Search

Here are my questions: 1. Do we write a new lease for the remaining resident or keep the old lease with both residents on the lease? A new lease would presumably require than any new occupants be qualified all over again. But the current occupant would not qualify. Secondly, the ex-spouse would have no liability for space rent going forward. You may want to leave the status quo, to keep your options opened. 2. Can we legally keep the resident that moved out, responsible for the lease after a divorce and separation of assets? Yes. 3. Do we re-screen the remaining resident to see if he/she qualifies on their own? I have a concern about doing so - if they did not pass the credit requirements, then what? You can't evict them without cause, and as long as the remaining occupant is current, you could not do so. Besides, if the remaining occupant is receiving spousal or child support, their income might be sufficient. 4. Who owns the security deposit or pre-paid rent? I don't think you have a duty to refund any deposits until the tenancy is ended, and so far, that isn'tthe case. If and when it is ended, you could ask for joint instructions from both of them, and if they can't agree, make the check out to them jointly.

Answer: There are several issues that I see repeatedly. Here are a few: 1. Managers not adequately papering their file before taking legal action against a resident. Judges want to see that you’ve “walked the extra mile” with the resident, making every reasonable effort to bring them into compliance. This means starting with a personal conversation with them about the problem and then making notes of the date, time, and matters discussed and the resident’s responses. Next try a note or letter without using a formal termination notice. Only after it becomes apparent that you will have to go the formal route should you do so. 2. Failing to act promptly when a resident violate the rules. Although many things are not waivable, such as maintenance violations, some definitely are, such as unpermitted pets or occupants. When there is a belief that the resident has either an unapproved pet or occupant, the resident should be contacted immediately. With pets (assuming they are not in violation of the rules against breeds, or numbers), you want to promptly get them onto a Pet Agreement. With occupants you should use the Occupancy Agreement and run a background check. (Make sure you don’t require a financial background check, since that is not permitted on occupants – only tenants.) If the resident delays in complying, get a 30-day notice issued and do not accept rent until the matter is resolved. I have seen too many managers accept rent and work for months with the resident, not realizing that they are being lulled into believing the resident will ultimately cooperate – until it’s too late. 3. Failing to properly prepare a notice of termination. Oregon law is very strict when it comes to the preparation of notices. Even the slightest error can be fatal. Make sure you’re using the correct MHCO form [e.g. don’t use a 30-day notice for failure to maintain under ORS 90.630, when you should be using a 30-day notice for repair and deterioration under ORS 90.632.] When you draft the notice, have someone else read it for content and accuracy. Then do so again yourself. If you realize that you sent out an incorrectly prepared notice, send out a corrected one and state that it rescinds and replaces the incorrect one. 4. Accepting residents you have doubts about. Always do a “gut-check.” If you think the applicant would be problematic, look closely at their application and references. While you cannot and should not reject applicants arbitrarily, if they are on the cusp – i.e. you could legitimately accept or reject - give careful consideration to your decision and don’t let it be dictated by your desire to just fill a space. 5. Not understanding the range of solutions when dealing with a residents. By this I mean, don’t just fire out a notice as a knee jerk reaction to a violation. A good example is a resident who is intoxicated and gets into a verbal altercation with another resident. Say it gets out of control, and threats are made by the resident. If this is unusual for the resident and out of character for him, don’t simply send a 24-hour notice. The law is quite clear that you are not to use a 24-hour notice if another form of notice, e.g. a curable 30-day notice would work. Remember, a repeat violation with six months following the date of the 30-day notice gives you the right to terminate with a 20-day non-curable notice. Judges don’t like to terminate manufactured housing residents, given the drastic consequences. You want to show the judge that you were not being heavy-handed, but tried the most rationale and reasonable approach first.

We all know that 80% or more of a community homesites must be occupied by at least one 55+ person, and that documented proof of age must be consistently required to qualify for 55+ status under HOPA. Let's not forget that the requirements also mandate the re-survey.

What do the Regulations say? "...The procedures described in paragraph (b) [routinely determining the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant of each unit is 55 years of age or older] ... must provide for regular updates, through surveys or other means, of the initial information supplied by the occupants of the housing facility or community. Such updates must take place once every two years ...."

For example, there were objections to the re-survey mandate on the grounds it was too burdensome. HUD stated that owners would not be unduly burdened by the update requirements since the information "will be readily available in the files."

This comment reflects that the survey requirement can be fulfilled by preparation of a summary of names and ages of the homeowners based on existing file information (assuming the files are up to date). One might annotate a rent roll with resident ages and satisfy the requirement. HUD emphasizes that "...the re-survey does not require that all supporting documents be collected again - only that the community confirm that those persons counted as occupying dwellings for purposes of meeting the 80% requirement are, in fact, still in occupancy."

It is also clear that the survey is a "summary" and not required to include underlying documentation (remember the POA must be obtained for approval of tenancy and kept in the resident's file): "[Only the overall survey summary is required to be available for review, not the supporting documentation. The word 'summary' has been added to this section").

Compilation of the "Summary"

In review of the files to compile the required "summary," it is possible that some files may be missing POA (Proof of Age) documentation. Missing POA reflects inconsistent conformance to a required age verification policy. This can be fatal to defending a "55+" status. Yet, there are plausible reasons why POA may be absent. Perhaps a resident's tenancy commenced before the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (September 12, 1988): this was the last date to "grandfather" underage residents excluded from the calculation of the 80-20 requirement; perhaps the Xerox copier did not work on the day identification was checked; perhaps the applicant's age was so obvious that documentation was overlooked; perhaps the POA was misplaced. None of these explanations will "wash" with fair housing enforcers. Now is the time for review of this information. Supplementing resident files may bolster a defense of the "55+" status by proving the 80-20 ratio, but cannot substitute for consistent conformance to a policy of seeking POA documentation. HUD's requirements are crystal clear: "The housing facility or community must establish and maintain appropriate policies to require that occupants comply with the age verification procedures required by this section."

Should you seek missing POA information?

Yes. In a large scale review of resident files by fair housing enforcers, the main objective for review of proof of age may be to establish the 80-20 ratio: Proof of age in the file may itself be seen as evidence of adherence to collection of required data: even after-acquired information reflects, at least, compliance with the 2-year survey requirement. Proof of age includes

the following: driver's license (an expired or out-of-state license seems 'ok'), birth certificate, passport, immigration card, military identification, any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of "comparable reliability." This may include birth certificates, baptismal or marriage documents, perhaps, and other public records.

What if the tenant refuses to provide proof of age?

New purchaser: Of course, refusal to supply proof of age when applying for tenancy is a basis for denying a tenancy application. The regulations also allow for a declaration from a member of the household over 18 years of age, stating that at least one person in the homesite is at least 55 years of age. This after-acquired information is permissible for the survey, but again does not bolster evidence of conformance to proof of age documentation required for tenancy approval.

HUD provides a skeletal sample of certification. This can also be used as part of the tenancy application alone or better yet as a backup to production of proof of age. The sample reads as follows: "I, (name), am 18 years of age or older and a member of the household that resides at (housing facility or community), (unit number or designation). I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the ages of the occupants of this household and that at least one occupant is 55 years of age or older." Actual proof of age should be obtained at the application stage to avoid false reporting - no defense to a failure to achieve the 80-20 ration.

The regs also allow for other proof of age if an existing resident refuses to provide it. HUD states that "[I]f the occupants ... refuse to comply with the age verification procedures, the [management] may, if it has sufficient evidence, consider the unit to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. Such evidence may include: (1) Government records or documents, such as a local household census; (2) Prior forms or applications; or (3) A statement from an individual who has personal knowledge of the age of the occupants. The individual's statement must set forth the basis for such knowledge and be signed under the penalty of perjury."

Thus, the survey could be supplemented by including a sworn declaration or affidavit by any person with personal knowledge of the age of the resident's age. In past cases where proof of age was critically important, private investigation of public records to obtain that information has been conducted to provide such knowledge. Remember however, that obtaining proof of age "after the fact" shows compliance with the 2-year survey requirement, but does not substitute for a consistent practice of securing the required information at the time of processing the tenancy application.

HUD gives the following example as acceptable: "the owner of a mobile home park where the residents own the coach but rent the land requires a statement of whether at least one occupant is 55 years of age or older before any sublease or new rental." In other words, the qualification procedure can be instituted within the application process itself. HUD states such an example ("All new leases, new purchase agreements, or new applications contain a provision directly above the signatory line for leases, asserting that at least one occupant or the swelling will be 55 years of age or older. In addition the community surveys all current residents for their occupancy status in compliance with the 55 - or-older requirements"). Actual proof of age should always be required with submission of the tenancy application as well.

Conclusion

The continuing survey requirement is mandatory. Whether failure to comply will be fatal to the assertion of "older persons" status is unknown, but this survey requirement is part of the "intent" prong of operating an "older persons" community. In sum, it is time to compile the summary for your park.

(Reprinted with permission from MHI)

Do you operate a 55 & Older Community?

Do you have the necessary MHCO Forms for 55 & Older Communities?

MHCO has the Resources You Need!

If you are one of the many members of MHCO who own and operate a 55 & Older manufactured home community - MHCO has the resources you need to keep that community compliant with current HUD rules.

• Addendum to the Rent/Lease Agreement for Age 55 & Older Communities (MHCO Form 71A)
• 55 & Older Community - Occupation Determination and Age Verification (MHCO Form 71B)
• 55 & Older Community HUD Verification of Occupancy Survey (MHCO Form 71C)

These are excellent tools to use in the effective management of your 55 & Older community. Get the most out of your MHCO membership by purchasing and using MHCO Forms. 

Answer: Even though some of your RV tenants are short-termers, I always recommend a complete tenant background check no matter how long the anticipated tenancy. As a businessperson, you have an obligation to yourself to ensure that every RV tenant checks out with a background screening for criminal, credit and eviction history. As a landlord, you have an obligation by law to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by not allowing "bad seeds" into the park.

Most problems can be avoided by doing your due diligence at the beginning of the tenancy with a proper background screening. The fact that these particular tenants are more transient than usual doesn'tmatter.

In some cases, it is even more important to check on transient tenants. By way of example, one mobile home park client allowed a woman with an RV into the park without any background check. The woman ended up being a "professional tenant" who worked the system and dragged out the eviction process for several months. She later popped up at another mobile home client's park and pulled the same scam.

As for the structure of the rental agreement for transient tenants, the first thing to do is use MHCO Form 80 (Recreational Vehicle Space Rental Agreement). I typically recommend a simple month to month agreement so that you can evict on 30 days' written notice if things don't work out with a particular RV tenant. Weekly tenancies are also allowable, although most RV tenants want assurances of a longer tenancy. Finally, a short fixed term tenancy (i.e., 3 months) is also acceptable so long as you're comfortable with the tenant and have done the required background checks.

Mark L. Busch, P.C.
Attorney at Law
Cornell West, Suite 200
1500 NW Bethany Blvd.
Beaverton, Oregon 97006

Ph: 503-597-1309
Fax: 503-430-7593
Web: www.marklbusch.com
Email: mark@marklbusch.com

Answer:   First, there is nothing in the Oregon Residential landlord-tenant law directly on point. Nor would I expected there to be, any more than a law prohibiting residents from intentionally defacing community property. It just goes without saying.

Looking for a remedial statute for recourse, however, is not difficult.  

Check your community rules to see what they say. While I would not expect there to be a direct prohibition against wasting water, there very well be something that comes close to the point.[1]  If there is some provision in your rules that you can point to, then you could use a 30-day notice of termination under ORS 90.630.  

However, I’m not sure you want to permit the resident 30 days to cure. Under these circumstances, you might want to resort to the non-curable 24-hour notice statute, ORS 90.396(1)(f), for outrageous conduct.  While it is true that landlords and managers should not use the 24-hour notice if a 30-day curable notice would suffice. Accordingly, I would suggest that before resorting to the 24-hour statute, you “paper your file” by giving him a written warning notice, say seven days in advance, telling him what you will do if he does not stop. If he continues to flagrantly waste the community water, then file the 24 hour notice and let the judge decide.  I suspect he or she will come down on your side of the issue.  

Also, keep in mind that if you are forced to issue the 24-hour notice and go to court, at the first appearance, the court will encourage both parties to resolve the matter.  In this situation, if the resident agrees to stop wasting water, then have him enter into a Stipulated Judgment of Restitution (which is prepared by the judge at the time of the first appearance), which would give you the ability to go back  to court quickly (without having to file again), to evict should he violate the agreement. 

There are other statutes that come into play here, although their violation would only give you a right to issue a 30-day curable notice of termination:  

· ORS 90.740(3)(Tenant Obligations)provides that a tenant shall:“Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in compliance with the rental agreement and with any laws or ordinances that relate to the tenant’s behavior as a tenant.”

While this provision requires you to look elsewhere (e.g. the rental agreement, laws, rules and ordinances), I suspect checking with your local water bureau, you will find certain water conservation rules and regulations that prohibit intentional waste of public water.

· ORS 90.740(4)(a)(Tenant obligations) also provides that a tenant shall: “Use the rented space and the facility common areas in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended;”

Again, this provision is not directly on point, I think we can agree that that intentional waste of water is not a “reasonable” use of the rented space. Moreover, ORS 90.130(Obligation of good faith) helps out here, since it clarifies that “Every duty under this chapter and every act which must be performed as a condition precedent to the exercise of a right or remedy under this chapter imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.”

Answer:  There are several issues that I see repeatedly.  Here are a few:

1. Managers not adequately papering their file before taking legal action against a resident.  Judges want to see that you’ve “walked the extra mile” with the resident, making every reasonable effort to bring them into compliance.  This means starting with a personal conversation with them about the problem and then making notes of the date, time, and matters discussed and the resident’s responses. Next try a note or letter without using a formal termination notice.  Only after it becomes apparent that you will have to go the formal route should you do so. 

2. Failing to act promptly when a resident violate the rules.  Although many things are not waivable, such as maintenance violations, some definitely are, such as unpermitted pets or occupants.  When there is a belief that the resident has either an unapproved pet or occupant, the resident should be contacted immediately.  With pets (assuming they are not in violation of the rules against breeds, or numbers), you want to promptly get them onto a Pet Agreement.  With occupants you should use the Occupancy Agreement and run a background check. (Make sure you don’t require a financial background check, since that is not permitted on occupants – only tenants.) If the resident delays in complying, get a 30-day notice issued and do not accept rent until the matter is resolved.  I have seen too many managers accept rent and work for months with the resident, not realizing that they are being lulled into believing the resident will ultimately cooperate – until it’s too late.

3. Failing to properly prepare a notice of termination.  Oregon law is very strict when it comes to the preparation of notices. Even the slightest error can be fatal. Make sure you’re using the correct MHCO form [e.g. don’t use a 30-day notice for failure to maintain under ORS 90.630, when you should be using a 30-day notice for repair and deterioration under ORS 90.632.]  When you draft the notice, have someone else read it for content and accuracy.  Then do so again yourself.  If you realize that you sent out an incorrectly prepared notice, send out a corrected one and state that it rescinds and replaces the incorrect one.  

4. Accepting residents you have doubts about.  Always do a “gut-check.”  If you think the applicant would be problematic, look closely at their application and references.  While you cannot and should not reject applicants arbitrarily, if they are on the cusp – i.e. you could legitimately accept or reject - give careful consideration to your decision and don’t let it be dictated by your desire to just fill a space. 

5. Not understanding the range of solutions when dealing with a resident.  By this I mean, don’t just fire out a notice as a knee jerk reaction to a violation.  A good example is a resident who is intoxicated and gets into a verbal altercation with another resident.  Say it gets out of control, and threats are made by the resident.   If this is unusual for the resident and out of character for him, don’t simply send a 24-hour notice.  The law is quite clear that you are notto use a 24-hour notice if another form of notice, e.g. a curable 30-day notice would work.  Remember, a repeat violation with six months following the date of the 30-day notice gives you the right to terminate with a 20-day non-curable notice.  Judges don’t like to terminate manufactured housing residents, given the drastic consequences.  You want to show the judge that you were not being heavy-handed, but tried the most rationale and reasonable approach first.

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.

The person is first and foremost a trespasser.  As such, you should first try contacting the police or sheriff, explain the situation to them, and ask them to remove this person from the park.  You should also ask them to issue a no trespass order so that if the person returns, they can be arrested for trespassing.

However, sometimes law enforcement officers are reluctant to remove squatters even when they have the lawful authority to do so.  In that case, you may need to resort to court action.

There is a “midnight move-in” statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(c)) that allows RV parks to immediately file an eviction case in court without notice if the owner or possessor of an RV places it on park property without the park’s prior consent.  If you are forced to go to court, you would cite this statute on the eviction complaint when you file it with the court.  At trial, you would present your case with testimony and perhaps a few photos to explain to the judge that the person is a squatter who should be immediately evicted.

There is another statute (ORS 105.115 (1)(b)) that also allows a landowner to file an immediate eviction case when a “person in possession . . . is holding possession without any written lease or agreement.”  This would apply if someone doesn’t have an RV, but perhaps only a regular passenger vehicle and/or a tent.  When you file the eviction case at your county courthouse, ask for and fill out the eviction complaint form for a tenancy not covered by ORS Chapter 90. In the section where you must indicate why the park is entitled to possession of the premises, check the “No Notice” box and write: “ORS 105.115 (1)(b) – Trespasser in possession.” The filing fee for this kind of case is more than a regular residential eviction case, but after filing the case will proceed like any other eviction case.

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. (1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if: - The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and - There exists a written rental agreement that specifies: _ The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge; _ The type and amount of the late charge; and _ The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due. (2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed: - A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market; - A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable flat amount", described above; or - Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. (3) In periodic tenancies [e.g. month-to-month], a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant. (4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment. (5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed. (6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]