Search

Answer: It is unclear to me whether your complaint is with the housing authority running the voucher program or the tenant using the program.

I do not recommend you refusing to allow Section 8 housing applicants. ORS 59A.421 (Discrimination in selling, renting or leasing real property prohibited) provides:

(2) A person may not, because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income of any person:

(a) Refuse to sell, lease or rent any real property to a purchaser. This paragraph does not prevent a person from refusing to lease or rent real property to a prospective renter or prospective lessee:

(A) Based upon the past conduct of a prospective renter or prospective lessee provided the refusal to lease or rent based on past conduct is consistent with local, state and federal law, including but not limited to fair housing laws; or

(B) Based upon the prospective renter's or prospective lessee's inability to pay rent, taking into account the value of the prospective renter's or prospective lessee's local, state and federal housing assistance, provided the refusal to lease or rent based on inability to pay rent is consistent with local, state and federal law, including but not limited to fair housing laws. (Emphasis added.)

This means that landlords it is permissible to screen and reject any applicant, including those with a Section 8 voucher, for past conduct and ability to pay rent. But they may not be rejected simply because they use Section 8 vouchers.

There is a required contract between the landlord and the public housing authority (called the Housing Assistance Payment Contractor "HAP Contract"), which lists the landlord's rights and responsibilities. Part of he HAP Contract, called the Tenancy Addendum, becomes a part of he rental agreement between the Section 8 tenant and the landlord.

The local housing authority does not guarantee the tenant's performance, and will not have screened the applicant for his or her suitability as a tenant - that is the landlord's responsibility. However, a Section 8 voucher tenant's failure to pay his or her portion of the rent or to comply with rules regarding maintenance of the property can lead to termination of the tenant from the Section 8 voucher program.

There are two sources of rental payments; the tenant pays approximately 30%-40% percent of the rent (with some exceptions) and the housing authority pays the balance. This leads me to believe that your issue is with the tenant, not the program. If the tenant is blaming the program, that is something they need to take up with the housing authority. If you are not getting the rent payments from the housing authority you should contact them.

A tenant's failure to pay their share of the rent, or being consistently late, can jeopardize their right to continue to receive a Section 8 voucher. You are not required to accept partial rent. If the public authority pays its share, but the tenant does not, you may file for eviction. However, before doing so, you should contact an attorney familiar with Section 8 housing issues.

Answer: Both approaches are incorrect, as they do not comply with 90.610and 90.155for proper rule changes. This is exceeding risky, since, in my opinion, it creates the potential tenant argument that not being effectively enacted means the new rule is not enforceable. Any legal action to enforce a violation of an improperly enacted rule would be a nullity.

Below is the correct procedure in adopting new rules. It should not be varied from or ignored without first discussing with legal counsel:

• The landlord may propose changes in rules or regulations, including changes that make a substantial modification of the landlord's bargain with a tenant.
• It should be by written notice and served as described in 90.155.
• Unless tenants of at least 51 percent of the "eligible spaces"[1]in the community object in writing within 30 days of the date the rule change notice was served, the change shall become effective for all tenants of those eligible spaces on a date not less than 60 days after the date that the notice was properly served by the landlord.
  • One tenant of record per eligible space may object to the rule or regulation change through either: (i) A signed and dated written communication to the landlord; or (ii)A petition format that is signed and dated by tenants of eligible spaces and that includes a copy of the proposed rule or regulation and a copy of the notice.

• If a tenant of an eligible space signs botha written communication to the landlord and a petition, or signs more than one written communication or petition, only the latest signature of the tenant may be counted.
• Aproxy may be used only if a tenant has a disability that prevents them from objecting to the rule or regulation change in writing.
  • The landlord's notice of a proposed change in rules or regulations must be given or served as provided in 90.155and must include: (i) Language of the existing rule or regulation and the language that would be added or deleted by the proposed rule or regulation change; and (ii) A statement substantially in the following form, with all blank spaces in the notice to be filled in by the landlord:

______________________________________________________________________________

(MHCO FORM 60) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE

OR REGULATION CHANGE

The landlord intends to change a rule or regulation in this facility.

The change will go into effect unless tenants of at least 51 percent of the eligible spaces object in writing within 30 days. Any objection must be signed and dated by a tenant of an eligible space.

The number of eligible spaces as of the date of this notice is:_____. Those eligible spaces are (space or street identification):___________________________.

The last day for a tenant of an eligible space to deliver a written objection to the landlord is _________ (landlord fill in date).

Unless tenants in at least 51 percent of the eligible spaces object, the proposed rule or regulation will go into effect on _________.

The parties may attempt to resolve disagreements regarding the proposed rule or regulation change by using the facility's informal dispute resolution process.

______________________________________________________________________________

• A good faith mistake by the landlord in completing those portions of the notice relating to the number of eligible spaces that have tenants entitled to vote or relating to space or street identification numbers does not invalidate the notice or the proposed rule or regulation change.
• After the effective date of the rule or regulation change (i.e. "a date not less than 60 days after the date that the notice was served by the landlord"), when a tenant continues to engage in an activity affected by the new rule or regulation to which the landlord objects, the landlord may give the tenant a notice of termination of the tenancy pursuant to ORS 90.630.
  • The notice shall include a statement that the tenant may request a resolution through the facility's informal dispute resolution process by giving the landlord a written request within seven (7) days from the date the notice was served.
  • If the tenant requests an informal dispute resolution, the landlord may not file an action for possession (i.e. eviction action) until 30 days after the date of the tenant's request for informal dispute resolution or the date the informal dispute resolution is complete, whichever occurs first.
• NOTE: Informal dispute resolution does not apply to disputes relating to:
  • Facility closure;
  • Facility sale; or
  • Rent, including but not limited to amount, increase and nonpayment.
• NOTE: Requiring a landlord to provide a Statement of Policy, do not create a basis for a tenant to demand informal dispute resolution of a rent increase.

[1]An "eligible space" means each space in the community as long as: (a) It is rented to a tenant and the tenancy is subject to ORS 90.505 to 90.850 (the manufactured housing section of the landlord-tenant law); and (b) The tenant who occupies the space has not: (i) Previously agreed to a rental agreement that already includes the proposed rule or regulation change; or (ii) Become subject to the proposed rule or regulation change as a result of a change in rules or regulations previously adopted under ORS 90.610.

Fair housing law expressly prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of familial status, including setting restrictive terms and conditions on residents with children under 18.

HUD's charge claims that the community owners enacted a policy that required children under the age of 18 to be supervised by an adult family member while on the property, including the pool area, with violations of the policy resulting in a $250 fine. In one instance, a couple was threatened with a fine because their two children were playing in the community area while being supervised by adults who were not blood relatives, according to HUD’s charge.

"Families shouldn't be penalized for letting their kids be kids," Anna María Farías, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. "Imposing different rules and restrictions on families because they have children is a violation of the Fair Housing Act and HUD is committed to ensuring that housing providers meet their obligations under the law."

The case will be heard in federal court. If it is determined that illegal discrimination occurred, a judge may award actual and punitive damages, issue a court order to deter further discrimination, and order that defendants pay the couple's attorney fees.

Screening Criteria

The manufactured housing section of Oregon’s landlord-tenant law provides that “Any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser…as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home” should be disclosed in the rental or lease agreement.”[1]Although those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal laws, there are no limitations or restrictions as to what may be placed in the rental or lease agreement.

MHCO’s rental and lease agreement forms[2]contain a number of criteria that landlords may impose, such as:  (a) prior rental references; (b) unsatisfactory credit history or no credit history; (c) character references; (d) criminal history; (e) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly space rent and other expense obligations imposed by the rental or lease agreement; (f) the presence, number and size of pets; (g) age verification criteria if the park is a 55+ facility; (h) evidence of falsified or misleading material information; (i) refusal to sign a written lease or rental agreement; (j) additional occupants; and (k) adverse public record information.

Although there may be other criteria that landlords may wish to use when deciding whether to accept an applicant as a tenant, the above list is very comprehensive, and should be sufficient in imposing adequate guidelines when a tenant wishes to sell their home on site.  MHCO additionally has an application form which solicits this and other information from prospective tenants.

Landlords and managers should become familiar with the criteria imposed in their rental agreements and rental application forms. Additionally, they should not rely upon the application information submitted to them without a thorough background check that provides the necessary verification.  Although Oregon law imposes a 7-day period within which landlords have to respond to a submitted application, it does notprohibit landlords from imposing a longer period so long as the applicant agrees.  Additionally, Oregon law expressly states that the 7-day period does not commence if the application is incomplete or inaccurate.  Accordingly, landlords and managers would be wise to immediately return any submitted application if it is incomplete – and upon discovering that the prospective tenant/purchaser provided inaccurate information, the application should also be returned.  Accepting an incomplete application or continuing with the process after discovering that the applicant has provided bad information can result in an argument by the existing tenant or the new applicant that the landlord is intentionally delaying the process.

It is also important to note that Oregon law permits the “…landlord and the prospective purchaser (to) agree to a longer time period for the landlord to evaluate the prospective purchaser’s application or to allow the prospective purchaser to address any failure to meet the landlord’s screening or admission criteria.”  Thus, as noted on the MHCO Application form, there is a place for the landlord to insert a period longer than the statutory seven day period.  If the landlord suspects any delay, either on the applicant’s part or his own part, a longer period should be inserted. If the applicant rejects this extension, then the landlord can decide whether he wants to proceed to process the application at all.

Note: If a tenant has not previously given the landlord the 10 days’ advance notice of intent to sell as required in ORS 90.680(4) (a), the landlord’s seven day response time is extended to 10 days. But remember, in no instances does the landlord have to receipt and process an inaccurate or incomplete application.  It is better not to accept a defective application – or return it immediately upon finding that it is inaccurate or incomplete, than continuing to process it. 

If a landlord requires a prospective purchaser to submit an application for occupancy at the time that the landlord gives the prospective purchaser the application the landlord shall also give the prospective purchaser copies of the statement of policy, the rental agreement and the facility rules and regulations, including any conditions imposed on a subsequent sale. It is important to remember that the terms of these park document given to the prospective tenant need not be the same as those in the existing (i.e. selling) tenant’s documents.[3]

Park Documents. 

Landlords and managers should always remember that when they change one of the park documents, they may have to change others. This is because of two risks: (a) The failure to incorporate a change in the lease, say, into the Statement of Policy, and (b) An inconsistency between one or more of the park documents, such as the rental agreement and the rules. Rules can generally be changed in the middle of a tenancy, but rental agreements cannot.  So landlords should remember to make sure their documents are all internally consistent.

Fair Housing Laws.

The state and federal fair housing laws are essentially – but not completely – the same.  Landlords and managers should familiarize themselves with any special ordinances found in their city or county laws.  However, Oregon law prohibits any form of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing when directed at the following protected classes: “…race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income.”[4]  The easiest, best, and safest way to deal with the risk of a discrimination claim is to make all screening criteria facially neutral.  Do not have rules which – even unintentionally - could have a negative impact on a member of a protected class.  

In Oregon, most claims of discrimination relate to familial status.  Examples range from managers encouraging families to purchase and reside in one particular area of the community (where there are more children), to making off-hand comments to applicants (e.g. “there would be very few children for your kids to play with here”) that may be construed as indicating a desire not to rent to people with children.  For this reason, landlords and managers should strive to apply their screening criteria neutrallyregardless of the applicant’s membership in a protected class.  

Additionally, caution should be exercised in answering questions over the phone, since federal and state “testers” have been known to test parks by making multiple phone calls asking various loaded questions, such as “Is this a good place to raise my children?”  If the community is a family park, the best response to open-ended telephone inquiries is to tell the caller that it is a family park, open to all, and that they are welcome to come in and pick up an application for processing.

One of the biggest areas of concern for landlords and managers today involve issues of immigration status.  At the risk of minimizing the problem, there is one basic rule that landlords and managers should always remember when screening applicants. While it is not a “silver bullet,” it should help avoid the vast majority of issues regarding immigration status.  Never treat any single applicant differently from another.  This means that landlords should not automatically “suspect” that certain persons are illegally in this country and then impose more rigorous screening criteria on them alone.  It is best not to ask about immigration status.[5]  If the applicant passes the same screening criteria imposed upon others, and all of the information in their application checks out, you should accept the current applicant, regardless of whether you have suspicions about their immigration status. One of the frequently asked questions is whether a landlord may insist that applicants provide their social security number.  While this is not automatically illegal, it can be when applied to some applicants and not others.  Consistency is the name of the game.  Do not request verification in some cases and not others.  Do not accept some tenants who fail to provide the number, but accept others (who are not obviously immigrants) without also providing such proof.

Another area of concern is occupancy limits or extra occupancy charges.[6]  This is somewhat of a grey area because Oregon law currently permits a two person per bedroom rule – assuming that it is expressly listed as part of the park’s screening criteria and uniformly applied.  However, the problem is that federal law contains no specific occupancy limits.  This means that, in theory, one could be in compliance with state law, while violating federal law.  For example, if a family consisted of two adults and three children who owned a 2-bedroom home, a "2-persons per bedroom" requirement would mean that they could not move into the park.  But if the third child was an infant who slept in the parents’ room, one may ask whether this standard is reasonable, even though it complies with Oregon law.  At the risk of violating federal law, which imposes no such occupancy limits, the better approach might be to avoid the “slippery slope” problem entirely, by not creating occupancy limits.[7]  

Perhaps the most difficult of screening criteria issues is in the area of assistance animals.  Since handicap is a protected class, this means that if one could establish a legitimate need for an assistance animal they could not be prevented from having one – even though the park might have a one-pet policy and this might be their second pet.  This could be so even though the animal was not trained or certified in providing assistance. MHCO has Form 15 that may be given to tenants applying for a “reasonable accommodation” which is the technical term used when an allegedly handicapped person requests relief from strict application of a rule that interferes with their handicapped. [8]As most landlords and managers know, the handicap protections can be severely stretched.  There are many reasons for this, including, among other things, the handicap may be allegedly psychological, and the tenant has nothing more than a note from a doctor – not a treating psychologist or psychiatrist. 

The other difficult issue is that assistant animals are not technically “pets” and therefore are not subject to the requirement that the Pet Agreement be completed.  Ultimately it comes down to a rule of reason and proof.  Does it appear that the person requesting the accommodation is legitimately handicapped? Do they have a known history of the handicap – that is, has it ever come up before?  Does it appear that the claim of a handicap is new, and possibly raised as a pretext, say to circumvent a one-pet policy?  

Ultimately, the issue comes down to public safety in the community.  For example, if the tenant wanted to have a pit bull (in violation of a dangerous breed prohibition) or a bull-mastiff (in violation of a size restriction), the landlord should ask which battle he or she wants to fight?  If the tenant isn’t credible, has a history of skirting the rules on this or other issues, it might make sense to refuse and let them take the next step.  If they bring the animal into the park in light of the denial, you will have a choice; either do nothing or send out a notice of violation which would require removal of the animal.  The risk in allowing dangerous or oversized breed into the park is that it may harm someone, and then the landlord will have to defend a lawsuit for failing to enforce their own rules.  Additionally, in consenting, the precedent has been set, now permitting such animals based upon a tenant’s assertion the need it for assistance.  Remember, “reasonable accommodations” need only be “reasonable.”  Dogs with vicious propensities or who pose danger to children because of their size, are not the only type of assistance animals available.

Marijuana cards raise the same issue, although perhaps even worse, since the cards seem to be freely given to almost anyone.  In some cases, however, this too can be dealt with on another level. If the persons with medical marijuana cards have an inordinate amount of traffic at their home throughout the day and night, perhaps the issue is one for the police, since it is still illegal to sell or distribute marijuana, medical or otherwise.  If they are dealing in the illegal drug, careful (documented) scrutiny of these comings and goings might prove useful.

Miscellaneous Screening and Application Issues

• Occasionally, tenants apply for occupancy even though they cannot afford to purchase the home on their own, and perhaps would not qualify under the financial criteria imposed for acceptance into the park.  However, they may have a parent or other person willing to assist in the purchase and willing to guarantee the applicant’s performance.  There is nothing wrong with this approach, assuming that the guarantor passes all of the financial criteria the park would impose.  First, remember that the guarantor will not be living in the home – they may have their own housing requirements that impose financial limitations on them.  If the tenant defaults, can the guarantor actuallyaffordto pay the space rent?  Under such cases, the financial criteria applied to co-signers should be more rigorous than those imposed on tenant applicants.  Secondly, landlords should be sure to have their attorney draft a solid guarantee agreement that gives them the right to seek payment against the guarantor without having to first evict the tenant.  Third, before accepting a co-signer, a landlord should ask whether they have a sufficiently significant relationship with the applicant such that they will actually be willing to subsidize the space rent if it is not paid.  

• A fundamental problem in the tenant screening process is the denial process.  Landlords must be prompt in informing applicants if their application is denied. Obviously, a denial can provoke an angry response.  Landlords need to be proactive.  MHCO has two forms to address the issue, so that the landlord or manager does not have to engage in any more explanation than that provided in the form.  MHCO Form 10, identifies the source of the material or information resulting in the turn down.  That is all the landlord is required to do, unless it comes from a credit reporting agency. In that case, MHCO’s Form 10A should be given so that applicant has the ability to know which credit company was involved and track down the source of the information.  

• It is due to financial issues that many applicants get turned down.  Especially today. For that reason, MHCO has developed the “Straight Talk” form, describing manufactured home living and affordability issues.  It should be used in all cases, if possible. 

• Although we discussed the Statement of Policy (“SOP”) above, there are two additional points to be made: (a) Always be sure to obtain a receipt (MHCO Form 7C), since it is proof positive that the resident received the SOP and the Rules and Rental or Lease Agreement.  Without the receipt, the tenant can deny receiving it, and the burden of proof to establish delivery is on the landlord.  This can be a difficult task unless witnesses were present who can verify delivery.  (b) The second item to note is use of the Rent History attachment to the SOP a copy of the Rent History (Form 7A).  This permits the tenant to see the monthly base rent for each of the five years preceding the current year of tenancy.

• Perhaps one of the most important (and newest) forms if not used, is the Flood Plain Notice (MHCO Form 6).  It notifies those residents whose homes are located in all or part of a 100-year floodplain.  This means that landlords and/or their managers, should look at a currentFEMA map to determine whether all or a portion of their park is located inside such a plain.  If so, those residents whose spaces are in the floodplain should be notified.  While technically, being located in a 100-year floodplain means that flood water levels are statistically expected to flood onto the plain once every 100 years, most people realize that over the course of 100 years, there could be three or more such floods or none at all.  The MHCO form, in compliance with Oregon statute, suggests to those receiving the notice that they consider obtaining flood insurance.  The good news is that once having given this notice, a landlord is not liable for any uninsured water loss suffered by the resident due to a flood; the bad news is that failing to give the notice can subject the landlord to the lesser of two months’ rent or the resident’s actual damages, whichever is less.

Conclusion

Landlords would have fewer tenant problems if they took more time during the screening process. This means resisting the temptation to fill a space quicker than the approval process actually takes.  Unfortunately, the desire to have the rental flow commence quickly sometimes results in the process becoming rushed.  And landlords and managers should never allow the applicant to rush them.  Nor should they ever permit an applicant to move into a home before the process has been completed and a new rental agreement signed.  Lastly, fairness and uniformity in screening will help to avoid the ever-present liability that can occur under the federal and state Fair Housing laws.

©Copyright by Phillip C. Querin. No portion may be reproduced without the express written consent of the author.

[1]Rental Agreement MHCO Form 5A and Lease Agreement Form 5B.

[2]Rental Application MHCO Form 1, and Application Screening Charge Notice and Receipt, MHCO Form 9.

[3]See, ORS 90.680(5)

[4]Source of income would refer to whether the applicant was receiving some form of state or federal assistance, or child support, for example.

[5]While compliance with the law seems like a reasonable area of inquiry, the problem is that managers and landlords don’t ask this question of a family from England or Germany.  This creates the appearance that questions regarding immigration status are reserved for Latinos or those from other Central American countries. National origin is a constitutionally protected class.  As a result, this type of selective screening creates (in legal terms) a “disparate impact” on folks from Mexico and Central America, and can therefore be found to be a violation of the Fair Housing laws.

[6]Occupancy limits are sometimes used as “tools” by landlords to impose restrictions on persons with larger families, and therefore poses a potential violation of the familial status protected status.  This has not been a significant problem Oregon.

[7]Generally, the only strong justification for occupancy limits in family parks is where it can be claimed that too many people in a home overtaxes the utility systems.  While legitimate in some instances, proving it could be very costly. 

[8]However, prudence should be exercised here. You would not ask an obviously blind person to fill out a request for reasonable accommodation when asking for a guide dog.

Answer: I can find nothing in the state statutes specifically regulating the installation of air conditioning units in park homes or privately-owned homes. It is correct that some landlords forbid them to be installed in rental homes, presumably because of potential damage to the interior or exterior during installation; plus, there is the risk of a poorly installed unit falling on someone.

However, if you own your own home, I see no problems. I've never seen anything in any rules placing limitations on the installation of AC window units, and don't expect to. Subject to reasonable limitations on installation, andcompliance with applicable building and electrical codes, I don't see any issues.

Placing such limitations on residents would probably trigger an onslaught of "reasonable accommodation" requests, since many older people who are home-bound or in need of air conditioning during hot spells - even in Oregon - and for obvious health reasons, should be able to have it.

The only landlord issue I can see with window-installed ACs is appearance from the outside. If a unit is inoperable it should be removed before it becomes an eyesore. Subject to a landlord's reasonable limitations on placement (like satellite dishes), there are no other limitations that I'm aware of regarding installation of these units. I do suggest, however, before installing one, check with the manager just to make sure there are not issues you may have overlooked - especially concerning proper installation.

1. Empathy

We have all heard the expression, "put yourself in the others' shoes", and this is great advice when dealing with a conflict. This does not mean you must agree with the other person, but by placing yourself in their situation you are demonstrating your desire to solve whatever problem they have brought to you.

1. Improve Your Listening Skills

It is important to develop active listening skills. Glancing at your phone or computer screen while a resident is trying to talk to you is not only disrespectful, you are probably adding fuel to their already heightened sense of aggravation. When possible move the conversation away from a desk so that there is a level playing field without a barrier to communication. Try repeating back to them "Here is what I heard you say, is that correct?". This solidifies that you are paying attention and that their issue is important to you.

1. Keep Your Emotions In Check

Okay, so this is a hard one! You work hard and take pride in your job. It is only natural for you to defend and protect your livelihood. It is vital that you do not jump to any conclusions and stay focused on the matter. You can achieve this by asking questions and taking notes to assure that you are understanding all the information correctly. If you allow yourself to get defensive the situation will only escalate and remember, you are there to solve the conflict, not make it worse. Many people have a difficult time expressing themselves, and the same words may have different meanings to different people. When our emotions are engaged, we tend to hear only what we want to hear. This can trigger our "flight or fight" response and this will add to the conflict rather than solve it. Monitor your voice tone and volume, be ready to listen, and then speak to be understood.

1. Cooling Off Difficult People

There will always be loud and inflexible customers who feel that they have been treated poorly, or have preconceived ideas about you and your company. Some people are just difficult! We need to focus on our job: reaching a deeper understanding of the issue and solve it. This means listening attentively, do not interrupt, let them vent, and acknowledge how important the issue is and reflect it to them. Remind them that you there to find a solution and focus on the things we CAN do to help.

This does not mean you must sit there and accept any abuse from anyone. If a customer is verbally abusive you should remain civil, but tell then the truth about the effect of their attitude. Try this: "I care very much about your problem but when you speak to me this way I find it difficult to focus on a solution". This is a solution oriented response that lets them know that you will not tolerate any more of their verbal attacks.

Document the conversation.

1. Stay Calm and Move On

Here is the good news - not every customer interaction is negative. It's just that those situations are so unpleasant we tend to dwell on them. Self-preservation demands that you stay calm - take a deep breath, don't take it personally, take a break, and don't repeat the story to everyone you see for the rest of the day. This behavior will intensify your emotions and it becomes the proverbial "fish" story. The more you tell it, the bigger the story becomes. Continually reliving the incident can change what really happened into a story you have told yourself. Focus on the positives and solutions that emerged from the incident and take pride in handling the situation.

Take some advice from Taylor Swift and "Shake It Off"!

Being polite goes a long way towards appropriately dealing with difficult people and resolving conflict. Work to maintain your sense of humor and difficulties will roll off your back much easier. Increasing your problem-solving skills will significantly reduce problems in your community, as well as show your employer that you are representing them in a positive and productive manner.

Angel Rogers has over 25 years of Property Management experience. She has been teaching for various 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: [Note: This answer presumes that the landlord has legally declared the abandonment, and following the statute regarding issuance of the 45-day letter. It also presumes that there are no liens on the home, since they would have prior right to determine what happens.]

Interestingly, I find nothing in the abandonment statute [ORS 90.675]that prohibits the tenant from selling the home during the 45-day period following the landlord's issuance of the 45-day letter. In fact, I believe that possibility was contemplated when the statute was drafted and/or amended. [My answer might be different if the tenant sold the home after expiration of the 45-day letter, since the statute says that under that circumstance the home is "conclusively presumed" to be abandoned. To me this means that the tenant had nothing to convey. But we'll deal with that issue another time.]

So the real issue is not with the abandonment statute, but with ORS 90.680, which deals with on-site sales of the manufactured home. In relevant part, the statute provides as follows:

1. If the new purchaser wants to live in the home, prior to a sale, they '_ must submit to the landlord a complete and accurate written application for occupancy of the dwelling or home as a tenant after the sale is finalized";
2. They may not occupy the space or the home until after the prospective purchaser is accepted by the landlord as a tenant;
3. If the sale is not by a lienholder [it wasn'] the prospective purchaser '_must pay in full all rents, fees, deposits or charges owed by the tenant *** prior to the landlord's acceptance of the prospective purchaser as a tenant";
4. The landlord must accept or reject the prospective purchaser's application within seven days following the day the landlord receives a complete and accurate written application. If a tenant has not previously given the landlord the 10 days' notice, this period is extended to 10 days;
5. The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant;
6. The following apply if a landlord does not require a prospective purchaser to submit an application for occupancy as a tenant:
   • The landlord waives any right to bring an action against the tenant under the rental agreement for breach of the landlord's right to establish conditions upon and approve a prospective purchaser of the tenant's dwelling or home;
   • The prospective purchaser, upon completion of the sale, may occupy the dwelling or home as a tenant under the same conditions and terms as the tenant who sold the dwelling or home; and
   • If the prospective purchaser becomes a new tenant, the landlord may not impose conditions or terms on the tenancy that are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the seller's rental agreement unless the new tenant agrees in writing.

So in this case, the landlord should immediately contact the new buyer, notify them that if they intend to occupy the home, they must submit an application for tenancy and bring current all unpaid accrued rents, etc. They may not occupy the home or space until they have done so and been approved as a tenant.

If the purchaser is a dealer, or intending to flip the home to another prospective buyer/tenant, these same requirements would apply. Although this may require a legal opinion before proceeding, if the current buyer intends to remove the home, I would consider asserting a possessory lien on the home [i.e. it cannot be removed until payment of the past due rents, etc.] Note this is not "legal advice" so you must secure an opinion from your own counsel.

Answer: This isn'tdirectly addressed in the Bill, but since it is the space that is being rented, and the home with tenants have been there three years, I don't view this as a new tenancy. As I see it, rent increases going forward are for a home that has been on the space to the same residents for three-years; bringing in an additional tenant who has been there less than one year is not a factor, since the base rent is for the home on the space, and is not measured on a per tenant basis. But this could be subject to differing interpretations.

By the way, I do not view the first-year freeze on rent increases as particularly harsh, since the landlord can negotiate the first year's rent before allowing the tenant to come in. For example, if current residents are paying $400/month for space rent, but you are planning a rent increase - or have already issued one, for $40 dollars, you would presumably accept the new tenant at $440 - thus making the first-year freeze irrelevant.

On month-to-month tenancies, there is no "cap" on the amount of the initial base rent - it may start at whatever level the landlord and tenant agree upon. However, it cannot be increased thereafter during the first year of the tenancy. For fixed term tenancies, i.e. leases, landlords generally have their rents established through a formula contained in the written agreement. SB 608 only modified ORS 90.600, which governs periodic tenancies, such as month-to-month tenancies.

The thought "Stick with the MHPs, Stevens" may have occurred to you. There is a point to the Camp David Accords reference. The point is, President Carter would not settle for anything other than peace. MHP park owners & managers can borrow this theme. Eviction (one could argue a violent action), is a last resort. Peace in the valley, while not easy, may be less stressful for manager and residents, as well as a better solution for all.

Key Points:

• It is stressful for managers and owners to deal with the same problems month in and month out, which might lead to burn-out. Burn-out may lead to a manager quitting or worse, just not giving the job 100%

• Budget: One manager sold life insurance for a national company, prior to being a park manager. In his training to sell life insurance, he was told the first thing to do is a monthly budget with the prospect. This way, the prospect quickly ascertains there is money to buy life insurance as long as they stick to a budget. Do a budget for the chronically late residents. Perhaps they truly cannot afford to live on the property.

• Earn More: In this full employment economy, it is reasonable to expect a struggling resident to ask for a raise, ask for more hours or get a second job. don't assume the resident realizes this.

• Resolve to take action on any resident that is consistently using up the manager's time and company resources with no resulting progress.

• What MHP projects and initiatives are delayed or not getting sufficient attention (buying homes, marketing homes, green initiatives, resident relations), because of time spent on this handful of residents?

• The residents are stressed too, when they are delinquent. Maybe forcing a resolution ultimately helps them to figure out what it will take for them to continue living in the park.

Gray Gardens Gail hails back to the movie "Grey Gardens":

It was about the once (but no longer) wealthy Bouvier mother and daughter that were called out by the local health department for the enormous number of cats in their home and on their property that had created a public health hazard. What made this "cat house" newsworthy is, the occupants were Jackie Kennedy's and Lee Radziwill's aunt and cousin, both of whom were suffering from mental health issues. And the "home" was a mansion in East Hampton, Long Island. The filth from the cats, the garbage and lack of litter boxes in the mansion made the property a fixer-upper extraordinaire. The decrepit mansion was purchased and beautifully restored, and in December 2018, it sold for $15.5 million.

Who among us does not have or had a Grey Gardens Gail in our parks? Not only is there no reasoning with Gail, there is usually no emergency contact person, let alone someone famous and rich to help this resident. To compound the dilemma, the government officials do not want to get involved. In Grey Gardens Gail's case, filing an eviction might be the only way to get the residents' attention and ideally, cooperation. This is a health issue for the resident, the animals and the property.

Carmen Sans Communicato:

Carmen's deal is she always pays her rent but is chronically delinquent. In addition, Carmen has a phone and face-to-face conversation phobia that often leads you to wondering. That is to say, she does not care to, want to, or cannot meet with the manager. She does not take the manager's calls (is this really a phobia and a mental health issue?). What to do? With Carmen, the only way to get the real story is to file an eviction. If the court allows the eviction, then Carmen will have to move. At the very least, the manager just might get a new application from Ms. Carmen Sans Communicato. This way, the manager can determine if Carmen can afford to live in the park.

Deadly Disease Donna:

Have you had a Deadly Disease Donna who has been informed of every non-profit, church and government agency under the sun as resources for assistance? But Donna doesn'twant to ask for help. Meanwhile, there is a healthy adult living in the home who does not work. Maybe the healthy adult is taking care of Donna. Recently, a new company bought Donna's park. The new owner has a policy of "No Pay, No Stay". What the new owner discovered is, Donna and her family actually moved into the home of the former owner for a time. That is, until the former owner couldn'ttake it anymore. Then Donna and her brood moved back to the park. The new owners commenced to send to Donna the proper legal Notice and an attorney has been hired to file for eviction. It is doubtful this will end up in an eviction, though. Donna paid off all but $150, once the Notice arrived. The next step is that two relatives will co-sign the lease and guarantee rent payments. This is a good outcome for all.

Joanne Stevens is a National Mobile Home Park Broker with NAI Iowa Realty Commercial, a Berkshire Hathaway Company.

Email: joannestevens@iowarealty.com

Website: www.joannestevens.com

Phone: (319) 310-0641

Answer: RVs are not treated the same as manufactured homes. They are subject to the general landlord-tenant law (as opposed to the manufactured housing side of that law). This means that if an RV tenant is renting the space on a month-to-month basis, you cannot increase the rent during the first year, and after that only with the issuance of a 90-day written notice. Also, after the first year, you cannot terminate without cause.