Search

DO Be Prepared for Reasonable Accommodation Requests - DON’T Ignore Disability-Related Requests for Exceptions to the Rules

MHCO

 

Be prepared to handle requests for reasonable accommodations when residents are caught breaking the rules. It may sound like an excuse, but it should alert you to your obligations under fair housing law to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities. The FHA requires communities to make exceptions to rules and policies as reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities when doing so is necessary to give them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling.

And don’t be thrown off by what the resident says or when he says it. Whenever a resident raises a disability-related reason for violating the lease or community rules, you should treat it as a reasonable accommodation request. Under the FHA, an applicant makes a request for a reasonable accommodation whenever he makes clear that he is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability. The law doesn’t require that requests for reasonable accommodations be made in a particular manner or at a particular time.

Don’t dismiss it as an excuse or ignore the resident’s request for an exception to the rules simply because he doesn’t appear to be disabled. The law covers a variety of physical and mental impairments, characterized by few, if any, obvious symptoms to suggest that a particular person qualifies under the FHA’s disability-related provisions. Federal guidelines permit you to request additional information necessary to evaluate the request if either the disability or the need for the requested accommodation isn’t readily apparent.

Phil Querin Q&A: Use of Storage Agreements

Phil Querin

Question:  A contractor has been buying homes in the community, placing them on Storage Agreement and flipping after improvements.  Can a park owner deny a contractor a storage agreement based on a previous bad track-record in the community - shoddy improvements, bad dealings with new purchasers etc.  Are there any grounds to deny a contractor a storage agreement?  Can the park owner increase the storage fee during the contract and if so with how much notice?  If the property is not being maintained, how does the park owner terminate the storage agreement?

 

Answer: Storage agreements are not specifically defined under ORS 90.100 in the Landlord-Tenant Act. They are addressed in ORS 90.425 and 90.675, the abandonment statutes that pertain to the storage of a tenants personal or real property (respectively).

 

Storage agreements allow for the storage of a tenant’s property (usually at the premises) after their tenancy has ended. They are most frequently used following the termination of a lease, often after default. They address the terms of the storage, the agreement’s duration, rights of access, and storage fees. 

 

ORS 90.675(20) deals with storage agreements between landlords and lenders who hold liens on an abandoned home in the park. The statute does not specifically address storage of the home for the tenant, although there is no reason they could not be so used if done carefully with your attorney’s direction.

 

The lienholder’s right to a storage agreement arises upon the failure of the tenant or, in the case of a deceased tenant, the personal representative, designated person, heir or devisee, to remove or sell the dwelling or home within the allotted time.

 

However, a person who is engaged in the flipping of homes at the park should not be permitted to use the storage agreement document to facilitate their business model. Even if the person acquired the home by inheritance, etc., unless he/she is or was a “tenant” under a rental agreement, and is no longer occupying the rented space, they should not be permitted to use this instrument.

 

The business model of flipping homes is regulated by the Construction Contractors Board and requires that the flipper be licensed. He/she would also be subject to various consumer protection laws.

 

The idea of allowing a non-tenant to remodel homes at the park on speculation (i.e., for later sale to a tenant/purchaser) possibly without permits; and using various contractors or other persons to perform the work raises a plethora of liability issues; who will be liable for injuries? Fire? Construction defects? Fraud? Etc. The entire operation is well beyond the scope of services you are legally entitled to provide in a manufactured housing community. You may not even have any insurance to defend you if there was a claim.

My suggestion is that you discuss with your attorney whether you can terminate the Storage Agreement immediately.

2024 Fair Housing Litigation - Cases of Significance - Hostile Environment (1st in a series of 6)

2024 Fair Housing Litigation - Cases of Significance - Single Incident Must Be Egregious to Constitute Hostile Environment Harassment

(First in a series of Six Articles)

Why do landlords need a briefing on fair housing cases? The answer to that question is based on four facts:  

Fact 1: The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans landlords and their agents from discriminating against rental applicants and tenants based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, family status, or disability. 

Fact 2: The FHA and its regulations also spell out things landlords must do to ensure fair and equal housing, such as make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and refrain from discriminatory advertising. 

Fact 3: Like most landlords in Oregon and America, you already know of all of this, and you train your leasing agents and staff to know it, too. 

Fact 4: Despite all of this, individuals, organizations, and government agencies file thousands of fair housing lawsuits against landlords every year. 

That housing discrimination remains a problem in America is a fact that few would deny. But the other disturbing takeaway from these facts is that even landlords who embrace and try diligently to comply with the principles of fair housing law end up as targets for litigation. Of course, many of these discrimination claims are simply unfounded. But there’s more to it than that. 

The problem is that well-meaning landlords may commit discrimination without intending to. Inadvertent discrimination is typically the product of ambiguity and uncertainty in the law. Thus, for example, the FHA requires “reasonable accommodations” for persons with disabilities but doesn’t specifically define what constitutes “reasonable.” While guidelines from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) help fill in the details, every situation is different. That leaves it for courts and tribunals to decide the issue case-by-case. Result: The only way to know for sure whether a particular requested accommodation is reasonable is to go to court and let the judge or jury decide the issue.

Obviously, that’s not a very practical strategy. The idea of compliance and managing liability risk is to take proactive action to prevent fair housing claims in the first place. But case law can play a vital role in helping you achieve this objective. That’s because the cases illustrate how the general principles of fair housing law play out in actual, real-life situations. So, reviewing court cases involving other landlords can bolster your own compliance efforts. 

HUD receives approximately 30,000 fair housing complaints each year. But there’s a big difference between a complaint and a reported court case. Most of the former get dropped, resolved, or dismissed out of hand. Only a few actually make it to court and get reported. These cases are where the rubber meets the road and, therefore, the focus of our Scorecard. 

The vast majority of cases pose the threshold question of whether a discrimination complaint should even go to trial. More precisely, most Scorecard cases aren’t the results of a trial but a ruling on a landlord’s motion for summary judgment—basically a ruling in favor of the landlord on the law on the basis of the pleadings (or complaint), without a trial. The landlord’s argument: There’s no point in holding a trial because even if everything the complaint alleges is true, we still wouldn’t be guilty of an FHA violation. 

TOP 10 REPORTED DOJ FHA SETTLEMENTS OF 2024

Although they don’t count in our Scorecard, it’s worth noting that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reported a number of significant FHA settlements in 2024. 

Top 10 FHA Consent Order Settlements Reported by DOJ in 2024 

Settlement

Amount

Case

Alleged FHA Violation(s)

1

$623,000

United States v. Donahue (W.D. Wis.)     

Landlord sexually harassed female tenants by offering to reduce rent in exchange for sex, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, and evicting or threatening to evict tenants who refused his sexual advances

2

$600,000

United States v. Shambayati, et al. (S.D. Ga.)

Landlord sexually harassed female tenants and prospects by making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, inappropriately touching their bodies, entering their homes without permission, requesting sex in exchange for rent or other benefits, and retaliating against tenants who rejected his advances or complained about harassment

3

$460,000

United States v. Chicopee Housing Authority and Monica Blazic (D. Mass.)

Landlord made discriminatory statements to and about Black and Hispanic tenants, demanded that Spanish-speaking tenants speak English, and dragged its feet on reasonable accommodations, such as transfers to first-floor or elevator-accessible units

4

$300,000

United States v. Butters (D. Colo.)

Property manager sexually harassed a husband and wife and their two minor children

5

$250,000

United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.).  

Co-op apartment building and president of its board of directors denied a disabled tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal and retaliated against her for exercising her FHA rights

6

$190,000

United States v. Hussein (E.D. Mich.)

Landlord sexually harassed actual and prospective female tenants

7

$170,000

United States v. Martin (S.D. Ohio)

Landlord sexually harassed actual and prospective female tenants

8

$137,500

United States et al. v. Teruel et al. (N.D. Cal.)

Landlord pressured a couple, who had two babies during their tenancy, to move out of their one-bedroom apartment

9

$112,500

United States v. Kailua Village Condominium Association, et al. (D. Haw.)

Homeowners’ association, board members, property managers, sellers, and selling agents refused to sell a condo unit to a man with paraplegia, subjected him to discriminatory terms and conditions, made discriminatory statements, refused to make reasonable accommodations, refused to permit reasonable modifications, and harassed him

10

$100,000

United States v. Joel Nolen et al. (E.D. Cal.)

Landlord sexually harassed multiple female tenants dating back to at least 2011

 

KEY LESSONS FROM 2024 FAIR HOUSING CASES (1st in a series of 6)

Lesson #1: Single Incident Must Be Egregious to Constitute Hostile Environment Harassment

In recent years, failure to make reasonable accommodations and family status discrimination have been the most commonly asserted FHA claims against landlords. This year, though, the most common allegation was landlord harassment and retaliation, figuring in over 10 percent of the Scorecard cases. In addition, six of the DOJ’s 10 biggest reported FHA settlements of 2024 involved allegations of harassment (see the table on p. above). 

Most of the harassment cases accused the landlord of creating a hostile environment on the basis of a tenant’s race, disability, or other protected characteristic. To prove this allegation, a tenant must show that a landlord’s conduct was “severe or pervasive enough to unreasonably interfere” with the tenancy, such as by forcing the tenant to move out. Although possible, this is tough to prove when the alleged harassment involved a single incident. Thus, in 2024, two different landlords successfully defended against hostile environment harassment charges by demonstrating that the complained of conduct was just an isolated incident that wasn’t severe enough to meet the harassment threshold.

Landlord Wins: A fair housing organization accused an Oklahoma landlord of harassing a disabled tenant, citing a single incident in which the landlord took photographs of the tenant’s apartment while he was moving out. “While tense conversations and being photographed in public areas might not be preferable, they do not rise to the level of unlawful harassment,” the federal court reasoned. Besides, the incident took place after the tenant had already decided to move out and thus didn’t factor into that decision [Metropolitan Fair Hous. Council of Okla., Inc. v. Feiock, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140180, 2024 WL 3696458].

Landlord Wins: A 74-year-old Black tenant sued her landlord for racial harassment discrimination after a building security guard falsely accused her of stealing a neighbor’s jewelry and called the police. While acknowledging that this was “a distressing event,” the New York court ruled that the incident wasn’t, by itself, “extraordinarily severe" enough to constitute an “intolerable alteration of the conditions of [the tenant’s] housing environment” [Dickerson v. BPP PCV Owners LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59765, 2024 WL 1348497]. 

Compliance Takeaway: In most cases, hostile environment harassment involves a course or pattern of conduct that occurs over time. A single incident of harassment may be enough to create a hostile environment. But it must be extremely egregious to cross the line.

DO Apply Community Rules Fairly and Consistently - DON’T Make Exceptions for Residents Simply Because You Like Them

MHCO

 

Focus on fairness and consistency when dealing with residents who break the rules. It’s unlawful to treat residents differently because of their race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability—or any other characteristic protected under state or local fair housing law. That means you can’t single anyone out for breaking the rules because he—or his family members or guests—are members of a protected class.

Even when you have solid evidence that a resident has violated the lease or your community’s rules, he may try to turn the tables by questioning your motives. Unless you’ve applied the rules fairly and consistently, you could suddenly find yourself on the defense if it looks as though you’re acting in a discriminatory manner.

For example, the resident may argue that you took a hard line against him for breaking the rules only because he was a member of a protected class, and his claim could get some traction if he can show that you allowed other residents—who did not share his protected characteristic—to get away with the same or similar infractions. Evidence of inconsistent enforcement of your rules could lead a court to conclude that his violation of the rules wasn’t the real reason for evicting him, but merely an excuse to cover up unlawful housing discrimination.

Avoid the temptation to bend the rules for some people, but not for others, just because you happen to be friends with them or you think they’re nice people. You may not intend to discriminate against anyone, but treating some residents better than others may give the impression that you have discriminatory reasons for holding other residents to higher standards.

Oregon Legislative Session Begins with Catastrophic Rent Control and Vacancy Control Proposals

Oregon Legislative Session Begins

with Catastrophic

Rent Control and Vacancy Control Proposals

 

The 2025 Oregon Legislative Session has commenced.  Legislators wasted little time in filing a proposal to further restrict the ability of manufactured and floating home providers to raise rents.  HB 3054 specifically targets manufactured and floating home communities by limiting future rent increases to CPI only and significantly further restricting the ability to raise rent on new tenancies to market rent.  This is one of the most extreme and catastrophic proposals to come out of the Oregon Legislature that targets a specific housing sector.  The legislative proposal will most likely have its first public hearing on Monday, February 3rd in Salem.

 

MHCO wants to make you aware of this proposal as it may become law in 2026 or sooner.

 

Summary of the new RENT CONTROL/VACANCY CONTROL proposal:

 

  1. Restricts annual rent increases for tenants in parks and marinas to increases in the Consumer Price Index.
  2. Amends  ORS 90.600 regarding rent increases for facility tenancies to limit any rent charged to a new tenant who purchases a home from a former tenant to no more than a ten percent increase over the selling tenant’s rent.
  3. Amends ORS 90.680 to prohibit a facility landlord from requiring a selling tenant or a prospective purchaser of a home from an existing tenant to make aesthetic or cosmetic improvements to the home, only maintenance or repair items.
  4. Amends ORS 90.680 to prohibit a facility landlord from requiring a selling tenant or prospective purchaser to provide or allow an inspection of the interior of the home as a condition for accepting a notice of sale, approving a sale, or approving a purchaser as a new tenant. This would include any inspections relating to safety or fire control.

 

MHCO is aggressively opposing this legislation.  We are working with other associations and allies to defeat this proposal.  At the end of the day, we can only succeed in defeating this legislation if all members and non members are actively engaged through emails, phone calls, meetings and attending/testifying at public hearings.

In the next few days we will be providing talking points and contact information to specific communities that are constituents of key Legislators.  We will also be providing information on the public hearing to be held on February 3rd in Salem. 

Rent Control - Vacancy Control (HB3054) Public Hearing - Talking Points Catastrophic Impact on Your Livelihood

Over the past 25 years that I have been Executive Director of MHCO we have fought numerous legislative battles from bans on 'subsequent sale' to 'rent control'.  We have always tried to be objective and avoid hyperbole.  Nothing has been as bad as the legislation we now face in the 2025 Oregon Legislature.  Limiting rent increases to just CPI and not allowing your rents to go to 'market rate' will drive many of you out of business - that is not an exaggeration - it is a fact.  Without the ability to address rising expenses from insurance, taxes, payroll, utilities, locally assessed fees - your livelihood as you know it will come to an end.

Your involvement over the next couple months - emails, attending public hearings, testifying - to push back on the Oregon Legislature's aggressive attacks on your ability to operate your community. 

A Public Hearing on HB3054 will be held at 1 pm on Monday, February 3rd at the Oregon State Capitol, Hearing Room 'F'.  Mark your calendar - we need a solid turnout even if you do not want to testify.  

The first step in opposing HB3054 is emailing members of the Oregon House Committee on Housing and Homelessness.  Below you will find the committee member emails.  Please take a few minutes and send an email to the committee members.  Please be sure to write "No on HB3054' in the subject line. Most importantly - TELL YOUR STORY - the challenges you face with increasing expenses, costs to abandonments, lost revenue from residents who do not pay their rent, cleaning up after evicted residents, legal fees, increased insurance rates, utilities, increased taxes, payroll, infrastructure maintenance, local government fees .... Click Here for Talking Points (No on HB3054).

 

Committee Member Emails

rep.pammarsh@oregonlegislature.gov

rep.tomandersen@oregonlegislature.gov

rep.vikkibreeseiverson@oregonlegislature.gov

rep.aprildobson@oregonlegislature.gov

rep.lisafragala@oregonlegislature.gov

Rep.MarkGamba@oregonlegislature.gov

Rep.JeffHelfrich@oregonlegislature.gov

rep.cyrusjavadi@oregonlegislature.gov

Rep.EmersonLevy@oregonlegislature.gov

rep.kevinmannix@oregonlegislature.gov

HB3054 (Click Here)

 

Mark Busch: Changing Rules in an RV Park

Mark L. Busch

This article is informational only and is not intended as legal advice.  Always consult with a competent attorney before undertaking any legal action.

The question often arises whether and how RV park landlords can change and update their park rules.  For manufactured home parks, the answer is clear – landlords can issue a rule change notice that allows tenants to vote on the proposed new rules (MHCO Form 60 – Notice of Rule Change).  However, there are no similar procedures in an RV park.

 

Rule changes for RV parks and other non-manufactured home tenancies are governed by

ORS 90.262.  That statute allows landlords to implement rules if the rules: (a) promote the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants; (b) are reasonably related to the purpose for which they are adopted; (c) apply to all tenants in a fair manner; (d) fairly inform the tenant of what they must or must not do to comply; (e) are not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord; and (f) are given to the tenant in a written notice when the tenant signs the rental agreement, or when the rules are adopted.

If your RV park rules meet these requirements, you may require new tenants to sign the rules when they sign the rental agreement, and they are bound to follow those rules.  One method of changing the park rules is to do it slowly over time as new tenants enter the park and sign the new rules.  This will mean that different tenants have different sets of rules, which could lead to some conflicts (i.e., “why does my neighbor get to have two dogs, and I can only have one?”).  However, there is nothing prohibiting different rules applicable to different sets of tenants.  The explanation to tenants is the truth: “We are in the process of updating our rules as new tenants move into the park.”

It is possible to change your park rules for existing tenants, although problematic.  RV park landlords can adopt new rules, but any rule adopted after the tenant enters into the rental agreement that works a “substantial modification of the bargain” is not valid unless the tenant consents to it in writing (ORS 90.262 (2)).  Minor rule changes might be acceptable (i.e., “quiet hours are now 9:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m.” or “guests cannot park on roadway, only in guest parking”).  More impactful rule changes would not be enforceable (i.e., “tenants may only park one passenger vehicle on the rental space, not two”).

If you decide to change your rules for existing tenants, try to ensure that any changes you make are not “substantial modifications.”  There is no statutory timeline for changing the rules, but I typically recommend that landlords provide the new rules in writing to each tenant at least

30 days before the new rules take effect (hand-delivered or mailed first-class mail).  It is also a good idea to send an accompanying letter explaining the reasons for the rule changes and asking the tenants to please come to the office to sign the new rules – although few probably will.

Finally, if you do change the rules for existing tenants, realize that they can be challenged later even if a tenant does not initially object to the new rules.  The most common scenario is when you must issue a 30-day, for-cause eviction notice to a tenant violating the new rules, which they can then challenge in court as unenforceable because they “substantially modified” the tenant’s original arrangement with the park.  In that case, you must be prepared to explain to the court why the applicable rule was not a substantial modification.

Salem Statesman Journal Article: Oregon Bill Would Cap Rent for Manufactured Home Park Owners: What to Know

By Dianne Lugo

Salem Statesman Journal - February 11, 2025

  • The bill that would cap rent increases for manufactured home parks and marinas to the annual inflation rate.
  • Proponents of the bill say it would protect residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes, from exorbitant rent increases.
  • Opponents, including park owners, argue the bill would lead to closures and sales to large corporations, exacerbating the housing crisis.

Supporters of proposed legislation that would limit rent increases in manufactured home parks and marinas say it would protect existing affordable housing, but opponents fear the bill would force the closure of smaller parks or selling to large conglomerates.

House Bill 3054 would cap allowable rent increases for tenants in manufactured home parks and marinas to annual inflation rates.

"It addresses an alarming trend that we are seeing in manufactured housing communities across our state which is the skyrocketing costs for tenants" who predominantly are on fixed incomes and relying on Social Security, said House Majority Leader Rep. Ben Bowman, D-Tigard.

Multifamily NW, an association of members managing nearly 300,000 units, also wrote testimony opposing the bill, saying rent control poliies have created uncertainty in the state.

"We all know that Oregon is facing a severe housing shortage, and it is abundantly clear that our approach to this issue is not working," wrote Zach Lindahl with Multifamily NW. "Our focus should be on policies that encourage investment and increase supply, not those that further constrain the market."

What Oregon House Bill 3054 would do

HB 3054 would impact a specific subsection of tenants: owners of manufactured homes who rent the land within a park or marina. If a person rents a home within a park, the law won’t apply. Recreational vehicles, apartments or mobile homes outside parks or marinas would not be covered by the law.

“We’re trying to provide a little more transparency, predictability around what the costs of staying in that park will be for people,” said Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, a chief sponsor of the bill and chair of the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness.

According to testimony from the Oregon Law Center during a packed public hearing on Feb. 3, there are about 1,000 mobile home parks representing 62,000 spaces in the state. There are many of those parks in Marsh’s district in southern Jackson County.

The bill also removes some of what landlords can require before the sale of a manufactured home at parks or marinas. Rental increases for this subsection of tenants would be capped at the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation. The CPI calculation in 2024 was 3.2%, according to Oregon's Office of Economic Analysis.

Landlords would be unable to raise rent above 10% of what a selling tenant was paying if they sold a manufactured home that would remain in a rented space.

The bill would prohibit landlords from requiring that a selling tenant, prospective buyer, or buyer agree to an inspection of the inside of a home as a condition to approve the sale or new tenancy. HB 3054 also would bar landlords from requiring aesthetic or cosmetic improvements from prospective tenants.

Supporters cite fear, affordability in Oregon

Nearly 250 pieces of written testimony were submitted in support of the bill.

Bowman said he and other lawmakers hosted a constituent event at a mobile home park in his district that more than 100 people attended. The theme that became impossible to miss, he said, was that the status quo is not sustainable.

"These folks are facing egregious hikes to their rent year over year and it is pushing them to the brink," Bowman said. He said tenants in the mobile home park saw an 8.9% rent increase in 2022, a 10.3% increase in 2023, an 8.7% increase in 2024 and face a 9% increase this year.

The Oregon State Tenants Association submitted a report with a survey of nearly 500 tenants. According to the report, the average annual rent increase was nearly 7%. Average rent prices are projected to surpass Social Security benefits by 75% within 10 years and 100% within 15 years, wrote Rochelle Love Elder, vice president of the Oregon State Tenants Association.

Many of the tenants who would be impacted were too afraid of retaliation to submit testimony or even take a flyer, Elder told lawmakers. Most residents currently pay $865 a month in lot rent. Scheduled rent increases in 2025 will bring most residents' lot rent to $951, she said.

"A lot of them are feeling like cash cows," Elder said.

Elder described the bill as a solution to keep 62,000 people in their homes.

Opponents say bill would force closures, sale of manufactured home parks

Opponents of HB3054 said the bill would do the opposite of what it intends, forcing the closure of smaller parks or sales to large conglomerates. Nearly 100 pieces of submitted testimony opposed the bill.

"It is an extreme proposal that hits owners with a one-two punch," said Bill Miner, a lawyer representing Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon.

The organization represents 750 manufactured homes and marina facilities with 42,000 spaces. According to Miner, the bill relies on faulty assumptions.

"This bill is a solution in search of a problem," he told the Statesman Journal.

A survey from 100 of their owners found the average annual rent increase from 2019 and 2024 was 5.39%. Miner told lawmakers that in the last month, he had received five calls from landlords representing more than 5,000 spaces about the process of closing their parks should the current bill pass.

Miner described the proposal as "an industry killing type of bill."

 

DO Consider Accommodation Requests for Assistance Animals - DON’T Refuse to Make Any Exception to Pet Policies

MHCO

It’s particularly challenging to handle requests for assistance animals by residents who’ve been caught violating your pet policies. The longer the resident has been breaking the rules, the more you may wonder whether he’s unfairly trying to pass off his pet as an assistance animal.

However reasonable your suspicions, it’s necessary to set them aside and handle the request as a request for a reasonable accommodation. Communities may enforce policies to ban or restrict pet ownership, but it’s unlawful to refuse reasonable and necessary accommodations to residents who need assistance animals to help them with their disabilities.

If in doubt about whether the resident has a disability-related need to keep an assistance animal, you should ask for more information so you can respond properly to the request. Rejecting it out of hand can only lead to fair housing trouble.

Example: In January 2015, HUD charged a Brooklyn cooperative community with discriminating against a veteran with a psychiatric disability for refusing to let him keep an emotional support animal. According to HUD, the community wrongfully denied the resident’s request for a reasonable accommodation even though he provided medical documentation verifying his condition and need for the dog and took steps to evict him and his wife in retaliation for filing a fair housing complaint. The case will be heard by an administrative judge unless either party takes the case to federal court [Secretary, HUD v. Trump Village Section IV Inc., January 2015].

If the resident qualifies for a reasonable accommodation to keep an assistance animal, then you’ll also have to waive any extra fees or deposits under your pet policy. According to federal guidelines, communities may not require individuals with disabilities to pay extra fees or security deposits as a condition of allowing them to keep an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation. If you insist that the resident must pay the pet fee to keep an assistance animal, then you could be hit with hefty penalties.

Example: In November 2014, the owners and manager of a Washington community agreed to pay $25,000 to resolve allegations that they refused to grant a reasonable accommodation to waive a $1,000 pet deposit for a resident with mental disabilities who needed a dog as an emotional support animal. Allegedly, they refused to grant the waiver despite numerous attempts by the resident to provide documentation of her disability and her need for the emotional support animal. The complaint also accused them of retaliating against her for filing a fair housing complaint with HUD [U.S. v. Barber, November 2014].

Though dogs are at the center of many fair housing cases, you should be prepared for requests to keep cats, birds, ferrets, reptiles, and other types of animals as assistance animals. According to HUD, species other than dogs, with or without training, and animals that provide emotional support have been recognized as necessary assistance animals under fair housing law.

DO Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment, Maintain Safety - DON’T Ignore Accommodation Requests Related to Disruptive Conduct 

Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon

Take steps to enforce rules to prevent harassment or other misconduct by or against residents. If a resident complains about being harassed by other residents based on his race or other protected class, then you should take the complaints seriously. Fair housing experts advise that you should investigate the complaints and, if true, take action to stop the harassment.

If a resident with a disability is harassing or otherwise threatening his neighbors, then you may take action, but only after considering the ramifications of fair housing law. For example, you may have to evaluate a request made by a resident who blames his disruptive behavior on a mental disability and asks you to delay eviction proceedings to allow him to pursue treatment.

The FHA doesn’t protect an individual with a disability whose tenancy would amount to a “direct threat” to the health or safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation, according to HUD.

That means you’ll have to determine whether the resident is a “direct threat” and whether anything can be done to resolve the matter, short of eviction. You can’t make a snap decision. The law requires an individualized assessment of the nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury; the probability that injury will actually occur; and whether there are any reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the direct threat. And, in evaluating any recent misconduct, you’ll have to consider whether the resident has received intervening treatment or medication that has eliminated the direct threat—that is, a significant risk of substantial harm.

As an example, HUD says that a community must take certain steps before evicting a resident with a psychiatric disability who was arrested for threatening his neighbor with a baseball bat. During the eviction process, the resident’s attorney explains that the resident becomes violent when he stops taking prescribed medication, and asks the community to allow him to remain as a reasonable accommodation. HUD says the community must grant the request only if the attorney can provide satisfactory assurance that the resident will receive counseling and periodic medication monitoring to ensure he will no longer pose a direct threat. If the resident refuses, HUD says that the community may go forward with the eviction proceeding since the resident continues to pose a direct threat to the health and safety of other residents. In practice, applying these rules can be complicated, so it’s best to consult your attorney for guidance.

Example: In 2014, a Texas court ruled against a public housing resident who asked for a reasonable accommodation to avert his eviction for threatening the staff. The resident, who had been warned about increasingly alarming interactions with neighbors, left a threatening voicemail for the director. After the community initiated eviction proceedings, the resident had an outburst in the office, announcing that there would be “bullets for everyone” before storming out. The director, who knew he had a gun, felt threatened and instituted additional safety measures.

The resident’s attorney requested a reasonable accommodation to halt the eviction in favor of an action plan, explaining that the resident had schizophrenia and recently began new medication to better manage his disease. Although a mental health counselor testified that she didn’t think he was a threat, the court rejected his request for a reasonable accommodation and ordered his eviction for violating the lease provisions banning criminal activity by making “terroristic threats.”

An appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that the resident wasn’t entitled to a reasonable accommodation, because he failed to prove that his tenancy was terminated by reason of something caused by his disability—that is, that his threats to the staff were causally linked to his disability. There was no proof that his mental disability caused him to threaten violence against the community’s staff. His tenancy wasn’t terminated because of his disability but, instead, because of his failure to abide by the terms of the lease [Heinert v. Wichita Falls Housing Authority, July 2014].

Although fair housing law considers a history of past drug addiction or alcoholism as a disability, you don’t have to excuse criminal or disruptive behavior caused by a resident’s current use of alcohol or illegal controlled substances.