it is the FHCO’s position that such a screening practice is a violation of the Federal and State Fair Housing Laws.

There is one problem with the above quote: Disparate impact theory has never been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court.  There are many legal scholars who maintain that the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) was only intend to be applied to prevent intentional discrimination. 

After several false starts, on January 21 of this year, the case of Texas Dept. of Housing vs. The Inclusive Communities Project, was heard by the Supreme Court. In a Forbes article (“Disparate-Impact Theory Finally Gets Its Test At Supreme Court“) published the following oral argument on the day of the hearing, writer Daniel Fisher, stated that the case:

“…represents a long-awaited test of disparate impact, which critics say allows the federal government — or allied non-profit groups like Inclusive Communities — to sue businesses and housing authorities for committing racial discrimination not because an identified person discriminated but because the racial outcome was skewed one way or another.”

In other words, the issue finally before the Court is whether the FHA can be used to produce racial outcomes when there is no proof of intent to discriminate. [2]   

Conclusion. Although I disagree that landlords and managers are today engaging in illegal discrimination via disparate impact, when they rely exclusively upon SSNs as a screening tool, there are some take-aways from the Becker article I do endorse:

• The FHCO believes that landlords and managers should review “alternative documentation” protocols, rather than just saying “No” whenever an applicant seeks to rent or lease a space without a SSN.  I have no problem with that, and suggest park owners develop such protocols. 
• However, the protocols must produce a reasonably equivalent [i.e. timely and reliable], result as when using a SSN. 
• If there are companies out there that can produce such results without SSNs– even if more costly – they should be seriously vetted. According to Ms. Becker, the cost, as of today, can be passed on to the applicant, should he or she choose to proceed. 
• Note that Ms. Becker is not saying that park owners and managers must use alternative procedures, even if they are bad or unreliable.  She is only saying that, if available, alternatives should be considered. I repeat: Landlords and managers should not initially “screen” [i.e. reject] all tenant applicants based solely on the fact they do not have a SSN.[3] You want to see if there is an alternative screening protocol.
• If (a) valid alternative screening tools exist, and (b) they are equally applied, there should be no legal basis for a claim of discrimination if the tenant applicant does not pass that screening protocol.
• Whether screening out all tenant applicants based upon their not having a SSN would result in a “disparate impact” against members of a protected class and therefor violate the FHA, will have to wait until the U. S. Supreme Court issues its decision.

In the meantime, landlords and managers may want to investigate various screening companies today, to learn whether there are other suitable substitutes to using the SSN as a screening tool.  If there are, and they prove reliable, these alternatives should be included on a written list and provided to tenant applicants preferably upon first face-to-face contact.[4]  Remember to be consistent and apply this approach across the board to ALL tenant applicants. To be absolutely safe, I would even go so far as to say that the list – if one can be developed – should be given to all applicants with the rest of the park’s paperwork. In other words, don’t ask the applicant if they have a SSN, and if they do not, then refuse to give them an application. If there are comparable alternatives that a screening company will accept, then you may use one of them.    

[1] I respectfully submit that “show me what you can” is an insufficient and slightly misleading approach to the issue, as it is too open-ended.  It implies that the applicant need only produce what they can.  I suggest that the proper approach is to ask:  “Show me the best documentation you have of your identity.” If the applicant produces a valid birth certificate or a valid driver’s license, it may suffice for the screening company. If he or she produces a library card as the “best evidence,” there may be some difficulty in its suitability for use by the screening company.

[2] I wrote a blog post explaining disparate impact late last year, before the case was argued. It can be found here.

[3] There is a slightly comparable analogy with medical marijuana. As long as it is a federally “controlled substance” landlords may – in my opinion – have a policy against its on-site use, cultivation, manufacture, or sale; they do not have to allow its on-site use as a “reasonable accommodation.”  But having a no-medical marijuana policy does not mean landlords may “screen” tenant applicants, based upon whether they simply have a medical marijuana card.  

[4] I say “face-to-face contact”, as I don’t recommend engaging in a discussion of screening issues with applicants over the phone. There is too much chance there is a tester on the other end of the line. You want to be consistent in giving all applicants the same paperwork when they arrive.

Answer: ORS 90.485 specifically allows landlords to have a vehicle towed if it: (a) Blocks or prevents access by emergency vehicles; (b) Blocks or prevents entry to the premises; (c) Violates a prominently posted parking prohibition; (d) Blocks or is unlawfully parked in a space reserved for persons with disabilities; (e) Is parked in an area not intended for motor vehicles including, but not limited to, sidewalks, lawns and landscaping; (f) Is parked in a space reserved for tenants but is not assigned to a tenant and does not display a parking tag or other device; or, (g) Is parked in a specific space assigned to a tenant (but only with the tenant's agreement at the time of the tow).

First and foremost, you should ensure that you have the proper signage in your park specifying whether and/or when parking is allowed in certain areas (i.e., "No Overnight Street Parking"). Also contact a local towing company to have them post towing company signs around the park.

When you have an illegally parked vehicle towed, the towing company is responsible for taking a photo of the vehicle and reporting to the police that it has been towed. After the car is removed, the towing company takes responsibility for the vehicle and returning it to the owner (after paying the tow fees, of course).

I would also suggest a rule allowing the park to assess parking violation charges of $50 per violation. As required by ORS 90.302 (3), the rule should specify that the first violation would result in a written warning, with subsequent violations within one year being assessed the $50 charge. ORS 90.302 (3) specifies the language that must be included in the written warning, which you should consult with an attorney to draft.

There are certain technical nuances to these statutes, so as usual consult with an experienced attorney before implementing a parking enforcement plan. But the bottom line is that you do have tools at your disposal to cut down on parking problems.

Most commercial real estate lenders who survived the 2008 market meltdown have worked through their troubled assets, and are once again lending. New lenders, including a multitude of conduit lenders, have joined the fray in anticipation of a large spike in the volume of maturing loans over the next three years. According to a survey released on January 13, 2015, by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), a relative measure of supply and demand showed that lenders were 50% more eager to make loans than borrowers were to take out loans.

Most lenders and participants at the MBA's annual conference, which took place in February 2015, expressed optimism about the overall health of commercial lending markets and future growth prospects. According to the MBA, the amount of commercial and multifamily debt outstanding rose to a record high in the third quarter of 2014, and now stands at $2.6 trillion. New loan originations in 2015 are projected to be $414 billion, an increase of 7% from 2014.

The following is an overview of lending alternatives and the environment we anticipate during the remainder of 2015.

Conduit Lenders

The re-emergence of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBS), and conduit lenders who originate these mortgages, has been a key factor in the market's recovery over the past three years. Conduit lenders originate and pool loans that are sold in the capital markets, resulting in attractive financing terms for a wide range of properties and borrowers. While conduit loans are not a good fit for every borrower, they play an essential role underpinning the market by providing lending options for properties that may not otherwise be eligible for competitive financing terms.

Conduit loans have account for as much as 50% of total commercial real estate lending volume in some years. At the peak of the market in 2007, annual U.S. conduit lending volume was close to $230 billion. In 2008, however, the CMBS industry was all but dismantled until the second half of 2012, which marked the comeback of conduit lenders when investors (buyers of CMBS) once again became comfortable with underwriting standards and real estate exposure in general. Conduit loan production in 2014 totaled approximately $101 billion, which was an increase of approximately 19% of 2013, according to a recent issue of Commercial Mortgage Alert. Some insiders are projecting 2015 conduit lending volumes will be as high as $125 billion. CMBS and similar securitized loans currently account for 21% of outstanding commercial and multifamily mortgages in the U.S.

Multifamily properties are highly desired among conduit lenders who need a diverse mix of property types for their loan pools. MHCs in particular are in strong demand among conduit lenders since other lenders, most notable Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae, compete aggressively for traditional apartments thereby making it more difficult for conduit lenders to win that multifamily business.

Government-sponsored entities

Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac are the two government-sponsored entities (GSEs) that actively lend on MHCs. They have the directive from their regulator to enhance the flow of credit to multifamily properties nationwide. Fannie Mae was the most reliable lender, and often the only option, during the most recent lending crisis. On April 29 2014, Freddie Mac received approval from its regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), to begin lending on MHCs. This move is reflective of a more expansive role for the GSE's being signaled by FHFA director Mel Watt, who assumed office on January 6, 2014.

FNMA loans are accessed through Delegated Underwriting and Servicing (DUS) lenders who are designated to underwrite, process, close, and service loans for Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac loans are accessed through its designated lenders, called sellers/servicers, who play the same role as Fannie Mae's DUS lenders.

GSE's offer very attractive terms, including recently introduced early rate lock options, and GSE loans now comprise 43% of outstanding multifamily mortgage debt in the United States. In 2014, FNMA and Freddie Mac provided $1.5 billion in financing to MHC owners, and we expect this to be substantially higher in 2015 since Freddie Mac was not lending on MHCs until the second half of 2014. In addition, MHC loans are excluded from GSE annual lending volume caps, which should further increase the GSE's demand for MHC loans.

Life Insurance Companies

Life insurance companies (Lifecos) have an ongoing need to invest money in long-term, fixed rate investments with defined maturities, which includes commercial real estate loans. Lifecos purchase CMBS as investors, and also directly originate loans to borrowers. In 2014, lifecos originated $61 billion of commercial real estate loans, and account for 14% of outstanding U.S. commercial and multifamily debt.

With regard to MHCs, Lifecos continue to focus on higher quality, preferably age-restricted, communities in larger markets with financially strong and experienced borrowers. They generally pursue larger loan sizes ($5 million or more) at lower leverage levels than can usually be achieved with conduit or GSE lenders. Lifecos tend to have a pricing advantage for loans with fixed rate terms in excess of 10 years, and they also offer the ability for the borrower to lock rates at the time of application.

Banks and Thrifts

Bank and thrifts hold the largest share, 37%, of outstanding commercial and multifamily mortgages in the U.S. assisted by the tailwinds of improving property values, bank and thrifts have addressed most of their "bad" real estate loans, and are now expanding loan origination efforts. Additionally, bank deposits have increased, providing additional funds to lend. Banks and thrifts originated $944 billion in new commercial and multifamily loans in 2014.

Bank lending in usually limited geographically to the footprint of the bank's retail network as many banks prefer to lend only to local borrowers to whom they can also provide additional banking services. Furthermore, since banks typically require a personal guarantee, their underwriting focuses more intensely on the individual providing the personal guarantee.

Some banks consider MHCs to be a special purpose property type outside the scope of their normal lending activity, and therefore, approach MHC lending in a conservative manner. However, there are substantial differences across the country in bank lending programs that are offered for MHCs. In some regions, such as the west coast, there are banks that market specifically to the MHC sector.

In summary, financing is readily available for solid quality MHCs in most markets. Lenders will continue to compete heavily for the higher quality properties and borrowers. While disruptions in the capital markets could put the brakes on the good times, it is great to be finally talking about commercial lending without analyzing the state of the market recovery.

Tony Petosa and Nick Bertino of Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital specialize in providing financing for MHCs through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, conduit, and balance sheet lending programs. For more information or for a copy of their "Manufactured Home Community Financing Handbook," please contact: Tony at 760-438-2153 or tpetosa@wellsfargo.com; or Nick at 760-438-2692 or nick.bertino@wellsfargo.com; or visit wellfargo.com/mhc.

Answer: ORS 90.417 (Duty to Pay Rent) provides as follows:

• Effect of acceptance of partial rent:

1. A tenant's duty regarding rent payments is to tender to the landlord an offer of the full amount of rent owed within the time allowed by law and by the rental agreement;

1. A landlord may refuse to accept a rent tender that is for less than the full amount of rent owed or that is untimely.

1. A landlord may accept a partial payment of rent. The acceptance of a partial payment of rent does not constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy for failure to pay all rent due so long as the landlord and tenant by written agreement provide that monthly rent shall be paid in regular installments of less than a month pursuant to a schedule specified in the agreement. Installment rent payments paid in this manner are not considered partial payment of rent.

1. However, if there is no such written agreement, the acceptance of a partial payment of rent waives the right of the landlord to terminate the tenant's rental agreement for nonpayment of the balance rent unless:
   1. The landlord accepted the partial payment of rent before the landlord gave a nonpayment of rent termination notice based on the tenant's agreement to pay the balance by a time certain and the tenant does not pay the balance of the rent as agreed;

(b) The landlord's notice of termination is served no earlier than it would have been permitted under had no rent been accepted; and

(c) The 72-hour or 144-hour notice permits the tenant to avoid termination of the tenancy by paying the balance within 72 hours or 144 hours, as the case may be, or by any date to which the parties agreed, whichever is later; OR

(d)The landlord accepted a partial payment of rent after giving a 72-hour or 144-hour notice and entered into a written agreement with the tenant that the acceptance does not constitute waiver. This written agreement may provide that the landlord may terminate the rental agreement and take possession under the eviction statutes without serving a new notice of termination if the tenant fails to pay the balance of the rent by a time certain.

• Note: Notwithstanding any acceptance of a partial payment under the written agreement arrangement above, the tenant continues to owe the landlord the unpaid balance of the rent.

Applying the above rules to your question, my response is as follows:

• Although you had no legal duty to accept the partial rent, you did accept it;
• Since you apparently had no written agreement with the tenant at the time of the partial payment, you would have had to issue a 72-hour or 144-hour notice for the balance of April's rent;
• You did not issue that notice;
• May's rent is now due, together with the unpaid balance of April's rent;
• As noted above, ORS 90.417 provides that a tenant has a duty to tender to the landlord an the full amount of rent owed and acceptance of partial rent does not mean the tenant does not owe the landlord for the unpaid balance that remains;
• In this case the full amount would be the remainder of April's unpaid rent, plus May's rent.
• Caveat: Remember that if your rental or lease agreement provides that rent is due on the first day of the month, the earliest you can issue a 72-hour is the 8th day of the month. If you issue a 144-hour notice, the earliest you could issue it is the 5th day of the month. don't issue your May notice before the applicable time!