Answer. MHCO Form No. 21 (Pet Agreement) provides that:

*** in the event of breach of this Pet Agreement, subject to Oregon law, Management reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to: (a) immediatelyterminate this Pet Agreement and demand removal of the pet(s) and/or (b)terminate the Rental Agreement in accordance with ORS 90.630 or 90.400.[2]

So, if your tenant signed this form, one option you have is to demand removal of the pet. Alternatively, you could proceed under ORS 90.630.

However, your question points up a difference today between the continuing violation form (No. 43) and the one for distinct and separate violations. (No.43 A).

In the past, all violations were given the same period to cure, i.e., 30-days. But changes to the law in 2019 recognized a distinction between violations involving (a) ongoing conduct and (b) those involving separate and distinct events of misconduct. 

This made sense, since certain violations, such as speeding through the community, could violate a Rule, but once issued, had to be followed by another repeat violation notice for the second or subsequent violation within the next six months. 

Now that the law has bifurcated these two types of violations, MHCO developed the two different termination forms.

ORS 90.630 (Termination by landlord) provides, in part, that:

“*** (e)xcept as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the landlord may terminate a rental agreement for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days’ notice in writing before the termination date designated in the notice, if the tenant: *** (b) Materially violates a rental agreement provision related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy;

It defines the two distinct types of conduct:

1. Ongoing Conduct:  *** (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, conduct is ongoing if:

      (a) The conduct is constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing; and

      (b) The violation does not involve a pet or assistance animal.[3]

2. Separate and Distinct Conduct: *** (B) If the violation involves conduct that was a separate and distinct act or omission and is not ongoing, at least three days after delivery of the notice;

      (d) [The notice must state] that the violation is conduct that is a separate and distinct violation and that the date designated for correcting the violation is different from the termination date; and

      (e) At least one possible method by which the tenant may correct the violation.

Discussion. You have treated the pet problem as “ongoing” and issued Form No. 43. But that form and the statute prohibit its use for pet violations. However, the statute does not impose such a limitation for separate violations. Accordingly, Form No. 43 A would be appropriate.  I agree that the distinction can be blurry, since repetitive single acts, such as speeding through the community, could be viewed as “ongoing.” But ignoring the niceties of the distinction, we can agree that the separate act of a pet violation, is best treated using Form 43 A.

However, the take-away here is that requiring the use of Pet Agreements is preferable; it has the benefit of finality, since it allows you to demand removal of the pet, rather than the tenant.[4]

Answer:  Yes. Fair housing law bars communities from treating people differently based on their religious beliefs or practices. The law clearly protects members of established religions, and fair housing experts believe it may be broad enough to cover a wide variety of religious or spiritual beliefs. So you should allow the resident to use the community room to celebrate the winter solstice.

Answer. What follows is a complicated answer to a simple question.

ORS 90.302 (Fees allowed for certain landlord expenses), Subsection (3) (b) (A) authorizes the assessment of a “fee” for noncompliance with written rules or policies governing, among other things, “(t)he late payment of a utility or service charge that the tenant owes the landlord as described in ORS 90.315” (Utility or service payments).

But that statute provides that the written rental agreement must expressly permit this fee. If it’s not in the agreement, ORS 90.302 (9) permits park owners to unilaterally amend it to impose noncompliance fees. A 90-day written notice must first be sent to the tenant.

But as occasionally occurs with legislation written by committees composed of disparate stakeholders, the sausage bill that results can become almost incomprehensible. That is the case with ORS 90.302(3) which describes a complicated implementation process, at best.[1]

If the above discussion isn’t sufficient in discouraging park landlords assessing fees for delinquent water charges, the information below should cinch the deal.

First, remember that the Oregon landlord-tenant law, ORS Chapter 90, is divided into two parts, (a) the non-manufactured housing side, and (b) the manufactured housing side. The latter side commences at ORS 90.505.[2]

Secondly, there is nothing in the manufactured housing utility billing statutes (ORS 90.560 – 90.584) which authorizes the assessment of a late fee for overdue utility charge payments. On the non-manufactured housing side, ORS 90.302 (3) (b) (A) does authorize the assessment of fees for late utility charge payments “… that the tenant owes the landlord as described in ORS 90.315.” (for utility or service charges).

Here is the conundrum: Does ORS 90.302 (3) (b) (A) refer to the utility charges described in ORS 90.315 or the obligation to pay the landlord as described in 90.315?

In ORS 90.560 (the definitions of utilities and services for the manufactured housing side of Chapter 90) it says that the term “utility or service” has the meaning given in ORS 90.315 (i.e., on the non-manufacturing housing side of ORS Chapter 90). The problem with this cross-reference is that the process for charging utility and service charges for manufactured homes and nonmanufactured homes are not the same – in fact, they are quite different.

For example, the procedure for billing utilities to an apartment tenant is described in ORS 90.315 (4) expressly does not apply to manufactured home tenancies. And the procedure for billing utilities to tenants in manufactured housing communities is set out in 90.562 (3) and (4).

Confused? Frustrated? Join the club! The best solution would be a legislative one, i.e., amend 90.302 (3) (b) (A) to include an express cross-reference to ORS 90.562 which would clarify the legislative intent to include both manufactured and non-manufactured housing.

Until then, there is room for disagreement on late fees for unpaid utility charges in manufactured housing communities; and disagreement can lead to litigation – something you don’t want. In the past I have seen park tenants bring claims against landlords for (allegedly) improperly imposed charges, fees, etc. The result is not pretty since each space may have a claim against the landlord for reimbursement of the past twelve months[3]of improperly assessed charges – plus attorney fees.

So, the short answer to your seemingly simple question, is that you do not want to risk assessing fees to residents for overdue payments of their water charges until the legislature clears up the confusion.

This is not to say you are without a remedy, but assessing a fee is not one I would recommend until the legislation clears up. Nonpayment of a utility or service charge is grounds for termination for cause under ORS 90.630. But beware, a landlord may not give a notice of termination under that statute for nonpayment of a utility or service charge sooner than the eighth day (including the first day it is due), after the landlord gives the tenant the written notice stating the amount of the utility or service charge.

Many thanks to John Van Landingham for his assistance in helping me detangle these statutes and their legislative history. Nobody has better institutional knowledge, perspective and understanding of Oregon’s landlord-tenant laws than John.

On December 13, 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed significant changes (SB891) to the process of non payment of rent.  MHCO requested attorney Phil Querin to do a complete analysis of the new laws and provide guidance to owners/operators of manufactured home communities in Oregon.  Phil's complete analysis is attached above - just click: "Non Payment of Rent Guidance/Analysis as of December 20, 2021 by Phil Querin" above this paragraph.  MHCO is currently working on a new flow chart and revised forms - to be posted later this week.

On December 13, 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed SB891 which made significant changes to the non payment of rent eviction process in Oregon.  A revised flow chart of the process is attached above: "891 Update Flowchart Draft 2.pdf".

MHCO Forms for Non Payment of Rent Evictions/Rental Assistance - Effective December 15, 2021 are attached ABOVE.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Section 804(c) of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it illegal “[t]o make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” Notice that the rule covers not just landlords who make discriminatory statements in ads but also those who publish them.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) interprets the prohibition very broadly as applying to all kinds of ads, not just newspaper ads. Moreover, the offense isn’t discriminatory advertising but making discriminatory statements, which includes communications that you may not normally think of as advertising, such as:

• Spoken, written, and online statements—including words, phrases, pictures, symbols, and other graphic images—that send the message that housing isn’t available to particular groups because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin (which we’ll refer to collectively as “protected characteristics”);
• Expressing to leasing agents, employees, prospects, or any other person a preference for or against any renter because of the renter’s protected characteristic; and/or
• Selecting media or locations for advertising that deny particular segments of the housing market information about housing opportunities based on a protected characteristic.

Example: “Loft Apartments. . . . For Adults 21 & Over.” A family with a young child sued the owner of a Pennsylvania luxury community that placed ads including this language in local newspapers. HUD joined the lawsuit. The federal court found the owner liable for discriminatory advertising and ordered it to pay $35,000 in damages [U.S. v. Joyce, 2010].

It’s Not What You Mean But What You Say

Unlike with most other forms of fair housing violations, liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. What matters is not what you meant but whether the statement you actually made would suggest a preference to an “ordinary reader or listener.” Thus, innocent intentions are no defense to a violation.

Example: The Massachusetts landlord probably acted with the best of intentions in running a Craigslist ad stating that an apartment was “not deleaded, therefore it cannot be rented to families with children under six years old.” But whatever the landlord’s intentions were, the ad clearly communicated the message that the apartment was off limits to families with children. Result: The landlord had to shell out over $38,000 in damages [Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, May 2013].

You also need to recognize that exclusion can take the form of not only discouraging but also encouraging groups of people. Thus, phrases like “ideal for singles” imply that married couples with children are unwelcome.

Beware of State Fair Housing Laws

Finally, keep in mind that federal requirements are just the baseline for compliance and that most states have adopted their own fair housing laws covering groups or characteristics that the FHA doesn’t list as protected, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, ancestry, age, military status, and source of income. Thus, for example, an ad that includes the phrase “No Section 8 vouchers” would violate the laws of states that ban discrimination on the basis of a person’s source of income.

7 RULES FOR AVOIDING DISCRIMINATORY ADVERTISING

The ban on making discriminatory statements applies to a broad range of advertising and marketing practices, but the basic rules don’t vary by medium. Stated differently, the formula for avoiding discrimination in traditional advertising is pretty much the same as it is for avoiding discrimination in internet advertising. Thus, HUD, fair housing groups, and victims continue to bring cases against landlords and publishers for discriminatory statements made in newspapers and other traditional media outlets.

Rule #1: Avoid Discriminatory Buzzwords

Landlords that use phrases like “Whites Only” or “No Wheelchairs” in their ads richly deserve the liability they incur. But unlike obscenity, people don’t intuitively recognize discriminatory advertising when they see it. If they did, the vast majority of landlords who do believe in fair housing principles and want to comply wouldn’t get into trouble because of their ads. Inadvertent liability is often the result of using certain buzzwords and phrases that send subtle messages of exclusion. They may include not only references to protected classes and characteristics but seemingly neutral words like “restricted,” “exclusive,” or “private.”

Descriptions of the neighborhood can also raise a red flag. In describing the community, stick to neutral terms, such as “desirable neighborhood” or “quiet streets,” and avoid words indicating which groups live in it.

Standard descriptions of a unit’s features that include otherwise taboo words, such as “walk-in closets” and “family room,” don’t violate fair housing law, as long as the advertisement doesn’t otherwise suggest a discriminatory preference, according to HUD. (See this table based on government guidelines from the State of Oklahoma.)

Rule #2: Market Property, Not People

The rule of thumb for avoiding discriminatory advertising is to market the property and its amenities, not the people you think should live in it. Vet every ad, slogan, and marketing piece you create with one question in mind: Will the prospects who look at this item feel welcome? In making this determination, set aside your own personal opinions and consider the view of the “ordinary reader or listener,” since this is the standard by which you’ll be judged if somebody files a fair housing complaint.

Compliance strategy: Because litigation is so expensive—even when you win—the primary goal should be to avoid it at all costs. Thus, if there’s even a question about whether ad language will cross the line, err on the side of caution by not including it.

Example: If it could have done things differently, an Ohio community would have probably chosen not to run an online ad suggesting that, “Our one bedroom apartments are a great bachelor pad for any single man looking to hook up.” The good news is that the community eventually won the lawsuit claiming that the ad discriminated on the basis of familial status and sex; the bad news is that it took the community over five years of litigation and tens if not hundreds of thousands in legal fees to ultimately prevail [Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. The Connor Group, December 2015].

DEEP DIVE

Exceptions Where Ads May Express Preferences

While the law generally bans statements that express a preference based on a protected characteristic, there are a few exceptions, including:

• Roommates: Ads stating a preference for members of a particular sex as a roommate in a shared-living arrangement;
• Senior housing: Ads excluding children in communities that qualify under the “housing for older persons” exception, which applies if:
  • HUD has determined the housing is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly persons under a federal, state, or local government program; or
  • The housing is occupied solely by persons 62 or older; or
  • It houses at least one person 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units, and adheres to a policy that demonstrates an intent to house persons who are 55 or older; and
• Accessible housing: Ads with information about the availability of accessible housing; and
• Affirmative advertising: Ads designed to attract persons to dwellings who would not ordinarily be expected to apply, when such efforts are part of an affirmative marketing program or undertaken to remedy the effects of prior discriminatory housing advertising or marketing.

Rule #3: Beware of Discriminatory Use of Human Models

Pay close attention to not just the words but the images contained in your ads and marketing materials. Be especially careful about using human models, whether via video, photograph, drawing, or other graphic techniques, to express preferences for or against different groups. The classic example is a picture or video that uses all white models to portray your residents. Whether you realize it or not, such an ad sends the message that people of color aren’t welcome in your community. Similarly, ads showing nothing but able-bodied people running, playing tennis, or engaging in other physical activities may send subtle exclusionary messages to persons with disabilities; failing to display kids may have the same effect on families with children.

Accordingly, HUD cautions that models used in display advertising campaigns “should be clearly definable as reasonably representing majority and minority groups in the metropolitan area, both sexes, and, when appropriate, families with children.” If used, models should also portray persons in an equal social setting and indicate to the general public that the housing is open to all without regard to race, color, religion, etc., HUD adds.

Landlords and their employees need to keep these principles in mind for not just professional shoots but handheld videos shot with a smartphone for posting to Facebook, Instagram, Zillow, or any other online site. There should be guidelines in place for vetting videos for potential fair housing risks before hitting the “send” button.   

Rule #4: Put the HUD EHO Logo in All Ads

There is one thing you should include in all of your advertising: the HUD equal housing opportunity (EHO) logotype, statement, or slogan. While not technically required under the FHA, these materials send the very opposite message conveyed by discriminatory ads, namely, that the property is available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

In addition to enhancing your reputation as an equal housing opportunity provider, including the logo may also serve to contradict any discriminatory messages your ads inadvertently send. One example is advertising for communities that have a religious name (such as “Roselawn Catholic Home”) or use of a religious symbol in an ad. According to HUD, these practices may indicate an illegal religious preference. But HUD also says that use of the religious name or symbol will be deemed acceptable if it’s paired with a disclaimer stating that the community doesn’t discriminate based on race, color, or any other characteristic protected under federal, state, or local law.

The logo examples here come from HUD’s fair housing advertising regulations that were officially rescinded as part of a large effort to eliminate advisory materials from official regulations, but which HUD still unofficially follows in implementing the law. The choice of logotype, statement, or slogan will vary depending on the type of media used (visual or auditory) and, in space advertising, the size of the advertisement. The rescinded regulations include a table for determining logo size in newspapers and other traditional print media:

For other ads, the EHO logo should be at least equal in size to the largest of the other logotypes; if no other logotypes are used, the type should be bold display face which is clearly visible.

Rule #5: Avoid Discriminatory Ad Placement  

Consider not just the content of your ads but where you place them. Explanation: Historically, landlords have been able to perpetuate segregation by deliberately advertising only in certain publications or outlets that minorities targeted for exclusion are known not to use. Examples include strategically placing billboard ads in predominately white neighborhoods and running newspaper ads in local publications read mostly by a white audience. The digital age and rise of websites that use sophisticated algorithms to target highly specific audiences have significantly increased the potential for landlords to engage in selective and manipulative ad placement strategies.

Of course, HUD and fair housing organizations are aware of these practices and scrutinize landlords’ marketing practices for evidence of discrimination.

HUD has also warned against relying exclusively on English-language media or media catering to the majority population in an area where non-English language or other minority media is also available.

Example: A group of 15 Latino residents sued the owners and operators of seven rental properties in Los Angeles for deliberately excluding Latinos by marketing newly vacated units primarily through websites directed at young, English-speaking, single, nondisabled people (such as Radpad, Hotpads, and Walk Score). The defendants denied the accusations and asked the federal court to toss the case without a trial. The court ruled that the residents had a legally valid claim and could take their case to trial [Martinez v. Optimus Props., LLC, March 2017].

Your best defense is a proactive strategy relying on the creation and implementation of a written marketing plan to ensure that your marketing campaign is as broad and inclusive as possible. Retain copies of the ads you place, along with detailed records of when and where you placed them. Documenting your efforts to reach a wide, diverse audience will help you defend yourself against claims of selective advertising; better yet, it may prevent such claims altogether.  

Coach’s Tip: One exception to the ban on selective ad placement allows for targeting a particular group as part of a broad, inclusive marketing campaign, provided that the landlord has a valid, nondiscriminatory reason for doing so. For example, it may be permissible to run ads in a Vietnamese language newspaper if large numbers of Vietnamese people settle into your community and surrounding area.

DEEP DIVE

Fair Housing & Facebook

In 2018, the National Fair Housing Alliance and other fair housing groups sued Facebook for “virtual redlining” by allowing housing advertisers to use its platform and lists of “excluded” groups to customize ads that families with children, women, and other protected classes wouldn’t be able to receive. The complaint also accused Facebook of giving housing advertisers the ability to exclude certain “interest” categories from receiving ads that are disability-based (such as people who are interested in disabled veterans or disabled parking permits) or national origin-based (such as people who are interested in English as a second language).

Facebook settled the suit in 2019 by agreeing to change its advertising platform. However, HUD wasn’t impressed with the solution and has filed its own lawsuit challenging Facebook’s advertising practices in federal court.

Meanwhile, a group of Facebook users have brought a class action against the social media giant contending that they were on the receiving end of housing advertisers’ discriminatory practices enabled by the use of the Facebook platform. In January 2021, a federal court rejected the claim for lack of specificity; however, the dismissal was “without prejudice.” Translation: The plaintiffs can still file an amended complaint.    

Rule #6: Keep Your Advertising Methods Consistent

Expansive campaigns targeting multiple markets can expose you to liability if your advertising methods are selective. So try to keep your campaigns consistent from market to market. For example, when using human models primarily in media that cater to one racial or national origin segment of the population, consider a complementary advertising campaign using models targeting other groups. Another example of selective marketing is using racially mixed models to advertise one property and not others. You also need to be careful when advertising in publications or other media directed at one particular sex or persons without children.

Rule #7: Beware of Discriminatory Advertising on Your Community Website

As a matter of fair housing compliance, your website is an extension of your advertising to the extent you use it to show the benefits of living in the community. Result: You need to be careful that the content you post—including words, photos, video, and other graphic images—don’t express preferences for or against any groups based on race, religion, sex, or other characteristics protected under federal, state, or local fair housing laws.

In general, the website should describe the community, its units, and amenities, but not the kind of people who should want to live there. Providing maps and directions can also express preferences if they include references to institutions or landmarks associated with certain racial, religious, ethnic, or other groups. Examples: Saying your community is within walking distance of:

• A church (signal to Christians)
• A black development (signal to blacks);
• A development known for its history of excluding minorities (signal to whites); or
• A community center dedicated to a particular nationality.

Answer: RVs are treated the same as single family rentals under Oregon’s Landlord-Tenant Laws. If a tenancy is week-to-week, the landlord or the tenant may terminate by a written notice given to the other at least 10 days before the termination date specified in the notice. Tenants may terminate upon 30-days written notice. Landlords may terminate during first year of tenancy with 30-days’ notice. Subject to the following, no cause terminations are prohibited after the first year of occupancy. 

However, ORS 90.427(5) and (6) provides certain exceptions, known as Qualified Landlord Reasons (“QLR”), that permit terminations after the first year of occupancy under the following circumstances:

1. The landlord intends to demolish the dwelling unit or convert the dwelling unit to a use other than residential use within a reasonable time; or

2. The landlord intends to undertake repairs or renovations to the dwelling unit within a reasonable time and: (A) The premises is unsafe or unfit for occupancy; or (B) The dwelling unit will be unsafe or unfit for occupancy during the repairs or renovations; or

3. The landlord intends for the landlord or a member of the landlord’s immediate family to occupy the dwelling unit as a primary residence and the landlord does not own a comparable unit in the same building that is available for occupancy at the same time that the tenant receives notice to terminate the tenancy; or

4.  The landlord has: (A) Accepted an offer to purchase the dwelling unit separately from any other dwelling unit from a person who intends in good faith to occupy the dwelling unit as the person’s primary residence; and (B) Provided the notice and written evidence of the offer to purchase the dwelling unit, to the tenant not more than 120 days after accepting the offer to purchase.

All of the above 1-4 require 90-day advance notice. An Oregon landlord that terminates a residential tenancy under Nos. 1 -4- above must:

1. Specify in the termination notice the reason for the termination and supporting facts;
2. State that the rental agreement will terminate upon a designated date not less than 90 days after delivery of the notice; and
3. At the time the landlord delivers the tenant the notice to terminate the tenancy, pay the tenant an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent.

Note, some jurisdictions, including the City of Portland, have additional notice and relocation fee requirements. (See, https://www.portland.gov/phb/rental-services/renter-relocation-assistance.) This is a summary only and members should consult their lawyer or other expert for details. 

Download the seminar registration form: Word | PDF

State Mandated Landlord-Tenant Law Training Seminars - Regular Four (4) Hours:

MHCO 4 Hour Seminars will be offered both 'In Person' and 'Online via Zoom'

MHCO will continue to offer the regular four (4) hour trainings during the usual timeframes. We will be doing the Wilsonville seminar on February 24, 2022 in person at the Holiday Inn. Then two seminars via Zoom on May 19, 2022 and July 19, 2022. The Annual Conference in 2021 was held both in person and via Zoom and was a great success. We will continue to have both options available for the 2022 Annual Conference. It will be held on October 24th and 25th, 2022 at the Valley River Inn, Eugene, Oregon as well as via Zoom. Registration for the Conference will be available in the late summer of 2022.

Seminar Dates and Locations

Wilsonville Holiday Inn on February 24, 2022

Online via Zoom on May 19, 2022

Online via Zoom on July 19, 2022

Annual Conference on October 24 & 25, 2022

Please download the Seminar Registration Form for further registration details. Please remember: All cancellations or replacements must be received in writing prior to the published seminar deadline date and there will be a cancellation fee of $75. There will be no refunds for cancellations 7 days before the seminar. Submit a separate form for each registrant. If training is being taken for more than one park, you must provide complete information for each park. If a non-member park is included, then registrants will pay non-member pricing, regardless of the status of other included parks. Registrants must be on time & complete the entire course for MHCO to certify the training hours to the Department of Housing and Community Services.

Landlord-Tenant Law Four (4) Hour Training Seminars

MHCO will continue to offer the regular four (4) hour trainings during the usual timeframes. We will be doing two seminars via Zoom (see OHCS Zoom Requirements below) & one seminar in Wilsonville. The 2025 Annual Conference will be held on October 27th and 28th at the Graduate Hotel, Eugene, Oregon as well as broadcast via Zoom (see OHCS Zoom Requirements below).

Online via Zoom on February 27, 2025

https://register.mhco.org/management-training/session-one

Wilsonville Holiday Inn on May 8, 2025

https://register.mhco.org/management-training/session-two

Online via Zoom on July 31, 2025

https://register.mhco.org/management-training/session-three

Graduate Hotel, Eugene and via Zoom on October 27 & 28, 2025, Online Registration available late summer of 2025

https://register.mhco.org/conference

MHCO is excited to announce Legal Briefs with Warren Allen, LLP will continue in 2025! We are grateful to continue to expand our commitment to provide the manufactured home community industry with quality, relevant information and to continue working with Warren Allen attorney Jeff Bennett.

The Legal Briefs are presented in four, one-hour Zoom Sessions (see OHCS Zoom Requirements below). We are offering the 2025 sessions in two sets. Within each set, all four sessions are required for you to receive credit with OHCS. Registrants must be on time, present & have their camera on for the full hour of each session for MHCO to certify the training hours to OHCS.

Set One of Legal Briefs with Warren Allen will begin on February 27th 2025 and will be held on the 2nd Tuesday of February, March, April & May at 01:00PM. Set Two of the Legal Briefs program will begin on September 9th 2025 and will be held on the 2nd Tuesday of September, October, November & December at 01:00PM.

Set One Sessions:

February 11th
Mediation: Compliance Strategies, From Forms to Finality

March 11th
Fair Housing: A Crash Course in Claims Avoidance

April 8th
For Cause Notices: ‘Cause You Can Do Better Than That

May 13th
What’s in Your Lease? Assembling Packages Tailored to Your Needs

https://register.mhco.org/legal-briefs/

Set Two Sessions:

September 9th
Mediation: Compliance Strategies, From Forms to Finality

October 14th
Fair Housing: A Crash Course in Claims Avoidance

November 11th
The Eviction Process, From Notices to Lock Outs   

December 9th
Happy Almost New Year: A 2025 Wrap Up and 2026 Primer

Registration for Set Two will be available in August of 2025.

OHCS Zoom Requirements

The Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services (OHCS) requires all Zoom participants to have a camera and to have that camera on. Without a camera on to show your participation, OHCS will not allow MHCO to report your name as having completed your continuing education requirement.

Download MHCO State Mandated Continuing Education Opportunities cover letter