Search

Answer: For purpose of addressing this issue, I will assume that the community currently includes the operating costs for the well in the base rent, i.e. it is not a charge to residents outside of base rent that is allocated to them on a prorata (i.e. per space) basis. Well water is not something you may separately charge the residents for under ORS 90.532. There is no recognized method under Oregon law to recover it separately from – or outside of – base rent. Since base rent may only be increased in accordance with the 90-day rent raise protocol described in ORS 90.600, there is no pass-through alternative for communities serviced by well water for drinking. Subsection (8) of ORS 90.532 limits utility charges for water through the following means: 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 as defined in ORS 757.005; (b) Municipal utility operating under ORS chapter 225; (c) People’s utility district organized under ORS chapter 261; (d) Cooperative organized under ORS chapter 62; (e) Domestic water supply district organized under ORS chapter 264; or (f) Water improvement district organized under ORS chapter 552. (9) A landlord that provides utilities or services only to tenants of the landlord in compliance with this section and ORS 90.534 and 90.536 is not a public utility for purposes of ORS chapter 757. Your question does not indicate whether the new water system falls into one of the above categories. If it does, then you are entitled to assess a pass-through protocol, so long as the other submetering statutes are followed What follows is brief summary of the applicable statutes. As you will see, the issues are technical and complex. In short, you should secure competent legal advice from an expert familiar with your particular situation. This article or summary should not be relied upon to the exclusion of obtaining that legal advice. • 90.532 This statute sets forth the permissible billing methods park owners may use for their water charges. • 90.534 This statute describes how a landlord may charge for providing a utility or service directly to the residents’ spaces by apportionment of the costs per space. • 90.536 This statute describes the use of submeters to each space and the appropriate billing method. • 90.537 This statute instructs landlords on how and when they may convert from one billing method to another. • 90.538 This statute describes the tenants’ rights to inspect billing records when an owner converts from one billing system to another. In your case, since you are on well water, the only records I imagine you would have would be the well water maintenance costs, since there is no direct water charge to you. • 90.539 This statute describes the park owner’s rights to access a resident’s space to read the submeter. Conclusion. Without knowing more, it is hard to say definitively whether your proposed billing method [assuming the system is permissible under ORS 90.532(8)], would be allowed. However, my guess is that it is not. The reason is that the legislation and legislative history that resulted in these statutes is based upon much discussion and anecdotal experience. The categories and protocols are very specific. If you were to submeter, I suspect you could not “blend” your charges to include the equivalent of a fixed fee for everyone, with a metered rate for the higher users. The concept behind submetering is that everyone pays for exactly what they use – no more, no less. You proposed system does not appear to do that. Additionally, I do not believe you may “convert” to this new system without making some downward adjustment in base rent, to account for the fact that the residents will no longer be using the well water – and therefore should no longer be paying the well maintenance cost. [Of course, if the well water were converted to irrigation, that cost – already in the base rent - would seemingly be permissible.]

Answer: A temporary occupant is not supposed to be paying the rent. You are not allowed to screen for the occupant’s ability to pay, because they are not a tenant. Your acceptance of rent from the occupant creates an appearance that the occupant is really a tenant. Secondly, the law says that a temporary occupant may not live in the home unless there is a tenant there as well. Accordingly, if you accept rent from the temporary occupant in the absence of the tenant living there, it could create a situation where you have waived the temporary occupant status, and are now treating him as a full time tenant. Here are the rules under the temporary occupancy statute ORS 90.275: • The temporary occupant: o Is not a tenant entitled to occupy the dwelling unit to the exclusion of others; and o Does not have the rights of a tenant. • The temporary occupancy agreement may be terminated by: o The tenant without cause at any time; and o The landlord only for cause that is a material violation of the temporary occupancy agreement. • The temporary occupant does not have a right to cure a violation that causes a landlord to terminate the temporary occupancy agreement. • Before entering into a temporary occupancy agreement, a landlord may screen the proposed temporary occupant for issues regarding conduct or for a criminal record. The landlord may not screen the proposed temporary occupant for credit history or income level. • A temporary occupancy agreement: o Must expressly include the above requirements; o May provide that the temporary occupant is required to comply with any applicable rules for the premises; and o May have a specific ending date. • The landlord, tenant and temporary occupant may extend or renew a temporary occupancy agreement or may enter into a new temporary occupancy agreement. • A landlord or tenant is not required to give the temporary occupant written notice of the termination of a temporary occupancy agreement. • The temporary occupant shall promptly vacate the dwelling unit if a landlord terminates a temporary occupancy agreement for material violation of the temporary occupancy agreement or if the temporary occupancy agreement ends by its terms. o Except in cases of discrimination (ORS 90.449) a landlord may terminate the tenancy of the tenant if the temporary occupant fails to promptly vacate or if the tenant materially violates the temporary occupancy agreement. • A temporary occupant is treated as a squatter if they continue to occupy the home after a tenancy has ended or after the tenant revokes permission for the occupancy by terminating the temporary occupancy agreement. • A landlord may not enter into a temporary occupancy agreement for the purpose of evading landlord responsibilities; • A tenant may not become a temporary occupant in the tenant’s own dwelling unit; • A tenancy may not consist solely of a temporary occupancy. Each tenancy must have at least one tenant. In your case, it would appear that you could either terminate the tenant’s tenancy since they vacated leaving the temporary occupant to occupy alone, a violation of the statute, or terminate the temporary occupant for the same reason. I would try a written notice to the temporary occupant, to see if they will voluntarily vacate. If they refuse, then you should retain counsel and proceed to evict him as a squatter. Do not, under any circumstances, accept rent from the temporary occupant.

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

Answer: Since the tenant does not own the home, the answer is found on the general landlord-tenant side of ORS Chapter 90 (as opposed to the manufactured housing side). Here is a summary of the tenant duties under ORS 90.325: - Use the parts of the premises including the living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and dining room in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended. - Keep all areas of the premises under control of the tenant in every part as clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin, as the condition of the premises permits and to the extent that the tenant is responsible for causing the problem. The tenant shall cooperate to a reasonable extent in assisting the landlord in any reasonable effort to remedy the problem. - Dispose from the dwelling unit all ashes, garbage, rubbish and other waste in a clean, safe and legal manner. With regard to needles, syringes and other infectious waste, as defined in ORS 459.386, the tenant may not dispose of these items by placing them in garbage receptacles or in any other place or manner except as authorized by state and local governmental agencies. - Keep all plumbing fixtures in the dwelling unit or used by the tenant as clean as their condition permits. - Use in a reasonable manner all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other facilities and appliances including elevators in the premises. - Test at least once every six months and replace batteries as needed in any smoke alarm, smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm provided by the landlord and notify the landlord in writing of any operating deficiencies. - Behave and require other persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave in a manner that will not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors. The underscored portion above clearly applies. The next question is the right of access. That is covered in ORS 90.322. The statute is quite long and complicated. Here is a summary of the relevant portions applicable to your situation: - A landlord or, to the extent provided in this section, a landlord's agent may enter into the tenant's dwelling unit or any portion of the premises under the tenant's exclusive control in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, perform agreed yard maintenance or grounds keeping or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers or contractors. The right of access of the landlord or landlord's agent is limited as follows: - In case of an emergency, a landlord may enter the dwelling unit or any portion of the premises under a tenant's exclusive control without consent of the tenant, without notice to the tenant and at any time. "Emergency" includes but is not limited to a repair problem that, unless remedied immediately, is likely to cause serious damage to the premises. If a landlord makes an emergency entry in the tenant's absence, the landlord shall give the tenant actual notice within 24 hours after the entry, and the notice shall include the fact of the entry, the date and time of the entry, the nature of the emergency and the names of the persons who entered. - If the tenant requests repairs or maintenance in writing, the landlord or landlord's agent, without further notice, may enter upon demand, in the tenant's absence or without the tenant's consent, for the purpose of making the requested repairs until the repairs are completed. The tenant's written request may specify allowable times. Otherwise, the entry must be at a reasonable time. The authorization to enter provided by the tenant's written request expires after seven days, unless the repairs are in progress and the landlord or landlord's agent is making a reasonable effort to complete the repairs in a timely manner. If the person entering to do the repairs is not the landlord, upon request of the tenant, the person must show the tenant written evidence from the landlord authorizing that person to act for the landlord in making the repairs. - A landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. A tenant may not unreasonably withhold consent from the landlord to enter. - If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access or may terminate the rental agreement under ORS 90.392 and take possession as provided in ORS 105.105 to 105.168. In addition, the landlord may recover actual damages. You have two choices in this situation: (a) Declare an emergency and enter to remediate the problem, carefully following the provisions of the access statute; (b) Try to secure the tenant's consent to have an exterminator enter and remediate the problem; (c) Terminate the tenancy and then fix the problem. Note that if you seek consent and the tenant refuses, you cannot then enter under the emergency provisions of the law, since the tenant has already refused access. As for damages, yes you can recover the cost, assuming that the exterminator confirms that this was a tenant caused problem.

Answer: I cannot find any law precisely on point, so will have to "reason by analogy." For purposes of answering the question, I will assume that the payor and the payee both have an Oregon manufactured structures dealer's ("MSD") license. However, that license only permits one to conduct business from a single location. If a person wanted to conduct business elsewhere, they would need to have a supplemental license (Form 440-2963). See, statutes here. My concern with the payment of referral fees between separate dealers, is that it blurs the distinction between the "single location" requirement. In other words, the payee would be receiving compensation from his own business location and another (unrelated) business location as well. I would not be too concerned if the two locations where owned by the same person or entity, but if not, there could be regulatory problems with the responsible agency, Finance & Corporate Securities Division ("DFCS"). Legally, there could be additional ramifications. Say the recipient of the fee made a misrepresentation to the customer, or there was a material defect in the home that resulted in injuries. If litigation ensued, the plaintiff would have two potential targets rather than one. Under the Oregon real estate licensing laws, one broker may pay a referral fee to another broker associated with an unrelated company. However, this is expressly permitted by statute. I see nothing in the statutes allowing MSDs to engage in referral fee activity, so would not recommend it without first checking with the DFCS.

Answer: Normally, per the park rules, leveling is a resident responsibility at the commencement of the tenancy. However, here you may have a habitability issue. Here is what the statute says: 90.730 (Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition.) provides: (2) A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition. The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home. A landlord's habitability duty under this section includes only the matters described in subsections (3) to (5) of this section. (3) For purposes of this section, a rented space is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks: (e) At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;" This would seem to suggest that from a habitability standpoint, as long as the pad was in good shape at the commencement of the tenancy, you no longer have any further duty to the resident. I think that conclusion would be a mistake. By your question, it sounds as if your elderly resident is concerned about her water lines. Leveling it could prevent this damage. If the condition of the pad was due to the resident's improper use, that's one thing. But here, it's due to the condition of the ground that you rented to her. She has no right to "fix" the ground as it's not hers to fix. Inasmuch as you own the ground, and the ground is causing the problem, I would suggest that leveling is your responsibility. If the problem was not the result of the ground, I would say it is the resident's responsibility. Look at it this way: If you do nothing, and her water lines break, she will have a damage claim against you. If you level it, that risk is greatly reduced if not eliminated. If you do pay to the have leveling done, make sure that someone checks the water lines under the home, just to make sure they have not been damaged by the cracking in the pad. There is a greater question as to whether the pad itself needs to be fixed. Leveling the home may be just a temporary fix if the problem continues.

Answer: I assume when he was first accepted as a resident he did not have a criminal record for any sex offenses. The statute that comes into play is ORS 90.630 (Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent.) It provides, in part: " ... the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant: (c) Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587;" This statute has only been in existence for a few years. As I read it, assuming that at the commencement of the tenancy, a landlord ran a criminal background check on a prospective resident and nothing showed him to be a sex offender - and they he later committed a sexual offence - you can evict them at as soon as you find out. In this case, it would seem that you can exclude him on that basis alone. Had this law been on the books when he committed the crime, and he didn'tgo to jail, you could have evicted him at the time. Now that it's on the books, I think you have the same right to keep him out, i.e. to protect the residents' visiting grandchildren. The only issue is whether he is '_a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587." Here is what those statutes say, and I imagine you will have to verify whether he falls into one of the categories. 181.585 "Predatory sex offender" defined; determination. (1) For purposes of ORS 181.585 to 181.587, a person is a predatory sex offender if the person exhibits characteristics showing a tendency to victimize or injure others and has been convicted of a sex crime listed in ORS 181.594 (5)(a) to (d), has been convicted of attempting to commit one of those crimes or has been found guilty except for insanity of one of those crimes. (2) In determining whether a person is a predatory sex offender, an agency shall use a sex offender risk assessment scale approved by the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency. [Formerly 181.507; 1997 c.538 _10; 2005 c.567 _16; 2009 c.713 _14] 81.586 Notice to appropriate persons of supervised predatory sex offender; content; additional duties of supervising agency. (1)(a) If the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for a person on parole or post-prison supervision or the Department of Corrections or a community corrections agency for a person on probation makes a determination that the person under its supervision is a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall notify: (A) Anyone whom the agency determines is appropriate that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (B) A long term care facility, as defined in ORS 442.015, or a residential care facility, as defined in ORS 443.400, that the person is a predatory sex offender if the agency knows that the person is seeking admission to the facility. (b) When a predatory sex offender has been subsequently convicted of another crime and is on supervision for that crime, the agency supervising the person, regardless of the nature of the crime for which the person is being supervised: (A) May notify anyone whom the agency determines is appropriate that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (B) Shall notify a long term care facility, as defined in ORS 442.015, or a residential care facility, as defined in ORS 443.400, that the person is a predatory sex offender if the agency knows that the person is seeking admission to the facility. (2) In making a determination under subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall consider notifying: (a) The person's family; (b) The person's sponsor; (c) Residential neighbors and churches, community parks, schools, convenience stores, businesses and other places that children or other potential victims may frequent; and (d) Any prior victim of the offender. (3) When an agency determines that notification is necessary, the agency may use any method of communication that the agency determines is appropriate. The notification: (a) May include, but is not limited to, distribution of the following information: (A) The person's name and address; (B) A physical description of the person including, but not limited to, the person's age, height, weight and eye and hair color; (C) The type of vehicle that the person is known to drive; (D) Any conditions or restrictions upon the person's probation, parole, post-prison supervision or conditional release; (E) A description of the person's primary and secondary targets; (F) A description of the person's method of offense; (G) A current photograph of the person; and (H) The name or telephone number of the person's parole and probation officer. (b) Shall include, if the notification is required under subsection (1)(a)(B) or (b)(B) of this section, the information described in paragraph (a)(D), (F) and (H) of this subsection. (4) Not later than 10 days after making its determination that a person is a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall: (a) Notify the Department of State Police of the person's status as a predatory sex offender; (b) Enter into the Law Enforcement Data System the fact that the person is a predatory sex offender; and (c) Send to the Department of State Police, by electronic or other means, all of the information listed in subsection (3) of this section that is available. (5) When the Department of State Police receives information regarding a person under subsection (4) of this section, the Department of State Police, upon request, may make the information available to the public. (6) Upon termination of its supervision of a person determined to be a predatory sex offender, the agency supervising the person shall: (a) Notify the Department of State Police: (A) Of the person's status as a predatory sex offender; (B) Whether the agency made a notification regarding the person under this section; and (C) Of the person's level of supervision immediately prior to termination of supervision; and (b) Send to the Department of State Police, by electronic or other means, the documents relied upon in determining that the person is a predatory sex offender and in establishing the person's level of supervision. (7) The agency supervising a person determined to be a predatory sex offender shall verify the residence address of the person every 90 days. [Formerly 181.508; 1997 c.538 _11; 1999 c.626 _10; 1999 c.843 _2; amendments by 1999 c.626 _33 and 1999 c.843 _3 repealed by 2001 c.884 _1; 2001 c.884 _11; 2005 c.671 _11] 181.587 Availability of information on supervised predatory sex offender. (1) Unless the agency determines that release of the information would substantially interfere with the treatment or rehabilitation of the supervised person, an agency that supervises a predatory sex offender shall make any information regarding the person that the agency determines is appropriate, including, but not limited to, the information listed in ORS 181.586 (3), available to any other person upon request. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall make the information listed in ORS 181.586 (3), or any other information regarding the supervised person that the agency determines is appropriate, available to any other person upon request if the person under supervision: (a) Is a predatory sex offender; and (b) Is neglecting to take treatment or participate in rehabilitation. [Formerly 181.509] MHCO Note: The law regarding the eviction of sexual predators was championed by MHCO several years ago. Through MHCO's efforts in the Landlord-Tenant Coalition, MHCO was able to change Oregon Statutes to give Landlords in manufactured home communities the right to evict an existing resident in a community who is discovered to be a predatory sex offender.

Answer: A judgment is a lien on all real property that is owned by the judgment debtor in the county in which the debtor resides. The lien gives the judgment creditor the right to "execute" on that real property, i.e. force a sale of the property with the proceeds being applied toward payment of the judgment. It is good for ten years and can be renewed for another ten years. If the creditor doesn'tknow if the debtor owns property in a particular county he can record the judgment there anyway (or some counties or every county in Oregon), and it will immediately attach if property is located there. This means that if the debtor attempts to dispose of, or mortgage, the property, the judgment lien will prevent the transaction until the creditor is paid in full. Judgments carry interest at 9% per annum. If the judgment debtor does not own any real property to which the lien can attach, he can still try to get paid, either through garnishment of wages or bank accounts, or execution upon other of the debtor's assets. If the creditor doesn'tknow what assets the debtor has, he can subpoena him into court, place him under oath, and ask questions about the existence and whereabouts of the debtor's assets. As you can see, armed with a recorded judgment, a creditor can make a debtor's life somewhat unpleasant. Once the judgment is satisfied, the debtor should insist that the creditor remove the lien by recording a Satisfaction of Judgment. This has the effect of nullifying the judgment and it will no longer appear as a negative comment on his credit history. In your case, you should tell the person that as long as the judgments appear on the record, it will appear on his credit report, affect his credit score, and could interfere with his ability to qualify to rent a space in your community. If, indeed, the liens have been taken care of, he needs to have the judgment creditors each record a Satisfaction of Judgment. A word of caution: ORS 90.680(6)(b) says that a landlord may not unreasonably reject a tenant's prospective purchaser. My concern here is that if you reject the purchaser before running the background check, you face a potential claim from the existing tenant that your rejection in advance, was per se unreasonable. Furthermore, if the applicant is a member of a protected class, you could be setting yourself up for a fair housing claim. Please consider this: If these are old judgments or very small amounts, they may say little about his qualifications as a tenant. It may be that no collection efforts are being made. Most collection agencies do not want to spend a lot of time chasing small sums, or if they do, they will discount the amount for a cash payment. How recent are the judgments? Is he gainfully employed? How long has he been employed? What is his debt-to-income ratio? His rental history? How is he paying for the home? If you don't know the answer to these questions, perhaps you should consider running the report just to find out. Since he is paying the cost of the credit check, completing the process may be your best and safest course of action, rather than "assuming" it's as bad as you think because of the unsatisfied judgments. It is far easier to say "No" after the credit, criminal, and background checks, because - if you're right - you'll have something to base the rejection on. Rejecting him in advance gives you no such safe harbor protection.

Answer: First and foremost, send the checks back as soon as they come in. Do not hold onto them, as there is Oregon case law saying that doing so for an unreasonable amount of time can constitute acceptance. Include a letter with the checks reiterating what you told him about the necessity of the repairs and the need to sign the rental agreement. I hope the nature of the repairs and the amount of time he has to complete them are a part of the rental agreement. IF not they should be. The only real way to enforce this requirement is to make the repairs a written condition of the tenancy. Do not accept any rent from him unless and until the tenant has signed the rental agreement and it contains an explicit description of the work he is to do and a completion date. If he takes possession without having signed a written rental agreement, you may give him a 24-hour notice to terminate under ORS 90.403. The statute contemplates an improper subleasing arrangement which is not the case here. However, in all respects, it should work, since his possession is unauthorized and in possession without a signed rental agreement. Make sure that you use the proper form of notice, as this is not the same situation as giving a 24-hour notice for outrageous conduct under ORS 90.396. Alternatively, if you have rules in the community that prohibit occupancy without a written rental agreement, you could issue a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1)(b). That way, if he cured by signing the rental agreement (with the repair provision in it) he could stay. This second alternative, though more time consuming, gives him a chance to come into compliance before having to vacate.

Answer: This question involves 90.297, which provides as follows: - Except as permitted in ORS 90.295 (fees for tenant screening charges) a landlord may not charge a deposit or fee, however designated, to an applicant who has applied to a landlord to enter a rental agreement for a dwelling unit. - A landlord may charge a deposit, however designated, to an applicant for the purpose of: _ Securing the execution of a rental agreement, after approving the applicant's application but prior to entering into a rental agreement. _ Is so, the landlord must give the applicant a written statement describing: - The amount of rent and the fees the landlord will charge and the deposits the landlord will require; and - The terms of the agreement to execute a rental agreement and the conditions for refunding or retaining the deposit. - If a rental agreement is executed, the landlord shall either apply the deposit toward the moneys due the landlord under the rental agreement or refund it immediately to the tenant. - If a rental agreement is not executed due to a failure by the applicant to comply with the agreement to execute, the landlord may retain the deposit. - If a rental agreement is not executed due to a failure by the landlord to comply with the agreement to execute, within four days the landlord shall return the deposit to the applicant either by making the deposit available to the applicant at the landlord's customary place of business or by mailing the deposit by first class mail to the applicant. - If a landlord fails to comply with these rules, the applicant or tenant, as the case may be, may recover from the landlord the amount of any fee or deposit charged, plus $150. Based upon the above, it is my opinion that it would be improper to charge a "move-in fee," unless it was designed to secure the execution of the rental agreement before the applicant took occupancy. If the rental agreement is already signed, there is nothing to "secure" and the fee would be inappropriate.