Search

Pitfall: In 1991, HUD issued guidance called the Keating Memo establishing two-per-bedroom as the default standard for reasonable occupancy standards. However, attorneys caution that the most common mistake landlords make with occupancy standards is applying the two-per-bedroom rule on a blanket basis. The reasonableness of a particular occupancy standard depends on the specific situation. Thus, two-per-bedroom may be too restrictive for some situations and not restrictive enough for others.  

Example: A Connecticut landlord forced a married couple to move out of their one-bedroom apartment for violating the community’s two-per-bedroom occupancy standard after the wife gave birth. I just followed the Keating Memo, the landlord claimed. But the court didn’t buy it, noting that Keating is a “totality” test that the landlord applied as a blanket rule without considering the other factors the Memo cites, like the size and sleeping area of the bedrooms [Gashi v. Grubb & Ellis Property Management Servs., 801 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D. Conn. 2011)].  

Solution: While two-per-bedroom might be the starting point, landlords must consider other factors listed in the Keating Memo to determine how many people can occupy it in safe and habitable conditions, including:

• How big the bedrooms are: Rejecting a family of five for a two-bedroom apartment might be unreasonable if at least one of the bedrooms is large enough to accommodate three persons. By the same token, it may be justifiable to refuse to rent a two-bedroom unit to a family of four if one of the bedrooms is too small for two people to share safely and in habitable conditions.
• Size and configuration of the apartment: Consider the unit’s overall size and configuration, including other rooms or spaces that can be used as bedrooms. Thus, two-per-bedroom may be too restrictive for an apartment with a den that can be easily converted into a bedroom; but it may be not restrictive enough for an apartment that doesn’t have ample living or dining room space per occupant.
• Physical limitations on the property or building systems: Consider the age and condition of the building, including the capacity of water, sewer, sanitation, electrical, HVAC, and other critical building systems. Thus, for example, occupancy standards of less than two-per-bedroom may be justifiable for older buildings with crumbling and fragile infrastructure.
•  Age of children: Occupancy standards are typically based on the premise that occupants can share bedrooms. However, the age of the child(ren) may challenge the basis of that premise. For example, suppose a couple wants to share a one-bedroom apartment with their child in violation of the landlord’s two-per-bedroom standard (absent other factors):
  • Child is a newborn or infant: Rejecting the couple is likely to be unreasonable;
  • Child is a teenager: Rejecting the couple is likely to be reasonable.

Caveat: Age doesn’t come into play in determining whether children of different sexes can share a bedroom. The Rule: Whatever your moral views, you can’t require male and female children to have separate bedrooms, regardless of their age. Period.

Changes to Tenant Screening Notice. If a landlord intends to charge an applicant for screening, the landlord must provide notice of various information related to screening and landlord policies (see MHCO Form 1B). One of the things an applicant must be notified of is the landlord’s commitment to non-discrimination. HB 2680 adds “gender identity” to the list of non-discrimination categories. A landlord may not discriminate against a tenant based on their gender identity, and this fact must be stated in the tenant notice.

The new law also requires that the screening notice inform the applicant of their right to a refund of the screening fee and their potential right to recover damages for a landlord failing to comply with the refund process.

Screening Fee Refund. While the law already provided that a landlord must refund the screening fee under certain conditions, HB 2680 now requires that a fee be refunded within 30 days if the landlord fills the vacancy before screening the applicant OR the landlord has not screened the applicant (for any reason) prior to the applicant withdrawing their application in writing.

Penalty. If the landlord fails to comply with these sections or does not screen the applicant for any reason and fails to return the unused screening fee within 30 days, the applicant may recover twice the screening fee plus $250. 

Among these flaws is the possibility of hidden bias. Explanation: Data and algorithms built into chatbots may incorporate the subtle prejudices of the humans who create them. They can also learn prejudice from the way they’re deployed. For example, in 2018, Amazon stopped using an AI-based recruitment program after discovering that its algorithm skewed against women. The model was programmed to vet candidates by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over 10 years. Most of the candidates in the training set were men. As a result, the AI taught itself to prefer male over female candidates.

Discriminatory content. Be aware of the risks and don’t use the content that chatbots generate for advertising and marketing unless and until somebody at your company with knowledge of fair housing laws carefully vets it to ensure it contains no hidden prejudices or biases.

Discriminatory placement. Beware of relying on chatbots in deciding where to advertise. Explanation: Historically, landlords have perpetuated segregation by deliberately advertising only in certain publications or outlets that minorities targeted for exclusion are known not to use. This is a critical compliance issue because HUD and the courts interpret discriminatory advertising as including the selection of media or locations for advertising that deny particular segments of the housing market information about housing opportunities based on a protected characteristic. Examples include strategically placing billboard ads in predominately white neighborhoods and running newspaper ads in local publications read mostly by a white audience. Use of chatbots with sophisticated algorithms targeting highly specific audiences significantly increases the risks of inadvertently exclusionary ad placement strategies.

Bottom line: Make a deliberate decision about whether you want your employees to use ChatGPT and other chatbots and for what applications. Then set out a written policy that clearly explains the banned and permitted uses and any applicable safeguards for the latter. Also include language addressing algorithm discrimination in your property’s fair housing and nondiscrimination policies. Ask your attorney about adapting this model language for your policy:

Model Language 

Use of Chatbots for Marketing Purposes. Employees must be aware that Chatbot data and algorithms may contain hidden prejudices or biases or be based on stereotypes about people of certain races, sexes, age, religions, or other protected classes under discrimination laws. Accordingly, employees may not use Chatbots for purposes of recruiting, marketing, advertising, promoting, or tenant selection unless and until ABC Landlord’s legal counsel vets and verifies that those applications and tools relying on Chatbot data are fully compliant with applicable federal and state antidiscrimination laws and will not have the indirect effect of discriminating against groups or individuals that those laws are designed to protect.

Using ChatGPT for marketing is just one of several common practices that may constitute indirect and unintentional discrimination.

By Bill Miner and Seth (Moe) Tangman

First, the bad news: Recent uptick in class action lawsuits puts manufactured home park landlords at risk of damages for technical statutory violations.

There has been an uptick in class action lawsuits filed by manufactured home tenants related to submeter or pro rata utility billings passed through from landlords. The recent spate of lawsuits seek damages for noncompliance with statutory invoicing requirements, irrespective of whether tenants were actually overcharged for utilities, or whether any invoicing deficiency is harmless.

ORS 90.560 et seq. governs a manufactured home park landlord’s ability to charge manufactured home tenants for utilities in the State of Oregon and sets forth procedures and billing requirements for submeter or pro rata utility billings to which landlords must comply. ORS 90.582(3)(a)&(b) states that if a landlord “fails to comply with a provision of ORS 90.560 to 90.584, the tenant may recover from the landlord the greater of: . . .One month’s rent; or . . .Twice the tenant’s actual damages, including any amount wrongfully charged to the tenant.” This penalty applies irrespective of whether a tenant actually suffered any overbilling damages or if the landlord’s failure to comply with the invoicing requirements were minimal and otherwise harmless.

Now the good news: The Oregon Supreme Court recently held that the proper measure of damages under ORS 90.582 is not one month’s rent for each violation; rather it’s the greater of one month’s rent or twice the tenant’s actual damages.

In Shephard Investment Group, LLC v. Ormandy, 371 Or 285 (2023), the Oregon Supreme Court was  asked  to  determine  the  proper  calculation  of  damages  that  may  be  awarded  to  a  tenant,  following  multiple instances  of  landlord  noncompliance  with  certain  utility  billing  requirements  that  repeated  each  month,  over  a  series of months. ORS 90.315 governs the inclusion of utility or public service charges such as for sewer or water service, in non-manufactured home park rental agreements. ORS 90.562 (which applies to manufactured home park tenancies) is substantially similar to ORS 90.315.

Both statutes require  landlords  to  “disclose  to  the  tenant in writing at or before the commencement of the tenancy any utility or service that the tenant pays directly to a utility or service provider that benefits, directly, the landlord or other tenants.” Both statutes state that a landlord “may require a tenant to pay to the landlord a utility or service charge or a public service charge that has been billed by a utility or service provider to the landlord”, also known as “pass-through” billing. However, the statutes condition pass-through billing upon a number of procedural requirements, such  as  billing  the  tenant  within  30  days,  setting  out  the  utility  or service  charge  separately  from  rent,  and  providing copies of the service provider’s bill or an opportunity to inspect it to a tenant. If a landlord engages in pass-through billing for public service charges without having met all of the conditions  of  the statutes,  a  tenant  may  recover  “an  amount  equal  to  one  month’s  periodic  rent  or  twice  the  amount  wrongfully  charged  to  the  tenant,  whichever  is  greater.” 

In this case, the landlord  brought  an eviction action  against the tenant to  recover  possession  of  the landlord’s premises. In response, the tenant alleged a counterclaim that landlord  had  failed  to  comply  with  certain  utility  billing  requirements  found  in  ORS  90.315(4)(b).  Specifically, the tenant alleged that, over the previous  year,  landlord  had  failed  to  (1)  timely  bill  him  in  writing for each month’s utility charges, as required under ORS  90.315(4)(b)(A);  and  (2)  provide  him  with  an  explanation  of  the  “pass  through  charges”  in  either  the  written  rental  agreement  or  separate  billings,  as  required  under  ORS  90.315(4)(b)(B). The  trial  court  agreed  with  tenant,  concluding  that  landlord  had  committed  12  separate  violations—one  per  month  - over  the  12  months within the one-year statute of limitations that governs  landlord-tenant actions. The trial court  awarded  tenant  statutory  damages  in  an  amount  equal  to  12  months  of  rent. 

The landlord appealed and the  Court  of  Appeals  reversed,  concluding  that  the  plain  text  of  ORS 90.315(4)(f)  showed the legislature had not intended for each landlord billing violation  to  be  subject  to  a  separate  sanction.

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed with a thorough analysis, one that you may want to read, if you are so inclined. The crux of the Supreme Court’s logic is that while there may be substantive violations that are ongoing (i.e. not having specific language in a rental agreement and not placing particular language on a utility bill each month), the fact that they are ongoing is more procedural. The allegations complained of in this particular case were procedural, thus the Supreme Court held that the proper measure of damages is not one month’s rent for each violation, but there is one violation that is ongoing.

While this is a good case to address these types of claims, manufactured home park owners would be wise to reach out to their legal advisors who are well versed in manufactured home park law to review their billing practices to ensure that they are complying with the law.

Bill Miner, Partner-In-Charge Davis Wright Tremaine.  Experience includes defending and prosecuting business torts; breach of contract claims; disputes between and among members of limited liability companies; residential and commercial real estate matters, including landlord-tenant, title, lien, and timber trespass disputes; and probate and trust cases.

Moe Tangman is an attorney at Davis Wright Tramaine and applies his firsthand litigation experience to help his clients find business-oriented solutions tailored to resolve their commercial and corporate disputes. He represents clients in complex commercial litigation matters, particularly with respect to real estate, corporate governance, transactions, business tort, and contract disputes. Moe also maintains a robust class-action defense practice, with an emphasis in the data privacy and cybersecurity space.

The Calculation. Unless exempted by ORS 90.600, a Rent Increase for any calendar year may not exceedthe lesser of: (a) ten percent (10%) or (b) the sum of seven percent (7.00%) times the Current Rent (7% XCurrent Rent) plus the percentage change in the consumer price index (“CPI”) times the Current Rent (%of CPI Change X Current Rent), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Rent Cap”).

Publication of Consumer Price Index (“CPI”): This is the annual 12-month average change in theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items). It is published by the Bureauof Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor (“BLS”) at the end of September of each year. Landlords are to use the CPI numbers that are operational when the rent increase notice is sent.

If a rent increase notice is sent out before the September 30, 2023 numbers are out, then landlords must use the current calculation. The max rent increase will always be between 7.00% and 10% (between 7.0% and 9.9% if in Portland) subject to the Rent Cap if it applies. It does not apply if the certificate of occupancy of the dwelling is less than 15 years, or it is on a state/local/federal affordable housing program.

MHCO Form 49. We will be amending the form before the end of September when the new CPI numbers are released. The 2023 numbers will be operational until Sept 30, 2024. [1]

Form 49 is a 90-day notice. If landlords wait until the new CPI numbers come out in late September, the earliest the rent increase would go into effect 90 days hence, so essentially January, 2024. Here are two examples:

• Assume I issue a 90-day notice on September 1. I am using the current MHCO Form 49 which uses the 10% cap (since SB 611 became effective July 6, 2023) because the CPI was 7.6%, and CPI + 7% = 14.6%. The earliest my rent increase could go into effect is December 1 (assuming manual delivery).
• Assume I issue a 90-day notice on October 1. I would be using an UPDATED Form 49 which would use the post-Sept. 30 CPI number to calculate the maximum cap. That cap will be between 7% and 10% depending on the September 30 numbers. The earliest my rent increase would go into effect is December 30 (assuming manual delivery)

[1] Note: Form 49 (and the ORLTA) specify a 90-day minimum, not a maximum. You can give as much additional notice as you want. You can issue a notice now that increases rent on Jan 1, or you can wait until the new CPI numbers come out and issue a notice 90-day notice for January 2024. Just don’t forget that the 10% cap has applied since July 6, 2023.

HB 3443 adds “bias crime” as defined by ORS 147.380, ORS 166.155, and ORS 166.165 to a number of different statutes in the ORLTA. The term “bias crime” is added to all statutes that previously addressed tenant-impacts of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Terminations for domestic violence, sexual assault, bias crime, and stalking are extremely detailed. Landlord should consult their attorney before taking any termination action regarding allegations of the aforementioned criminal acts.

ORS 90.100 – The term “bias crime” is added to the ORLTA definitions section. A bias crime is defined as the commission, attempted commission, or alleged commission, of an offense as described below:

ORS 166.155 (1) A person commits a bias crime in the second degree if the person:

(a)  Tampers or interferes with property, having no right to do so nor reasonable ground to believe that the person has such right, with the intent to cause substantial inconvenience to another person because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin;

(b) Intentionally subjects another person to offensive physical contact because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin; or

(c)  Intentionally, because of the person’s perception of race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin of another person or of a member of the other person’s family, subjects the other person to alarm by threatening:

(A) To inflict serious physical injury upon or to commit a felony affecting the other person, or a member of the other person’s family; or

(B) To cause substantial damage to the property of the other person or of a member of the other person’s family.

ORS 166.165 (1) A person commits a bias crime in the first degree if the person:

(a)  Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another person because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin;

(b) With criminal negligence causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin; or

(c)  Intentionally, because of the person’s perception of another person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin, places another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

ORS 90.325 is amended to clarify that tenants may not be held responsible for damages to the premises caused by the perpetrator of a bias crime. To avoid liability for damage the tenant may be required to provide verification that the tenant or a member of the tenant’s household was a victim of a bias crime.

ORS 90.445 is amended to clarify that perpetration of a bias crime against a household member who is also a tenant is grounds for 24-hour termination notice. The landlord may evict the perpetrator while still leaving other tenants on the lease. If the perpetrator of the bias crime does not leave the premises, the landlord may seek a court order to remove them under ORS 105.128 without terminating the other tenants in the unit.

ORS 90.449 is amended to state that a landlord may not terminate or fail to renew a tenancy, serve a notice to terminate a tenancy, bring or threaten to bring an action for possession, increase rent, decrease services or refuse to enter into a rental agreement with:

• A person who is or has been a victim of a bias crime;
• A person who has violated the rental agreement or the provisions of ORS 90.449 because they have been the victim of a bias crime;
• Because of criminal activity or emergency response related to a situation in which the tenant or applicant is a victim of a bias crime.

Additionally, a landlord may not impose different rules, conditions or standards or selectively enforce rules, conditions or standards against a tenant or applicant on the basis that the tenant or applicant is or has been a victim a bias crime.

However, landlords may terminate the tenancy of a victim of a bias crime if the landlord has previously given the tenant a warning about the behavior of the perpetrator and:

• the tenant has allowed the perpetrator to remain on the premises while an imminent or actual threat to others; or
• the perpetrator is an unauthorized occupant, and the tenant has allowed them to remain on the premises without the permission of the landlord.

If a tenant mounts a successful defense to an eviction action under ORS 90.449 the tenant will not be entitled to a prevailing party fee and/or attorney fees costs or disbursements if it the landlord can demonstrate

• that at the time the action was initiated the landlord did not know, or have reason to know, that the action was based on a bias crime incident; and
• upon discovering that the action was based on a bias crime incident, the landlord promptly removed all others except the perpetrator from the action.

ORS 90.453 is amended to:

• add “bias crime” to the definition of non-perpetrating immediate family members of a crime victim;
• add the phrase “employee of the Department of Justice division providing victim and survivor services” to the definition of a “qualified third party;”
• include the phrase “a copy of a federal agency or state, local or tribal police report regarding [a] bias crime” to the definition of “verification;”
• expand the definition of “victim service providers” to include nonprofit agencies that address bias crimes; and
• provide that a tenant who wishes to terminate their own lease due to being the victim of a bias crime needs to provide either a valid order of protection or verification of a bias crime committed against the tenant within 90 days of the self-termination notice.

The Qualified Third-Party Verification Form under ORS 90.453(3) has also been amended to add “bias crime” to the list of harms against a tenant or member of their household.

ORS 90.456 specifies that the tenancy will continue for any tenants who have not been removed for perpetrating a bias crime or have not been released from the lease due to being a victim. Fees, deposits, and prepaid rent for victims and perpetrators are to be accounted for at the time the tenants surrender possession.

ORS 90.459 adds “bias crime” to the list of harms for which a tenant may provide actual notice and request a change of locks. Verification is not required. If the perpetrator is also a tenant the landlord must see a court order removing the perpetrator before changing the locks.

ORS 90.767 is amended to specify that unless specified in a mediation policy created under this statute, or agreed to by all parties, no one, except the victim, may initiate mediation of a dispute regarding allegations of a bias crime.

Senate Bill 599 sets out an entirely new section of the ORLTA allowing tenants to use their dwellings as “family child care homes.” A landlord may not prohibit the use provided that the tenant has obtained the proper certification under ORS 329A.280 or ORS 329A.330, and has provided notice to the landlord of the tenant’s intent to operate a child care home.

Modifications. A landlord is permitted to require the tenant to pay in advance for costs of modifications necessary or desirable for the tenant’s use, certification or registration of the dwelling as a family child care home, even if it is not required of the landlord under ORS 90.320 or the rental agreement.

Prohibitions. A landlord may prohibit use as a family child care home if it will violate zoning restrictions or an association’s governing documents. Likewise, a landlord may prohibit any use which is not allowed under the rules of the Early Learning Council, the regulating body for in-home child care facilities.

Liability Protection. Family child care homes are not required to carry liability insurance unless the landlord specifically requires it. The landlord may require that the tenant running the child care home provide protection for the landlord, property owner or the association in the following manner:

• If uninsured: Child care provider must require that parents sign a document acknowledging that the landlord, owner and/or association is not responsible for harm to children or guests connected to the family child care home. This document also must acknowledge that the family child care home does not carry liability insurance for losses to their children or guests.
• If insured: Landlord may require that the child care home carry a reasonable surety bond or liability policy (in addition to renters insurance under ORS 90.222) covering the children and guests. The policy must provide coverage for injuries sustained related to negligence of the tenant or tenant’s employees, and the policy must name the landlord, property owner, or association as an additional insured.

Housing for Older Persons. The tenant may not operate a family child care home if the dwelling in question qualifies as housing for older persons under ORS 659A.421.

Answer:  I find no statutory authority giving tenants a legal right to access the records maintained by the landlord or manager. There is nothing in the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Act allowing this.

By “records” I am referring to those maintained by the landlord or manager regarding tenant performance, conduct, complaints made by or against a tenant, and related information. And this only makes sense. No one would file a written complaint against another tenant if that tenant could legally access it and retaliate. And few managers would freely document events or run-ins with a tenant if that person could immediately demand copies of the report. These documents are legitimate “business records” kept in the ordinary course of the Park’s management and part of its legal responsibilities.

However, copies of those documents describing the tenant’s legal responsibilities, such as the rental agreement, lease, rules, or Statement of Policy, may certainly be requested by a tenant who lost or misplaced their copies. But this cannot be done repeatedly to harass the landlord. A copying charge may be assessed.

In litigation between landlord and tenant, including evictions, the tenant may legally demand that the landlord turn over copies of managements file if the content was directly related to the litigation. But if the landlord or manager opposed the request, the Court would have to decide. The issue would depend upon whether the records sought were directly related to some issue in the litigation.

Late Charges or Fees.

Guidelines. Landlords may impose a charge or fee[1] for late rental payments. However, they are subject to an array of limitations that must be observed. Below are the guidelines, all of which should be clearly set forth in the Rental or Lease Agreement:

(a)     They may only be imposed if rent is not received by the fourth day of the weekly or monthly rental period;

(b)     They must be specified as a tenant obligation;

(c)     The type and amount of the late charge must be specified (see Amount discussion below);

(d)     The date on which rent payments are due AND the date or day on which late charges become due.

Type and Amount of Late Charge or Fee. The following limitations apply:

1. Flat Amount. A reasonable flat amount may be charged once per rental period (“reasonable amount” means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market) OR;
2. Daily Charge. It may be charged daily, beginning on the fifth (5th) day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent;

(i) This daily charge may accrue every day until the rent (not including the late charge or fee) is paid in full.

                        (ii) However, the daily charge may not exceed:

• Six percent (6.00%) of the “reasonable flat amount” described in paragraph (a) immediately above; OR

• Five percent (5.00%) of the periodic rent, charged once for each succeeding five-day period (or portion thereof) for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth (5th) day of that rental period and accumulating until that rent payment (not including any late charge) is paid in full, through that rental period only.

3. Caveat: The practice of levying a daily charge is fraught with calculation pitfalls. Assessing an incorrect charge can invalidate a notice of default for nonpayment.

For more information see, ORS 90.260.

[1] These terms may be used interchangeably.

Editor's Note:  MHCO is working on developing a new form - addendum - to meet the new requirements set forth in SB1069.  We hope to have the new form uploaded to MHCO.ORG later next month.

SB1069 modifies portions of the Oregon Landlord Tenant Law to permit the transmission of certain kinds of written notice by electronic mail (“email”). After a landlord and tenant have entered into a written rental agreement, the parties may sign an addendum permitting the service of written notices by email. This addendum must be signed afterthe original rental agreement and after the tenant has begun occupying the premises.

The email addendum must include:

• The email address from which the landlord will be sending and receiving notices.
• The email address from which the tenant will be sending and receiving notices.
• A provision that either party may terminate their agreement to receive email notices or may change the email address from which they send and receive notices, with three-days written notice.
• The following statement:

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS

REGARDING RECEIPT OF WRITTEN NOTICES.

By signing this addendum, you agree to receive written notices from your landlord by e-mail. This may include important legal notices, including rent increase and tenancy termination notices. Failure to read or respond to a written notice could result in you losing your housing or being unaware of a change in rent. Signing this addendum is voluntary. Only agree to service of written notices electronically if you check your e-mail regularly.

Email Service of Termination Notice.  Even if the parties agree to email service of written notices as outlined above, landlord and tenant must serve any written termination notices by both email and first-class mail.

Miscellaneous.

ORS 90.160 is amended to specify that notices containing a number of days (e.g. a 10-day notice), counting of the required days begins the day after service of the notice and concludes at 11:59 pm on the last day of the period. However, for notices requiring a certain number of hours, counting of the consecutive hours is to commence immediately upon service. For notices to terminate by 11:59 pm, the day of service is counted from the time of first-class mail and attachment (if allowed under the rental agreement for both landlord and tenant) or first-class mail and email (if allowed under the addendum).

Electronic Return of Funds: After the tenancy begins and the tenant has occupied the premises, the landlord and tenant may agree to an addendum allowing the landlord to electronically return a security deposit, prepaid rent, or the appropriate portion of either to the tenant’s preferred bank account or financial institution. The required written accounting for the security deposit and/or prepaid rent may be returned to the tenant via email if the tenant has executed an email notice addendum as described above.

If a landlord must make repayment of rent to a tenant to avoid waiver under ORS 90.412 or ORS 90.414, the landlord may make that repayment in person, by first class mail, or electronically if allowed by addendum. Rent repayment going to any other non-tenant payor must be made personally or by first class mail.

Nonpayment of Rent. After a nonpayment notice a tenant’s payment will be considered timely if mailed within the notice period, unless the tenant has received their nonpayment notice in person, by first-class mail and attachment, or by first-class mail and email.