Search

A fire or ambulance crew can’t safely respond to a medical emergency in a single family home because the resident has belongings stacked up to the ceiling and blocking many windows or doors.

A tenant living in an apartment faces eviction when he or she fails to pass a follow-up inspection after several warnings about lease violations related to items that create a tripping hazard, fire danger, or limit access to maintenance staff. The tenant then contacts their case manager in a panic.

These are just two examples of possible complications in housing settings that could impact housing providers.  Hoarding is distinct from simply building a collection, which is usually displayed with pride, or letting a few days of dishes and laundry pile up when life gets busy. A person who has been diagnosed with hoarding has a disability under the Fair Housing Act1. Hoarding has been added to the DSM-5, the latest version of the American Psychiatric Association’s classification and diagnostic tool, and is now recognized as diagnosable condition independent of other mental health conditions.

FHCO had received a few calls about potential hoarding situations by the time an invitation came in the spring of 2013 to participate in a collaborative Multnomah County conversation about the issue. Two graduate social work students serving as interns in the Multnomah County Office of Aging and Disability Services convened various agencies to meet for a “community assessment.” Attendees have included representatives of several nonprofit and for-profit housing providers, Aging and Disability and Adult Protective Services, Legal Aid, Animal Control, and Assessments and Tax. This Hoarding Task Force has continued to meet regularly, researching resources and bringing in experts to assist in coordinating services and developing best practices. The group is now beginning the process of staffing cases and developing a more formal protocol.  The good news is that there are new cognitive behavioral therapy models that can be successful in treating hoarding.

Since hoarding disorder is a disability under the Fair Housing Act, these individuals have the right to request a reasonable accommodation (RA) from a housing provider. This might include providing an agreed upon length of time to bring in a professional cleaner / organizer to help clear pathways, reduce pile heights, clear materials in front of heating vents, etc. More will probably be needed than a single deep clean. There may be several steps to the RA request, prioritizing the most immediate safety needs and then allowing a more gradual timeline for reducing other clutter, in conjunction with a professional organizer or mental health provider.

As with any RA request, housing providers need to evaluate the request and the verification of disability and respond in a timely manner. Housing providers are always well advised to review the legal reasons for denial, consult with a fair housing attorney, document the rationale for their decision, and feel comfortable defending it if a complaint / case follows when making a decision on a RA request.  As always, regardless of the request that’s made or what the disability is, if a denial is made, HUD says a conversation should ensue about what would work for the individual with the disability. 

Want to learn more?  Suggested reading list:

• Hoarding basics: www.psychiatry.org/hoarding-disorder -- American Psychiatric Association: “Hoarding Disorder”
• "The Hoarding Handbook: A Guide for Human Services Professionals" – Bratiotis, Christina, et. al., New York: Oxford University Press, 2011
• “Task Forces Offer Hoarders a Way to Dig Out” – The New York Times, Jan Hoffman, 5/26/13
• “Obsessive compulsive and related disorders” – American Psychiatric Publishing

This article brought to you by the Fair Housing Council; a civil rights organization.  All rights reserved © 2015. 

[1] Federally protected classes under the Fair Housing Act include:  race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (children), and disability.  Oregon law also protects marital status, source of income, sexual orientation, and domestic violence survivors.  Additional protected classes have been added in particular geographic areas; visit FHCO.org/mission.htm and read the section entitled “View Local Protected Classes” for more information.

Question. We have a problem and I'm looking for guidance as to the proper way to handle it. Our well is going dry. Upon inspection, our well expert said we had only four feet of water. Although the system recovers overnight, there have been numerous occasions when the holding tank (2600 gallon capacity) is below 500 gallons. Fortunately, our pump has a system that prevents it from overheating or working when no water is available.

Our water system serves a community of 29 mobile homes and 41 RV spaces.

I have issued two notices informing residents of the water problem and requesting that they voluntarily conserve water use. Most have complied. Although the park owner is currently working with the local municipality to get our park on city water, this may not happen soon enough to avoid a serious water crisis.

I do not have the background to know what can legally be done to compel users to conserve. Can you point me in the right direction?

Answer. First, I will assume that you have confirmed the well is going dry - as opposed to other problems having to do with the pump.[1]

90.730(2) ("Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition") provides that community landlords have a duty to maintain the rented spaces, vacant spaces, and common areas in a "habitable condition". For purposes of your water supply, 90.730(3)(c) says a space is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks 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."

My reading of this means that even though your system is failing in terms of providing an adequate supply of water, the spaces for residents owning their homes, are not "unhabitable" so long as it is safe and in good working order to the extent you can control the system.

As to your RV residents, your duties are not defined by the manufactured housing section of the landlord-tenant law, but by the general landlord-tenant law. See, ORS 90.320(1)(c). This statute imposes essentially the same obligation as that is contained in ORS 90.730.

One caveat: Your habitability obligation is subject to the extent you can control the water supply system. While you cannot "control" a failing well, you can explore the feasibility of (a) digging a new well, (b) digging the existing well deeper, or (c) making sure the water problem is not due to problems with the pump.[2] I can't tell from your question whether you've explored those possibilities.

Assuming that you are unable to do either (a) or (b), due to the current condition of the underground aquifers, or financial constraints, and (c) is not the problem, then it appears your only alternative is to continue working with the municipality to bring in city water - and hope a crisis can be avoided.

This brings me to your question, i.e. what can you do to "compel users to conserve"? Under the Oregon landlord-tenant law, I believe your options are limited. You could institute a water conservation regime for those owning their manufactured home through a rule change[3] - assuming not over 51% objected, and assess fines for the scofflaws. For RV tenants, you may institute the change anytime, although I suggest not less than 30-day notice.[4] Of course, enforcing this, would be difficult, since it would turn neighbor vs. neighbor.[5]

On the other hand, the threat of fines, may be sufficient to compel voluntary compliance. Education is the first step, i.e. making sure that everyone is water conscious. This would include providing information to residents about detecting and repairing leaks, and installing water saving devices.

Lastly, you need to prioritize your conservation efforts. Here is what I mean:

• RV tenants who come into the park should be informed of the situation, and told that if they don't conserve, they will be asked to leave with a 30-day notice. Before accepting them as tenants, you could require that they certify they have no leaks, and that they have installed certain water saving devices. In other words, the certification would be required as a condition of occupancy.
• Existing RV tenants already in the park who have been residents less than one year, can also be informed of the need to conserve, or they will be asked to leave with a 30-day notice. They too could be asked to certify they have undertaken the above-referenced conservation efforts.
• Existing RV tenants who have resided in the park over one year, should be informed of the need to conserve, or they will be asked to leave with a 60-day notice. They too could be asked to certify they have undertaken the above-referenced conservation efforts.
• For manufactured home tenants who come into the park, they should be informed of the situation and asked to certify they have no leaks, and that they have installed certain water saving devices.

For existing manufactured home tenants, you can ask, but can't require (short of a rule change) that they conserve, and certify having done so.

If the problem appears to be getting worse and residents leave, you should consider not filling the space - especially owners of manufactured homes - until you can get on city water.

[1] For a discussion of well water problems, see: http://wellwater.engr.oregonstate.edu/well-going-dry.

[2] I'm not an expert in this area of the law, so am limited as to what your viable options are. These issues are better left to your well driller and other experts in the area.

[3] See, ORS 90.610(3) - (7).

[4] The statute, ORS 90.262 allows rule changes "from time to time" which tells me you do not need advance notice. However, if some existing residents believed it worked a substantial modification of their bargain, they could object.

[5] Assessment of a fine should clarify that it is not a "charge" for the use of the extra water, but a "fine" for violation of the rule. The reason is that ORS 90.532(9) states that a landlord may not assess a utility or service charge for water unless the water is provided to the landlord by a: (a) Public utility; (b) Municipal utility; (c) People's utility district; (d) Cooperative; (e) Domestic water supply district; or (f) Water improvement district. Thus, since your water comes from a well, you must avoid the appearance of assessing a "charge" for the excess water use.

Answer. Based upon recent news reports, it appears that, subject to certain exceptions,[1] 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 is legal.

Thus, it appears that when it comes to enforcement of park 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 is likely "No." Here's why:[2]

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.[3] 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 from an employment perspective. In a subsequent article [found here] by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon it appears that the rationale of the Emerald Steel Fabricators case is helpful for landlords declining to admit new residents with medical marijuana cards - so long as they have an existing policy against the use and cultivation of marijuana in the community.

Thus, it appears that in Oregon, on both the federal and state levels, enforcement agencies are taking a laissez-faire approach to the medical marijuana issue. This means that landlords have it within their control, with little fear of fair housing/reasonable accommodation claims, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises medical or recreational use of marijuana.

However, I do not believe the proscription should be retroactive to tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards who have already signed their rental agreements or leases. Like you, I believe that a court would not be favorable to your situation.

It appears that your resident's medical marijuana card is in order. It must valid and current for Oregon. A California card, for example, would not suffice. [See, State v. Berrenger, 2010].

Conclusion. Yours is a difficult situation. For existing tenants I believe you can legally institute a "no marijuana" policy against recreational and medical use. However, making it retroactive as to persons already holding medical marijuana cards, would be a difficult proposition, since they did not bargain for that when they became residents or when they received their card.

In some instances, and this may not be one, I have seen situations where the resident, under the guise of holding a medical marijuana card, is also selling the drug illegally to others. This situation is most apparent when there are late night visits by unknown persons for short periods of time. If this situation presents itself, and neighbors complain, you may have recourse by issuing a 30-day curable notice of termination for violating ORS 90.740(4)(j) for disturbing the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment. You do not have to raise the marijuana use, just the noise and disruption. Upon a second similar violation within six months of the date of issuance of the first notice, you can issue a 20-day noncurable notice.

[1] The exceptions are: The distribution of marijuana to minors; Directing revenue from marijuana sales to gangs and cartels; Diverting marijuana from states where it is legal to other states where there are no laws allowing for marijuana use; Using legal sales as cover for trafficking operations; Using violence and or firearms in marijuana cultivation and distribution; Driving under the influence of marijuana; Growing marijuana on public lands; Possessing marijuana or using on federal property.

[2]Note: This answer is not intended to constitute legal advice. Readers should consult their own legal counsel to determine how to proceed in these cases, as the correct outcome depends upon the specific facts of each situation.

[3] Note that Oregon has its own set of fair housing laws.

Are your catch basins cleaned out and ready for the fall rains, and are your speed bumps painted so vehicles and pedestrians can see them through the long winter months... neither of these two tasks take a lot of time or money, and Residents appreciate some of the attention to this detail!

Have you sent a "Prepare For Winter Memo" to your Residents reminding them to clean gutters, check their heat tape/pipe insulation? Have you WALKED your property taking note of any limbs on tall trees that need pruning attention in the fall and winter wind storms? While on your daily walk-throughs, did you follow-up on your spring four sided inspection reminding Residents to remove items improperly stored outside or in view of the street? Tarps suddenly have a way of appearing once fall rains start, so you will want to include in the memo that these are not allowed. (Check your "Guidelines For Living" aka R&Rs for inclusion of this prohibition!)

How about your inventory of emergency ice melt and sand... do you have them available for common area walkways... mailbox, clubhouse, laundry room and office entry areas... ? What is your plan for the leaf litter that can be overwhelming in the fall? If you own your snowplow equipment, is it serviced and ready to go? Before the rest of the property owners beat you to the phone, you may want to advance negotiations with a local snow removal company... now is the time to make the call and ask for a contract!

There is still an enormous list of tasks ahead of us especially if you own communities with outdoor pools, irrigation, systems, RV storage areas, lawn equipment and the like. These are all the PHYSICAL and FACILITY maintenance items that require our attention before the long winter "sleep." BUT, equally important is sharpening your pencil and looking back at the past year's financials and preparing your budget for NEXT year! Have you contacted utility agencies to establish anticipated raises on their part? How about your insurance agent or County Assessor? Did you sit down with your manager to generate a list of areas that he/she believes need attention administratively???? Have either of you generated a comparable market analysis of rents in your area... exactly where do YOU stack up??

The BEST run MHCs are occupied with content Residents who receive VALUE for their rental dollars. Therefore a very large part of our jobs is not just anticipating and addressing the physical and administrative needs of our communities as partially illustrated above; most importantly, treating Residents with respect and attention to detail will yield a rent roster of Tenants who will exhibit the pride of ownership we all strive to have in our land lease communities.

Joel Erlitz

First Commercial Property Corp

4500 Kruse Way #345

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Phone: 206-985-7275

Fax: 206-985-3876

Email: ross@fcpcmgt.com

Web: http://firstcommercialpropertycorp.com

Sally Harrington

First Commercial Property Corp

4500 Kruse Way #345

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Phone: 206-985-7275

Fax: 206-985-3876

Email: ross@fcpcmgt.com

Web: http://firstcommercialpropertycorp.com

Answer: The general answer is "yes," both the park models and regular RVs can (and should) be treated the same with regard to landlord-tenant laws. However, there are certain regulations that you must follow to ensure that the park models fully qualify as "recreational vehicles" as defined by Oregon law.

First and foremost, a "recreational vehicle" is defined by statute (ORS 446.003 (33)) as a vehicle "with or without motive power that is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes" and as further defined by administrative rule. "Recreational vehicle" is then defined in various rules as (1) being identified as an RV by the manufacturer, and (2) not exceeding 400 square feet in the setup mode, including all tip-outs, slide-outs, expandable rooms, and other horizontal projections.

However, this does not mean that park models cannot be equipped with various accessory structures like decks, steps, porches, roof overhangs and other similar construction. The guiding rule is that these external structures cannot be supported by the RV itself and cannot be enclosed with walls, glass or other solid materials if that would exceed the maximum allowed gross floor area of the RV.

While there are other construction exceptions as well (basements, lofts, certain bay windows, freestanding cabanas, etc.), you should consult with a knowledgeable expert to carefully comply with these regulations. The primary Oregon Administrative Rules can be found at OAR 918-525 and 918-530, which are administered by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division.

Assuming you meet the park model regulations, you can use the same rental agreement that you use with regular RV tenants. In many cases, MHCO Form 80 (RV Space Rental Agreement) will work just fine. In other cases, you may want to use a form specifically designed for your park - just make sure that it contains all of the required information, such as how accessory buildings and structures will be dealt with at the end of the tenancy.

In any event, an RV tenancy (unlike a manufactured home tenancy) can be terminated with a no-cause notice if the tenancy is month to month. If the tenant has been in the park less than a year, the no-cause notice period can be 30 days. After the first year of tenancy, the notice period must be at least 60 days. While you would certainly hope not to need to evict a park model tenant, since they technically live in "recreational vehicles," the law gives you that option as a landlord.

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn'tmake it clear whether the estate was formally filed for probate in court, in which case this "Administrator" would be subject to court supervision and would have to have a bond. I'm suspecting that is not the case - but if it is, you may want to secure legal counsel to notify the court of what's happening and perhaps get him removed.

Assuming that the person is just a designee for the un-probated estate (I will call him the "representative"), I would suggest that you look to ORS 90.675(20), which applies when a resident living alone passes away. Subsection (20) is summarized below, but should not be used as a substitute for reading ORS 90.675 (linked here) in its entirety:

• This subsection (20) applies the same duties as those of a resident who abandoned the property.
• It also applies to any personal representative named in a will or appointed by a court, or any person designated in writing by the decedent to be contacted by the landlord in the event of the tenant's death;
• The 45-day abandonment notice required in ORS 90.675(3) (go to above link) is to be sent by first class mail to this representative at the premises, and also personally delivered or sent by first class mail to them if actually known to the landlord.
• If the representative responds by actual notice to a landlord within the 45-day period provided in the letter and so requests, the landlord shall enter into a written storage agreement with the representative or person providing that the personal property may not be sold or disposed of by the landlord for up to 90 days or until conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
• Note: Entering into the storage agreement includes the duty to pay a "storage fee" which can be no higher than the space rent. This duty is not triggered until the 45-day letter is sent. Presumably you will use a good storage agreement that requires, among other things, compliance with all applicable park rules and state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including a duty to maintain the space. On- site destruction of the home is NOT maintaining the space. Depending upon the home's age, on site destruction could be a violation of certain environmental laws, due to potentially hazardous material used in construction. In fact, since there is a risk that the representative will not comply with the storage agreement - based on his threat of destruction - you may want to consider - only upon the advice of your attorney - to restrict his unsupervised access to the home. Destruction of the home would not only take it off the tax rolls in violation of Oregon property tax law, but it would prevent you, as the landlord, from selling the home upon failure of the representative to meet his obligations. Remember, in addition to the tax collector, you have a vested interest in seeing the home sold for recoupment any sums due (arguably including attorney fees) incurred during the abandonment process.
• Since the abandonment law requires that the landlord has a duty of safe keeping pending completion of the abandonment process, it is my belief[1] that this entitles the landlord to secure the home (e.g. with a new lock) so that heirs and others cannot enter and remove personal property.
• A storage agreement entitles the representative to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the personal property.
• If such an agreement is entered into, the landlord may not enter a similar agreement with a lienholder (if any) until the agreement with the representative ends.
• If the representative requests that a landlord enter into a storage agreement and there is a lienholder, also, you should review subsections (19)(c) to (e) and (g)(C) of ORS 90.675, which describes the rights and responsibilities of a lienholder with regard to the storage agreement.
• During the term of the Storage Agreement, the representative has the right to remove or sell the property, including a sale to a purchaser or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave the property on the space and become a tenant. However, this prospective tenant is subject to the same statutory requirement, including landlord qualification and approval, as found in ORS 90.680 (linked here). The landlord also may condition approval for occupancy upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
• If the representative violates the storage agreement, the landlord may terminate it by giving at least 30 days' written notice to them stating facts sufficient to notify them of the reason for the termination. Unless the representative or person corrects the violation within the notice period, the Storage Agreement terminates as provided and the landlord may sell or dispose of the property without further notice to the representative.

• Upon the failure of a representative to enter into a storage agreement or upon termination of an agreement, unless the parties otherwise agree or the representative has sold or removed the home, the landlord may sell or dispose of it pursuant to sale provisions of ORS 90.675 without further notice to the representative.

So, in summary, the abandonment statute - which is quite lengthy and somewhat difficult to follow - applies in this case, and with proper guidance, you should be able to successfully deal with the representative.

[1] I'm not rendering a "legal opinion" in this Answer - PCQ

Answer: I doubt the park rules contain anything about privacy rights or the use of video cameras. As to laws being broken by the use of the camera, I don't believe there are any. Thus, I don't seen any management responsibility at this point. In other words, if the rental agreement, rules, or laws are not being broken, there would be no basis for management to treat the use of the camera as something for which the tenancy can be terminated, say, under a 30-day notice pursuant to ORS 90.630.

ORS 90.740 enumerates several duties of residents in manufactured housing communities. Subsection (4)(j) provides they must: "Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors." Video taping from a stationary location, does not, in my opinion, appear to violate this law. If one resident followed the other around with a camera throughout the park, that would be another issue.

Let's call the resident with the camera, "Resident A", and the one with the late-night visitors, "Resident B". Your question did not say whether Resident B was aware of the video camera or that it was trained at his front door. Nor did you indicate whether the video camera also had audio capability, such that it could pick up Resident B's outdoor conversations with his late night guests.

In Oregon, ORS 165.540(1)(c) forbids a person from obtaining or attempting to obtain "the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine, or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." Note that informing the participants is required, but consent from them is not. Subsection (3) of the statute provides that the above prohibitions do not apply to conversations that occur inside a homeowner's residence, - even though the guests and visitors are not informed.

Although audio recordings are addressed by the above Oregon statute, video recordings are not. Nonetheless, the general rule, at least from a civil law standpoint, is whether the (e.g. Resident B) has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Doing drug deals outside is most likely an activity Resident B and his guests have no reasonable basis to expect privacy.

Certainly, Resident A can use the cameras on his own property and the streets, sidewalks, and any other public and quasi-public areas. Can the camera be trained on the front door of Resident B, as he admits his late night visitors? I cannot render a legal opinion on this, but would speculate that since it is outdoors, albeit on Tenant A's own property, video recording should be OK (not audio recording, however). But even if it's not OK, is this a fight management wants to take up? This is not as if Resident A is screaming at Resident B's late night guests, or is otherwise causing any disruption in the park. If Resident B knows of the video surveillance, consent would seem to be a moot issue. It would be prudent for Resident A to let Resident B know he has installed a security system that includes video surveillance. The manager should encourage Resident A to do so, or authorize him (the manager) to do so. Once informed, the entire expectation of privacy analysis becomes moot.

Lastly, I'm curious is Resident B's activity is bothering anyone else? If so, it may be time to take action. I have always maintained that with residents whose late night activities smack of drug dealing, with all the typical indicators such as multiple visitors, noise, and short-term visits, etc., a 30-day curable notice under ORS 90.630 is a much easier tool to use as the basis of an eviction, than to try to "prove" a violation of ORS 90.396 (1)(f)(B), which allows the issuance of a non-curable 24-hour notice for the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance as defined by various Oregon statutes.

Answer: You are correct that ORS 90.630 may only be used to give residents notice of a violation and an opportunity to cure. This is not so say you couldn'tuse a 30-day notice in this case, but the "cure" would be for the resident to stop possessing the meth, which would be highly difficult to verify. Moreover, in many cases, the possession of meth can be accompanied by other activities that can pose health, safety, welfare, and peaceable enjoyment, issues to the other residents of your community.

ORS 90.396(1) provides in relevant part:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, after at least 24 hours written notice specifying the acts and omissions constituting the cause and specifying the date and time of the termination, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement and take possession as provided in ORS 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) to 105.168 (Minor as party in proceedings pertaining to residential dwellings), if:

***

(f) The tenant, someone in the tenants control or the tenants pet commits any act that is outrageous in the extreme, on the premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises. For purposes of this paragraph, an act is outrageous in the extreme if the act is not described in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection [i.e. committing serious injury to persons and property in the community, etc. - PCQ], but is similar in degree and is one that a reasonable person in that community would consider to be so offensive as to warrant termination of the tenancy within 24 hours, considering the seriousness of the act or the risk to others. An act that is outrageous in the extreme is more extreme or serious than an act that warrants a 30-day termination under ORS 90.392 (Termination of rental agreement by landlord for cause). Acts that are outrageous in the extreme include, but are not limited to, the following acts by a person:

***

(B) Manufacture, delivery or possession of a controlled substance, as described in ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980), but not including [Oregon marijuana exceptions - PCQ]... .(Underscore mine.)

Note that ORS 90.396(1)(f)(B) expressly says that the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance constitutes an act that is "outrageous in the extreme." Accordingly, it is not proscribed conduct that is open to debate about whether it may be "cured" within thirty days. Illegal drug possession is considered an automatic violation of the law.

Accordingly, the use of a 24-hour notice (MHCO form # ), would be appropriate in this case. However, just because the statute and form refer to "24-hours" does not mean you must require the resident to vacate within that time. It just means you cannot give less than 24-hours' notice.

This answer assumes that the resident's possession occurred '_on the premises (i.e. the space) or in the immediate vicinity of the premises." If not, that is, while he was arrested inside the community, the possession occurred outside of the community, your reliance ORS 90.396(1)(f)(B) would be inappropriate and would likely fail.

Additionally, based on your question, I cannot tell if the resident is causing any other problems in the community. Nor can I tell if he is - or will shortly be - in jail. Assuming that he is released and comes back into the community, you could give him the 24-hour notice, but provide the time period for compliance to be a few days, which would perhaps allow him the ability to relocate, rather than be out on the street. Based upon the urgency of having him out - assuming he returns - this call is up to you.

The key is to recognize that a manufactured home community is not just a business enterprise; it is also a small town. The residents expect you to be, from time to time, something of a mayor, judge, law enforcer, mediator and diplomat - as well as bill collector and manager of buildings and grounds.

Simply stated, resident relations is the measure of how well, or poorly, the manager and resident get along in the rental community. Developing and maintaining good, positive relations is an important, on-going management challenge and opportunity. Positive resident relations are one of the most attractive features of well-managed manufactured home communities.

The results of good resident relations are:

1. It makes community living easier and more pleasant for management and residents.

2. It promotes a positive and enjoyable living environment which, in turn, generates community pride.

3. It encourages resident referrals. This is the most economical form of community promotion available.

4. It helps develop a good local reputation for the community in particular and the manufactured housing industry in general.

5. It discourages the need or desire for rent control and/or landlord-tenant legislation.

The right attitude in resident relations is the same as any personal relationship - whether with a friend, spouse, job supervisor, or community manager. In fact, developing positive resident relations is the Golden Rule of successful property management. This means being positive, fair, helpful, and communicative with residents and staff alike. Additionally, in all management matters, "Be firm, but fair - diplomatically" and "Be friendly to all, but friends to none." The community's rules ,regulations and statement of policy can be the keystone to good resident relations. If well designed, the rules and regulations as well as the statement of policy reinforce the community's image; if well written, they diminish chances of misunderstanding; if well understood, they reduce property damage and resident problems."

Positive resident relations is the Golden Rule of successful property management. Adopt that attitude and adopt the measures suggested. Developing good resident relations will come easily. Just remember to communicate accurately, briefly, clearly and concisely in everything you say and write.

Answer: You must have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical. Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% occupancy [even upon death of a qualifying 55+ resident] means immediate disqualification. Does this mean that your 15% safety margin must be reserved for families with children? The answer is "No." In fact, a 55+ community should strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over. Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age? Again, the answer is "No." If desired, a 55+ community may impose a minimum age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.

However, it is also important for you to publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to operate as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory; i.e. you should make sure that in all advertising, rules, rental agreements, and policies, you always hold the community out as a 55+ facility.

Lastly, you must comply with HUD's age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that at least 80% of the community is intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver's license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older.