Search

Answer. This can be a complicated issue. First, there are a series of state statutes governing the towing of vehicles from private property (here). They should be carefully reviewed before undertaking this process.

Here is a relevant portion of the law:

98.810 Unauthorized parking of vehicle on proscribed property prohibited. A person may not, without the permission of:

(1) The owner of a parking facility, leave or park any vehicle on the parking facility if there is a sign displayed in plain view at the parking facility prohibiting or restricting public parking on the parking facility.

(2) The owner of proscribed property, leave or park any vehicle on the proscribed property whether or not there is a sign prohibiting or restricting parking on the proscribed property.

Also, some cities and counties may have their own ordinances. The City of Portland, for example, has very specific rules (here). Gresham and Tualatin do as well. Plus, the Oregon Department of Justice has various consumer protection rules against "predatory towing". (here).

For manufactured housing communities, I suggest going much farther than relying on state or local laws. If your community decides to do this, it should be clearly disclosed in the rules and regulations. Of utmost importance is proper visible signage, which can either be created by management, or provided by the towing company you decide to use. Make sure the company has a good reputation in all respects, and no records of consumer complaints.

If the violator is a resident, I suggest one or more warnings (following a protocol in your rules) before having the vehicle towed. Once towed, the car is impounded, and the cost of getting it released is not insubstantial, and the towing company has storage lien rights. If the process is not strictly followed, the owner could have a claim against management for conversion, i.e. the civil side of theft.

Fining is a much safer alternative, but must also follow community rules. The worst that can happen if the fine is levied in error is to rescind it. Making an error in the lead-up or during a tow, can be much more costly to management.

Fines can be enforced with a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630, so long as it is found in the rules. I suggest a warning notice first. Take a picture of it on the car, with the plate visible. Include the date and time. Mail a copy of the notice and the picture to the resident within 7 - 10 days. Use a certificate of mailing.

Make sure there is proper visible signage describing the proscribed area, the times, if applicable, and the amount of the fine.

If the fine increases on multiple violations, describe that, or reference the park rule. Do not make the fine punitive. If other communities have such violations, find out what their fines are. Always use the rule of reason; don't impose a fine that most residents could not afford.

The issue of visitors is somewhat different, but rules may be enforced against the resident whose guest they are. That is why a warning notice should first be given. The notice and picture would go to the resident, who will, hopefully, warn their visitor about obeying marked No Parking signs.

Answer: Here is a short - and not comprehensive - summary of the temporary occupancy agreement law, which is found in ORS 90.275:

• The temporary occupancy agreement may be terminated by:
  • The tenant without cause at any time; and
  • The landlord - but only for a cause that is a material violation of the temporary occupancy agreement.
• The temporary occupant does not have a right to cure a for-cause violation issued from the landlord.
• Before entering into a temporary occupancy agreement, a landlord may screen the proposed temporary occupant for issues regarding conduct or for a criminal record.
  • However, the landlord may not screen the proposed temporary occupant for credit history or income level, since they are not a "tenant" and their financial capacity to pay rent is immaterial.
• A temporary occupancy agreement:
  • May provide that the temporary occupant is required to comply with any applicable rules for the premises; and
  • May have a specific ending date.
• A landlord or tenant is not required to give the temporary occupant written notice of the termination of a temporary occupancy agreement.
• A temporary occupant is treated as a squatter if they continue to occupy the dwelling in violation of the agreement.

Temporary occupants may be screened (except for financial capacity), and are held to the same criteria as tenants in regards to conduct, etc. Accordingly, if the Community has rules on pets, the TO must qualify.

If the tenant and daughter try to turn this into a reasonable accommodation issue, it is my opinion it still does not get her to first base. I can find no case law supporting the contention that a housing provider must make a reasonable accommodation to the daughter (as a TO) for permitting three large dogs in the Community.

You do NOT want to put the daughter on the rental agreement because that would make her a "tenant" in a legal sense, and trigger reasonable accommodation entitlements.

The case involved a mobile home park landlord who filed an eviction case because the tenant was allowing her adult son and his girlfriend to stay in the tenant's home without park approval. The park is a "55 or older" facility, and neither the son or girlfriend met the park's age requirements. More importantly, the son's presence in the park was accompanied by constant visitor traffic at all hours of the day.

The park issued a 30-day, for-cause notice to the tenant after confirming that the son and girlfriend were indeed staying there. At trial, the judge believed the evidence that the son was staying in the home, but took issue with the park's overnight guest policy. The judge found that the rental agreement policy allowing only 14 overnight visits per year was "unconscionable." The court stated that the limit was "unreasonable, obscure, and empowers Landlord excessively to Tenant's detriment." The judge went on to consider other factors in deciding the case, but an underlying theme was that tenants should be allowed more time for guest visits.

As a trial court decision, the case does not establish a legal precedent on overnight guest visits. However, while each case is different, landlords could limit their potential liability by expanding overnight visits above 14 days per year. Based on this particular judge's opinion, a 21-day per year limit might be a good safeguard. This adjustment could help negate the "unconscionable" argument by establishing a more relaxed guest policy.

If your park rules already allow more than 14 overnights per year for guests, it would be wise to rely on that policy to enforce guest visits. If you choose to amend your existing guest policy, mobile home park landlords can do so by issuing a rule change notice under ORS 90.610 (MHCO Form 60.) Non-park landlords can implement a new guest policy by having tenants sign off on a new guest policy rule. However, as usual, consult with an attorney before undertaking any rule changes with your tenants, and before filing an eviction action based on guest limitation violations.

MHCO FORM UPDATE: MHCO's rental agreement forms are in the process of being updated to allow 21 days per calendar year for guest visits (MHCO Forms 05A, 05B, 05C, and MHCO Form 80).

Answer.While Oregon permits the medical use of marijuana, the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. _ 801, et seq., says just the opposite; i.e. that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, and possess marijuana, even when state law authorizes it. Furthermore, federal law supersedesstate law where there is a direct conflict between them. So, the bottom line is that since you have a "No-Marijuana" policy, you do not need to make a "reasonable accommodation";[1]anyuse of marijuana, medical or otherwise, is illegal under federal law, regardless of Oregon law.

In 2013, Attorney General Holder statedthat, subject to certain exceptions,[2]there will be no effort by the U.S. 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 - as in Oregon.

And in the 2010 case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court held that employers donothave 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. Interestingly, today, a website search on the Oregon Fair Housing Council's websitefor any information or discussion about landlords making "reasonable accommodations" for medical marijuana users, reveals not a single word. That was not the case a few years ago. It appears that in Oregon, the Council is, for now, conceding the issue, and adopting the Fed's handoff policy.

However, in a January 4, 2018 memo, Attorney General Sessions was far less forgiving about marijuana use. While before it was more "don't ask, don't tell", today that is not the case. The memo stated, in part:

In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the Department's finite resources,prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions.Attorney General Benjamin Civilettioriginally set forth these principles in 1980, and they have been refined overtime, as reflected in chapter 9-27.000 ofthe U.S. Attorneys' Manual. These principles require federalprosecutors deciding which cases to prosecuteto weigh all relevant considerations, includingfederal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General,the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution,and the cumulative impactof particular crimes on the community.

This means that today, in Oregon, landlords have it within their control, with little fear of a fair housing/reasonable accommodation claims, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises use of recreational or medical marijuana. (However, enacting such a policy today should not be applied retroactively to existing tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards.)

So if you accept this applicant as a tenant, he or she must adhere to your policyor risk eviction. You do not want to grant him an exception, as that precedent will dilute the future enforcement of your policy.[3]

[1]The Americans with Disabilities Act or "ADA"states: "An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered." The Fair Housing Act follows this definition as well.

[2]The exceptions are: 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. (See link here.)

[3]Note, however, President Trump has recently stated he would probably support a federal law deferring to the states. (See link here.)

Answer 1: Generally, no. However, this isn'ta license to be rude to them. Let's start with the basics: If you are a legal 55+ community, you are not required to admit as residents, persons with children, i.e. those under the age of 18. If there are children in the community (perhaps before the facility converted to 55+, or simply because less than 20% of all spaces are occupied by persons with children), the park may do things that it could not do if it was a family park, such as prohibit children's Big Wheels and bicycles in the street. Generally, however, the best approach is to strive for 100% compliance with the 55+ laws in terms of occupancy. If you want to be a "safe" 55+ community, you will have rules that expressly say so; a rental/lease agreement that expressly says so; application and tenant home sale provisions that limit spaces to at least one occupant 55+; and generally hold yourself out in all advertising as a 55+ community. Of course, seniors are permitted to bring children (e.g. grandchildren, etc.) into the community, but the rules may place limits on the amount of time they may remain there.

Answer 2: You need to go through the formal rule change process described in the statute. A rule that is not legally enacted, isn'treally an enforceable rule. However, you should immediately issue a written notice to all residents that based upon legal advice, those rules (identifying them) that appear to be discriminatory against children, will not be enforced. If you own a family park and are concerned that your rules may appear to "target" children, you should consult with your attorney for advice on how to proceed. Note that even if your rules don't appear to target children, if they, in fact, affect the activities of children more heavily than adults, they could still be deemed to be discriminatory (e.g. occupancy limits). And if you are a family park, but you have over 80% of the spaces occupied by at least one person age 55 or over, you should ask your attorney about "converting" to become a legal 55+ community. Until you do, even though 99% of the community's spaces are occupied by seniors, you're still a family park, and subject to the anti-discrimination laws protecting children.

Answer: First, remember that if the resident who is occupying the home is NOT the owner of the home, the manufactured housing section of the Oregon landlord-tenant law (ORS 90.505 et seq.) does NOT apply. This means that the applicable law is that which applies to tenants in apartments and single family homes. This portion of the landlord tenant law is more landlord-favorable - at least in terms of timing. MHCO is currently in the process of developing a form for abandoned personal property, other than manufactured homes located inside of parks.

In this case, ORS 90.425 applies. Although this is the abandonment law, it is limited to such things as personal property, motor vehicles, RVs, and manufactured homes not located in a park. If you have ever done an abandonment of a home in your community, ORS 90.675 applies. Although the protocols are much the same, there are some material differences. Here is a summary of the law addressing your question:

1. Automobiles.
   1. You must determine if there are any lienholders;
   2. You must also determine if the owner of the vehicle is different that the deceased resident;
   3. You must send a written abandonment letter[1]:
      1. By first class mail to the deceased tenant at the premises[2];
      2. Personally deliver or send it by first class mail to any heir, devisee, personal representative or designated person, if actually known to the landlord; and
      3. Sent it by first class mail to the attention of an estate administrator of the Department of State Lands.
   4. The letter must give the heir, devisee, or personal representative of designated person, not less than 45 days to notify the landlord of their intent to claim the vehicle(s), and allow them not more than 15 days (or such longer period as agreed to by the parties) to actually pick it/them up.
   5. If the recipient does not pick up the vehicle(s), the landlord may sell it/them at a public or private sale, or if the reasonable current fair market value is $1,000 or less or so low that the cost of storage and conducting a public sale probably exceeds the amount that would be realized from the sale, may sell certain items and destroy or otherwise dispose of the remaining personal property.
   6. The vehicle(s) may be stored at the space, or stored at a commercial storage company, or other place of safekeeping;
   7. NOTE: This is an abbreviated version of the process, and should not undertaken without expert assistance.
2. All Other Personal Property
   1. The written notice of abandonment must be sent to the same persons as for the vehicle(s);
   2. The heir, devisee, or personal representative of designated person must be given not less than five (5) days if the notice is personally delivered, or eight (8) days if mailed, to notify the landlord if they intend to pick up the personal property, and not more than fifteen (15) days (or such longer period as agreed to by the parties) to actually pick it up.
   3. If the personal property is not picked up, the same protocol applies as fore vehicle(s);
   4. The personal property may be stored at the space, or stored at a commercial storage company or other place of safekeeping[3];

A word of caution: Until the letter is sent, both of the abandonment statutes, ORS 90.425 and ORS 90.675, are not clear about the landlord's legal responsibility for "safekeeping" of a resident's abandoned property. However, there is no question that the landlord does have that responsibility once the abandonment has been declared by issuance of the letter.

This means that you can secure the personal property, either by removing it from the home, or, in this case, with the owner's consent, secure it in the home, and prohibiting access. The reason I bring this up is because you mentioned that the foster brothers gained access to the home and apparently removed what they wanted.

Yet, ORS 90.425(21) provides:

(d) The landlord shall allow a person that is an heir, devisee or personal representative of the tenant, or an estate administrator of the department, to remove the personal property if the person contacts the landlord within the period provided by [ORS 90.425(25)], complies with the requirements of this section and provides the landlord with reasonable evidence that the person is an heir, devisee or personal representative, or an estate administrator of the department. (Emphasis added.)

(e) If neither an heir, devisee nor personal representative of the tenant, nor an estate administrator of the department, contacts the landlord *** the landlord shall allow removal of the personal property by the designated person of the tenant, if the designated person contacts the landlord within that period and complies with the requirements of this section and provides the landlord with reasonable evidence that the person is the designated person.

(f) A landlord who allows removal of personal property under this subsection is not liable to another person that has a claim or interest in the personal property. (Emphasis added.)

Subsection (f) is as important for what it doesn'tsay, as what it does, i.e. the landlord's failure to follow the statute could result in liability, e.g. to the heirs, etc., whose property was released to persons not so entitled.

So the take-away here is this: In the case of residents living alone, park records should be updated to determine (a) if there is a will; and (b) who should be notified in the event of death or disability.

And lastly, rather than allowing various persons entry into the home of a deceased resident, it is more prudent to immediately send out an abandonment letter, which gives you automatic power to "secure" the decedent's personal property, until the proper persons can be identified to remove it.

If the resident owned the home, you would have proceeded under ORS 90.675 (for abandoned homes in a park), which is much the same as ORS 90.425 (for personal property only), except that in the case of abandoned homes in parks, the 45-day letter gives the estate 30 days to remove the home or enter into a storage agreement, for its resale; and since the home is subject to a personal property tax, the tax assessor and/or collector would have to be notified with the 45-day letter.

[1] The information contained in this letter is much the same as that when a manufactured home is abandoned in a park. See, ORS 90.425(5).

[2] The notice must refer to the heir, devisee, personal representative, designated person or estate administrator of the department, instead of the deceased resident.

[3] If the deceased resident owned the home, the personal property could be stored there, as well.

Answer:  Disclaimer: Certain folks, especially those of the regulatory bent, will likely disagree with my answer.  The reason stems, I believe, from one of four sources: (a) Rigid (some might say “stubborn” or “dogmatic”) adherence to a law or regulation, regardless of how illogical and silly it may be; (b) A belief that everyone is a victim, and deserves to pampered and coddled even in the face of obvious evidence they are gaming the system; (c) Political correctness run amok; or (d) A combination of some or all of the preceding causes.

I admit I am one of those folks who have watched in disbelief as some residents have taken the most outlandish positions in an effort to keep a pet they know full well violates the community rules.  I recently saw a situation where a new tenant, knowing that the community did not permit pets, moved in and promptly moved her large dog in to live with her, having paid to get the necessary sham certifications and paperwork online, no questions asked. 

 Here are some general rules:

• The Americans with Disabilities Act, or “ADA” does not apply to private residential housing – only public accommodations. 
• ORS 659A.143 governs the use of assistance animals in public accommodations.  The rules seem rational and reasonable, but technically do not directly apply to private housing.
• The Fair Housing Act applies to the use of assistance animals in housing.
• HUD has set out the issues to be vetted for a landlord to make a determination whether to grant a resident the right to have an assistance animal.
• Assistance, emotional support and service animals are not pets, and accordingly, pet rules do not strictly apply (such as requiring pet deposits).
• Service animals (or “assistance animals” under Oregon’s definitions) are required to be certified as such. Not so for emotional support animals. Nevertheless, all such animals are to serve the disability of the requesting resident. But getting a doctor’s letter, or that of another person in the medical profession is not that difficult.
• You do not have to accept just any animal as an assistance animal.  If it requires some additional cost to the landlord, it is not required. (See, HUD article here.)

Here is what HUD says in the above article (HUD footnotes omitted):

“For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests, neither the FHA nor Section 504[1] requires an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified.  While dogs are the most common type of assistance animal, other animals can also be assistance animals.

Housing providers are to evaluate a request for a reasonable accommodation to possess an assistance animal in a dwelling using the general principles applicable to all reasonable accommodation requests. After receiving such a request, the housing provider must consider the following:

1. Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability - i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?

1. Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance animal? In other words, does the animal work, provide assistance, perform tasks or services for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of a person's existing disability?

If the answer to question (l) or (2) is "no," then the FHA and Section 504 do not require a modification to a provider's "no pets" policy, and the reasonable accommodation request may be denied.

Where the answers to questions (1) and (2) are "yes," the FHA and Section 504 require the housing provider to modify or provide an exception to a "no pets" rule or policy to permit a person with a disability to live with and use an assistance animal(s) in all areas of the premises where persons are normally allowed to go, unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider's services. “(Emphasis added.)

The Fair Housing law basically requires that if one has a disability, they may request that their landlord grant them a “reasonable accommodation” – that is, an exception to the community rules, allowing the resident permission to do that which is otherwise prohibited. 

Thus, size limits don’t strictly apply. And occasionally, residents attempt to have a second pet, claiming that it isn’t a “pet,” but an assistance animal.  However, here is where the line blurs. How far does the landlord have to bend to accommodate residents, especially in those situations where the resident is gaming the system?

MHCO has forms for dealing with requests for reasonable accommodations, whether they be a non-compliant animal, or some other issue, such as an additional parking space, etc.  First and foremost, I suggest following the same protocols in all cases, from the legitimate to the illegitimate.

Secondly, I suggest following the 3-prong test (besides cost, which doesn’t really apply in most cases) as follows:  Would granting of the request endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of other residents or guest in the community.  If the resident, for example, asks to have a pit bull as an assistance animal, it is not altogether unreasonable, after vetting the dog’s demeanor, socialization, etc., to propose another less aggressive animal as a “reasonable accommodation.” 

Third, for such breeds with known vicious propensities, you should check with your liability insurance carrier to see if they have a short list of animals they will not insure if there is an attack.  If the carrier says that animal is on that short list, then you should propose another less aggressive animal. In discussing this with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon while drafting the reasonable accommodation request portions of MHCO’s form, they acknowledge the financial burden exception – however, suggested another step, i.e. finding an insurance carrier that would insure such aggressive animals if it was not overly expensive for the landlord to do so. I will leave extra step for discussion with your own attorney.

Then there are cases in which the request is clearly a ruse to get a pet approved as an assistance animal, when and it is clear to any reasonable person, it is a ruse.  You will have to decide on your own, or with the assistance of your attorney, how to proceed.  If, after giving the resident the MHCO form to complete, you are satisfied that it is a ruse, you are going to have to decide whether to call their bluff, or relent. If you relent, you will have done so only after requiring them to complete the necessary paperwork. However, be prepared for more copycats - pardon the pun.

1. If the tenant, in violation of the rental agreement, keeps on the premises a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property, the landlord may deliver a written notice specifying the violation and stating that the tenancy will terminate upon a date not less than 10 days after the delivery of the notice unless the tenant removes the pet from the premises prior to the termination date specified in the notice. If the pet is not removed by the date specified, the tenancy shall terminate and the landlord may take possession in the manner provided in ORS 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) to 105.168 (Minor as party in proceedings pertaining to residential dwellings).

1. For purposes of this section, a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property means an animal that, because of the nature, size or behavioral characteristics of that particular animal or of that breed or type of animal generally, a reasonable person might consider to be capable of causing personal injury or property damage, including but not limited to, water damage from medium or larger sized fish tanks or other personal injury or property damage arising from the environment in which the animal is kept.

1. If substantially the same act that constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given under subsection (1) of this section recurs within six months, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement upon at least 10 days written notice specifying the breach and the date of termination of the rental agreement.

1. This section shall not apply to any tenancy governed by ORS 90.505 (Definition for ORS 90.505 to 90.840) to 90.840 (Park purchase funds, loans). [Formerly 91.822; 1995 c.559 §28; 1999 c.603 §25]

While I suppose there is an argument that this statute doesn’t apply, since it pertains to “pets,” I believe that argument begs the question, since it is your position that these are pets disguised as “assistance animals.” If the resident believes you’re prepared to commence an eviction proceeding, perhaps they will relent.  If not, the judge can decide. Of course, be prepared for the resident to bring in some doctor, chiropractor, or therapist, to claim the resident needs the animal for some protected purpose. 

If the animal is dangerous, I strongly believe you are correct to take the issue to the mat, since doing nothing could result in injury to a resident or guest, and you can be sure you will then be accused of permitting the animal to remain when you should not have. Unfortunately, these issues can become expensive, and there is no assurance of victory in court.

It is possible for you and your attorney to develop some type of agreement which closes the loophole that is occurring at your community.  I can envisage language that with the proper recitals and provisions, would give you more protection than you now have.  However, as we know, until the matter is litigated, you’ll never know if the form is bullet-proof.  But having it in place is probably better than where you are now, and would likely make a resident think twice about trying to play the “support animal” card, if the agreement expressly says the animal is a pet and that was the sole reason for their wanting it.

The take-away here is that landlord must deal with reasonable accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis. Each set of facts are different. Not long ago I had a park client who refused a reasonable accommodation request, because it was too outlandish. A complaint was filed with BOLI, and we butted heads for a while. Eventually, BOLI relented, largely because the resident was too unreliable. Landlords must remember to pick their shots. Some principles are worth defending, and others not. In this case we believed that the issue was worth defending, to send a message to the tenant, and others who might be waiting to see the outcome, before they stepped up to test the landlord.

Lastly, there are indications that HUD may be tightening the definitions and loopholes so that landlords do not continue dealing with either gamesmanship, or accepting the risk of a dangerous breed, just to avoid a fight.

[1] Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was the first disability civil rights law to be enacted in the United States. It prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in programs that receive federal financial assistance, and set the stage for enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 504 works together with the ADA and IDEA to protect children and adults with disabilities from exclusion, and unequal treatment in schools, jobs and the community. [See link here.]

Excuses for Avoiding Training

I have heard all the typical excuses for avoiding training. Here are some examples and my particular spin on how to turn these negative attitudes into positive solutions.

"It's too expensive" Yes, it can be expensive. Or, it can be viewed as an investment into the future of your organization. What is the cost of defending a Fair Housing law suit? What is the cost of homes/spaces sitting vacant because your staff does not understand the concept pre-leasing? How much does your Worker's Compensation insurance increase due to injuries that could have been avoided with proper training? What is the cost of defending a sexual harassment claim, or a wrongful termination? Each one of these scenarios has the potential to cost your organization thousands and thousands of dollars. Proper staff training can save you money due to increased knowledge and professionalism; not to mention decreased staff turnover.

"We don't have time." I hear this often enough to wonder if trainers are the only ones who have time for training! Property Management has its own monthly timeline that we all understand. Training should be scheduled after rent week, not on Monday mornings, and not on the day of month end for accounting. Yes we have renewals, inspections, move outs, move ins, bills to process, resident issues to address, and turnovers to complete. But each of these tasks can be scheduled around training. Try seeking input from your front-line team to determine the best time to schedule training. It is not okay to have our teams performing below standard or being assigned tasks that they do not fully understand. Taking a little time to show them the correct procedures will make their time spent on the job much more productive and therefore saving precious time. Not making time for training could prove to be costly to your organization.

"We can't afford to have our team away from the property." Understandably, closing the office may not be realistic as no one wants to miss a potential sale/rental. There are other options to employ; such as having two sessions in one day and alternating employees so the office remains open. Or, have staff participate in an on-line course or webinar. Blended learning opportunities, (offering both live and on-line training) has proven to be very successful as employees get a global perspective of the topic.

"Why do we need training when HR or a Manager can handle some teaching?" Your in-house experts are indeed valuable to your organization and they should be involved with training company policies and procedures. But what if they have not been brought up to speed with new laws? Or what if their work load is too heavy to expand into training? Even if you have an in-house trainer, sometimes the message needs to be heard from an outsider who is not entrenched with the various personalities and histories of employees. A knowledgeable in-house trainer will know when to outsource some of the training.

"Training is a chore, and boring!" Hire the right trainer! It is difficult for rental housing professionals to relate to someone who has not actually worked in our field. The most successful trainers are those who have paid their dues in the industry and have walked the same walk as their students. The stories we tell, of both successes and failures, are the best way for students to completely understand this wonderful, crazy world of housing management.

So, To Train or Not?

Housing continues to grow in sophistication and complexity. Our team members must continue to learn how to operate our communities with the newest ideas and technology.

Remember, the success of any property is a direct result of the competency of the front line team. Training breeds competent professionals. Competence improves performance

Whether you embrace it, tolerate it, deny it, or avoid it, regular consistent training is necessary in housing management. It always has been and always will be. I am still thankful to all the leaders I have worked with for investing in my career by exposing me to great training. Bringing in the right trainer, or sending your employees to industry training, will have your employees feeling privileged and thankful too!

Angel Rogers has over 30 years of Property Management experience. She has been teaching for various Apartment Associations for 15 years and has successfully launched her own training company, S.T.A.R. -- Specialized Training by Angel Rogers. She is dedicated to providing educational sessions that are motivational and create a fun learning environment. Angel can be reached at (909)725-2700 or angel@angelrogers.com -- check out her website: www.angelrogers.com

Answer: Your question does not mention any activity by this visitor that could be considered disruptive to current residents (e.g. under the peaceful enjoyment statute, ORS 90.740(4)(j)), threatening, or a violation of any laws, rules, or ordinances. As you know, most park rules, as well as Oregon's landlord-tenant laws, make residents responsible for the conduct of their guests. Thus, if the guest is doing something disruptive, threatening, or illegal, your first step should be to notify the resident and ask that the visitor not engage in the bad behavior. If it continues, a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1)may be in order.

From time-to-time, I have seen situations where the person coming into the community has not been invited, and the resident tolerates their presence, but does not - or cannot - control their activities while there. Oftentimes, the visitor is a younger family member, and the resident is an elderly parent.

Under these circumstances (including those in which you simply do not want to issue the resident a 30-day notice), where the activities are disruptive, threatening, or illegal, a trespass notice may be in order. However, before doing so, you should contact your local law enforcement jurisdiction for directions. This is because they may have their own rules on how they will respond and under what circumstances. For example, they may say that the notice has to be served on the visitor, i.e. it isn'tenough to give it to the resident to give to the visitor. They may want the notice to contain specific language, and certainly be clear enough that the officer believes they have authority to remove the visitor.

The form of the notice must be clear and unequivocal. For example[1]:

"NO TRESPASSING NOTICE

TO: ___________________________

You are not a current resident at ______________________ (the "Community"). On ______, _____, and ______, you have visited _____________________, at Space __________. In each instance you became engaged in a verbal altercation with _______ and ___________, both of whom are residents. In each instance, police were called to quiet things down, and remove you from the Community.

Accordingly, this is to notify you that inasmuch as you are not an approved resident in the Community, and your presence has been consistently disruptive to other residents while here, you will no longer be permitted to enter any portion of the Community under any circumstances. This shall apply to you, your friends and family. This Notice is effective immediately. If you fail to observe this Notice, and you are discovered in the Park, Management will immediately contact the local police to request that you be removed as a trespasser.

If you have any questions, please contact your own attorney. You are not to make contact with Management or the undersigned. PLEASE GIVE THIS NOTICE YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION."

Lastly, to clear, your reasons for issuing a Trespass Notice must include something more than just a general dislike of the visitor - even if he was a problem while he was a resident in the community. If he has not caused any disruption, etc., while there, I question the advisability of issuing a Trespass Notice.

The only exceptions I can think of is where the visitor poses a clear and present danger to others, e.g. a sexual predator (even if charged but not convicted); someone charged with a crime of violence, even if not convicted; a visitor who has engaged in prior disruptive, dangerous, or illegal conduct while visiting the Community.

Of course, you should contact your own attorney, as well.

[1]This is not intended to constitute legal advice as to the form of the Notice - it is just an example for illustrative purposes. Contact your own attorney first.

Answer: My first question is, are these guests showing up at the invitation of your resident? Secondly, are they creating any disruption, or bothering the neighbors? Have neighbors complained, either to the resident or management?

Having visitors viewed as undesirable by management, or even by other residents, but causing no disruption, is a difficult issue to correct, assuming their presence is with the acquiescence of the existing resident.

To put this in a legal perspective, since for a lawyer, that is the litmus test, what is the violation? Is drug dealing in the neighborhood suspected? Do these visitors have outstanding arrest warrants? Do they have criminal records, and if so, do they relate to violent crimes, sex offences, etc? If you suspect illegal activity, I would contact the sheriff's office to see if they can help identifying the visitors to determine criminal backgrounds. Certainly, if they are dangerous ex-felons, or actual drug dealers, for example, you should want to know sooner than later.

However, remember, since these folks are just visitors, and not permitted tenants or occupants of the space, any violation would have to issue to your (formerly) good tenant. If this is a question of the visitors' conduct being disruptive to current residents (e.g. under the peaceful enjoyment statute, ORS 90.740(4)(j)), you would have a basis for issuing a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1).

But before doing so, I would suggest that you contact the resident and have a private and frank conversation. It may be that the resident is just as uneasy about the visitors' presence as you, and would welcome your request that they not visit with the frequency they are.

Last week's article addressed issuing a Trespass Notice. If your resident is prepared to ask his relatives to discontinue their visits, then you would be within your rights to issue a Trespass Notice, should the visits continue.