Search

Answer:

It is permissible to rent to overnighters, but there are some important differences that you must keep in mind when you do.

The first and most important difference is that overnighters are not considered "tenants" under Oregon law if the landlord follows Oregon's "vacation occupancy" requirements. The requirements are: (1) The "guest" is only staying for vacation purposes, not as a residence; (2) the guest has a principle residence other than at the park; and, (3) the guest's stay cannot exceed 45 days. (Hint: Make a copy of each guest's driver's license to keep on file to prove that they have a permanent residence elsewhere.) If you ensure that the "guest" meets these requirements, they do not have the rights or remedies that RV tenants have under Oregon law.

If you follow these requirements, you do not have to file an eviction case if the guest fails to vacate or fails to pay. You can simply ask that they immediately leave or have the sheriff remove them. You should not have to worry about any "tenancy" complaints or threats of habitability claims, etc.

The caveat is that some sheriff officers won't make an overnighter leave, telling the park owner that it is a "civil eviction matter." There are two main ways to avoid this problem. The first is to maintain a good relationship with your local police officers. A little bit of good will can go a long way towards gaining their cooperation with this type of problem. The second thing to do is make sure you have the "guest" sign a short term RV registration agreement that acknowledges his or her status as non-tenants.

An RV registration agreement should list Oregon's vacation occupancy requirements mentioned above. (My office or a knowledgeable attorney can easily draft a registration agreement for this purpose.) It should also contain a specific acknowledgment that the guests are not "tenants" and can be immediately removed at any time. Showing a sheriff this acknowledgment - signed by the overnighter - should make it much easier to have the sheriff show the RV'er the front gate, if necessary.

One caveat on renting RV spaces to overnighters is that Oregon law requires that bathroom facilities be provided to vacation campers. If your park doesn'thave bathrooms available, you should not rent to overnighters. However, depending on the circumstances, you may be able to meet this requirement with portable facilities, although always check with an attorney before making that decision.

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:  In pre-COVID times, my first inquiry would be whether the tenant has been in the park for less than one year. If so, a 30-day no-cause eviction notice would be the best option, except that no-cause notices cannot be issued until October 1, 2020(as per the eviction moratorium imposed by Oregon House Bill 4213).  If the tenant is within the first year of his tenancy, and he is still in the park on October 1^st, you could consider this option then.

For now, you might be able to issue a 24-hour eviction notice IF any of the tenant’s actions were “outrageous in the extreme.”  By statute, this means that the tenant committed an act(s) in the park or in the immediate vicinity of the park that a reasonable person in the community would consider to be so offensive as to warrant termination of the tenancy within 24 hours, considering the seriousness of the act or the risk to others.

Since you mention that children were verbally abused, and that the tenant violated a restraining order related to that verbal abuse, there might be grounds for a 24-hour eviction notice. However, be aware that because this is an extreme eviction remedy, judges will require some kind of action that essentially “shocks the conscience.”  Swearing at children as they ride their bikes past his space would not meet this test, but cornering children in the park’s playground to berate them might.  You should consult an attorney with the actual facts before issuing a 24-hour eviction notice.

The remaining and most likely option is a 30/14-day, for-cause eviction notice.  This type of notice can be issued for material violations of the rental agreement or ORS 90.325.  Both the tenant’s rental agreement (MHCO Form 80) and ORS 90.325 (1)(g) require tenants to behave in a manner that will not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors.

The 30/14-day notice would describe the tenant’s violations (i.e. “yelling and swearing at children as they ride their bikes in the park”), followed by describing how the tenant must correct the violations (i.e., “do not yell and swear at children in the park or otherwise disturb their peaceful enjoyment of the premises”).  If the tenant corrects his violations within 14 days (plus three days added for mailing the notice), then the tenancy continues.  If not, then the tenancy terminates at the end of the 30-day notice period and you could file an eviction case in court.  If he corrects the violations, but then substantially engages in the same conduct again within 6 months from the date of the notice, you could evict him with a 10-day eviction notice that he would not have the opportunity to correct.

Since there are several possible eviction options depending on the exact facts, you should consult an attorney for advice on the best option to pursue.

The case involved a mobile home park landlord who filed an eviction case because the tenant was allowing her adult son and his girlfriend to stay in the tenant's home without park approval. The park is a "55 or older" facility, and neither the son or girlfriend met the park's age requirements. More importantly, the son's presence in the park was accompanied by constant visitor traffic at all hours of the day.

The park issued a 30-day, for-cause notice to the tenant after confirming that the son and girlfriend were indeed staying there. At trial, the judge believed the evidence that the son was staying in the home, but took issue with the park's overnight guest policy. The judge found that the rental agreement policy allowing only 14 overnight visits per year was "unconscionable." The court stated that the limit was "unreasonable, obscure, and empowers Landlord excessively to Tenant's detriment." The judge went on to consider other factors in deciding the case, but an underlying theme was that tenants should be allowed more time for guest visits.

As a trial court decision, the case does not establish a legal precedent on overnight guest visits. However, while each case is different, landlords could limit their potential liability by expanding overnight visits above 14 days per year. Based on this particular judge's opinion, a 21-day per year limit might be a good safeguard. This adjustment could help negate the "unconscionable" argument by establishing a more relaxed guest policy.

If your park rules already allow more than 14 overnights per year for guests, it would be wise to rely on that policy to enforce guest visits. If you choose to amend your existing guest policy, mobile home park landlords can do so by issuing a rule change notice under ORS 90.610 (MHCO Form 60.) Non-park landlords can implement a new guest policy by having tenants sign off on a new guest policy rule. However, as usual, consult with an attorney before undertaking any rule changes with your tenants, and before filing an eviction action based on guest limitation violations.

MHCO FORM UPDATE: MHCO's rental agreement forms are in the process of being updated to allow 21 days per calendar year for guest visits (MHCO Forms 05A, 05B, 05C, and MHCO Form 80).

Answer: In Oregon, month-to-month RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day, no-cause notice during the first year of their tenancy. After the first year, the no-cause notice to a monthly tenant would need to be a 60-day notice. Use MHCO Form 43C for no-cause RV evictions, choosing either the 30-day or 60-day notice option, depending on the length of tenancy.

Caveat: Portland and Milwaukie both have ordinances requiring 90-day no-cause notices to all monthly tenants, regardless of how long they have been tenants. The City of Bend requires 90-day notices after the first year of tenancy. In addition, Portland requires landlords to make "relocation assistance" payments to tenants evicted for no-cause, ranging from $2,900 to $4,500 - although the applicability of this requirement to RV tenants is legally questionable. Bottom line: Consult an attorney if you have an RV park in any of these cities.

If you have any week-to-week RV tenants, they can be evicted with a 10-day, no-cause notice. This applies even in the municipalities mentioned above, which all provide exceptions for weekly tenants. However, remember that to have a valid "week-to-week" tenancy, you must meet these specific requirements: (1) Occupancy is charged on a weekly basis and is payable no less frequently than every seven days, (2) there is a written rental agreement defining the landlord's and tenant's rights and responsibilities, and (3) there are no fees or security deposits (other than applicant screening charges). If your weekly tenant arrangements do not meet these specific requirements, your tenants will be treated as month-to-month tenants under Oregon law.

If you happen to have any fixed-term RV tenants, you cannot evict them with a no-cause notice until the fixed-term ends. Before that, it would require a for-cause notice (i.e., for breaking a park rule or for not paying the rent).

Finally, there is also an exception under Oregon law for RV "vacation occupants." A "vacation occupant" is someone who: (1) Rents the RV space for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence, (2) has a principal residence other than at the RV park, and (3) does not occupy the RV park for more than 45 days. You would need to have these facts documented in a written agreement. "Vacation occupants" are not "tenants" under Oregon law. They can be asked to leave without any eviction proceedings and the sheriff can be called to assist if necessary.

As usual, you should always seek the advice of a knowledgeable attorney if you are unsure whether you can or should issue a no-cause eviction notice.

Answer: You've already recognized that it really is a matter of personal preference and how each type of tenancy fits into your park's business model. There is certainly an advantage to having long-term tenants so that you have less turnover and you develop a good reputation as an option for residents who plan on staying awhile.

However, month-to-month tenants can only be evicted without cause on 30 days' written notice during the first year of the tenancy, and on 60 days' notice after the first year of tenancy. (But see special note below for Portland and Milwaukie landlords.) Additionally, state law now prohibits rent increases on monthly RV tenants during the first year of the tenancy and requires 90 days' written notice to raise the rent after the first year.

Conversely, week-to-week tenancies make it easier to evaluate a tenant in the short-term to ensure that he or she will work out in the long run. Weekly tenants can be evicted for no cause on 10 days' written notice and rent can be increased on 7 days' written notice. These are significant advantages when evaluating tenants as possible long-term residents.

The primary disadvantage in creating weekly tenants is the administrative burden. To create a week-to-week tenancy in Oregon, it must have all of the following characteristics: (1) occupancy charged on a weekly basis and payable no less frequently than every seven days; (2) a written rental agreement that defines the landlord's and the tenant's rights and responsibilities under Oregon law, and (3) no fees or security deposits, although the landlord may require the payment of an applicant screening charge.

In your situation, it might make sense to put new tenants on weekly agreements at least initially. If they seem to be working out, you can then offer them a new, monthly agreement later. MHCO Form 80 [Recreational Vehicle Space Rental Agreement] can be used for either weekly or monthly tenants. Just be sure to properly fill out the form and do not charge weekly tenants a security deposit or other fees (or you risk automatically making them monthly tenants right away).

Special Note Regarding RV Parks in Portland and Milwaukie: These two cities have enacted local ordinances that override state law and require a minimum of 90 days' written notice for no-cause evictions from the very beginning of a month-to-month tenancy. Landlords in these cities might want to seriously consider the week-to-week tenancy option for RV tenants since weekly tenancies are specifically exempt from this regulation in both cities.

Answer:  This is really a 24-hour notice issue.  The applicable statute, ORS 90.396, gives you the right to issue a non-curable 24-hour notice.  The theft constitutes (in my opinion) "outrageous conduct,” for which the notice may issue.[1]  However, it is true that the statute states that a landlord should not issue a 24-hour notice if a 30-day curable notice would suffice.  I suggest that you talk to the resident and tell him he's got two choices: (a) Either return the stolen property, pay the cost to re-install andtake a curable 30-day notice; or (b) Take a 24-hour non-curable notice under ORS 90.630 (for any number of reasons, such as violation of law – i.e. theft – violation of rules or rental agreement re damage to park property).  If there is a repeat violation within six months following the date of issuance of the 30-day notice, then you can give him a 20-day non-curable notice to terminate the tenancy.

Question: If I give 24-hour notice for a dog and they correct the situation by removing the dog but the same dog or substantially the same offense occurs in 3 months what does the landlord do?

Answer:  You don't say why you want to issue a 24-hour notice for the dog.  It must be serious, such as a real threat or actual damage to a person in the park (other than the pet owner).  The applicable statute is ORS 90.396(2) which provides:  

"If the cause for a termination notice *** is based upon the acts of the tenant's pet, the tenant may cure the cause and avoid termination of the tenancy by removing the pet from the premises prior to the end of the notice period.  The notice must describe the right of the tenant to cure the cause. If the tenant returns the pet to the premises at any time after having cured the violation, the landlord, after at least 24 hours' written notice specifying the subsequent presence of the offending pet, may terminate the rental agreement and take possession (of the space).

In those cases in which the offence is not sufficient to issue a 24-hour notice you have two other options: (a) Fine the resident under the Pet Agreement, if one has been entered into; or (b) issuance of the 30-day curable 30-day notice if your rules have been violated.  

[1]Note, the "substantial damage” portion of this statute says "…on more than one occasion.”

Answer:  This situation is not directly addressed in the Oregon manufactured housing laws. First, some general observations: The manufactured housing side of the landlord-tenant law regards the “space” as the “premises.”  For example, a resident in an apartment may not, without landlord permission, intentionally make major structural changes to the interior of the premises. However, most apartments have rules against this, or it is included in the rental agreement. Your space agreement or rules may have similar prohibitions regarding major changes to the space.

In this case, however, you permitted the work to commence.  It is unclear whether you had reviewed any plans, before the work started.  You should have made this a condition of building the carport in the first place.  What about permits?  It is unclear whether they are required in your jurisdiction, but it is something you should always make sure is complied with.  

I am unclear what you mean when you say that other such structures are “free standing and permanent.”  If they are permanent, in the sense of being permanently affixed to the space, then presumably, you are treating these as structures that would remain if the home were sold and removed.  However, your independent conclusion that a structure is “permanent” and therefor stays with the space is really not the complete issue; what does the resident believe? It was his money that presumably paid for the work, and he may have some say in whether he intended it to be a part of the home, and movable if the time came.  

While your opinion is important, so is that of your resident.  For this reason, I suggest that before doing this again, you might consider addressing it in the community rules.  Some of the things that should be covered are the following:

· Code compliance

· Management pre-approval of completed drawings

· Time to complete work

· Your right to post a notice of non-responsibility for liens if the resident hires a contractor

· Method of affixing to the ground

· Safety of final structure and perhaps inspector sign-off

· Who owns the structure

· Can it be removed upon sale and removal of the home (I suggest “yes” so long as the space is returned to its original condition and all holes are safely and completed filled, etc.)

· Duty to keep the carport in good and safe condition – remember if it is a part of the space, absent agreement with the resident, it would be your duty, since you own the park.

In this particular case, I suggest that if you have not pre-addressed these issues with your resident, he may believe this is his structure to do with as he sees fit.  I really can’t disagree, since you permitted the project and from your question, it appears no ground rules were established regarding ownership in the event the home was moved. However, if you permit the carport structure to be removed, you should insist that the space be returned to its original pre-construction condition. That’s about the best you can do with this situation, although establishing rules – or at least agreed-upon terms – before construction commences again, is a good idea.

Answer:  Yes. This is known as the “statute of limitations,” and it applies to virtually all claims. The reason is because there needs to be a cut-off date for claims. Otherwise, the courts could be flooded with litigants seeking recovery for stale cases which could be difficult to defend due to the lack of witnesses, loss/destruction of evidence, and poor memory. The concepts applies not only to the landlord and tenant claims against each other, but personal injury cases, business disputes, property damages, etc.

The statute, ORS 12.125 is deceptively simple: “An action arising under a rental agreement or ORS chapter 90 shall be commenced within one year.” It is a two-way street; landlords have one year to recover past due rent, and tenants have one year to bring claims against their landlords.

However, there are several exceptions:

• For example, some claims are “continuing,” so just because there was a tenant habitability violation at the commencement of the tenancy, in say, May 15, 2023, does not mean the tenant has no claim today for the same violation. If it continued to today only means that the tenant’s damage claim can go back 12 months; there can be no recovery before then. But if the claim is a single isolated event, say the landlord unlawfully entered the tenant’s premises on May 15, 2023, the claim would have lapsed on May 15, 2024. (Assuming the tenant knew, or reasonably should have known, of the intrusion.)
• The party bringing the claim must have known that the claim arose (using the “reasonable person standard”) before the applicable statute will commence running. If for example, the tenant was injured from contaminated well water in 2023, but didn’t learn of it until today (after the well had been repaired), the one-year statute might not commence running until the tenant knew or should have known of the contamination. (Note, this example does not address the general 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury. So even if the 1-year statute under the rental agreement or Chapter 90 did expire, the 2-year statute would still apply and preserve the injury claim.)
• Lastly, Oregon has certain “tolling” statutes which suspend the running of the applicable period of limitations if the aggrieved party is under some legal disability, such as incompetence, or the potential defendant conceals themselves.

Conclusion. Fortunately, the above exceptions normally don’t come into play when we’re talking about Oregon’s landlord-tenant laws. This is because most cases involving residential tenants relate to recovery of unpaid rent, which usually means the landlord would have already evicted the tenant long before allowing nonpayment to continue for 12 months. If not, landlords should – through legal counsel – secure a written agreement that the tenant consents to suspending (i.e. “tolling”) the one-year period.[1] Conversely, landlords have the satisfaction of knowing that despite a tenant’s frequent threats to file a lawsuit for some perceived violation, once the actionable event continues past one year, it has likely lapsed.

The take-away is the statutes of limitation issues under the Oregon landlord-tenant law can become confusing based upon when they commence and end. Always check with your legal counsel when an issue arises

[1] Caveat: Landlords must be careful about entering into written agreements with tenants addressing legal issues such as the waiver of a claim, without making sure the tenant will have the document reviewed by their own legal counsel before signing.

Answer: First, please understand that Oregon law does not directly deal with this – and neither is it addressed in most rental/lease agreements, including MHCO’s. So my responses are based upon my opinion alone. Until an appellate court rules on these issues – which is unlikely, since most such cases are never appealed - the best we can do is speculate. My answers are in italics below.

1. Do we write a new lease for the remaining resident or keep the old lease with both residents on the lease?

I think I would prefer to see a new lease signed by the remaining resident – even if title remains in both their names. That way, the ex-spouse cannot argue that he or she has a right of occupancy a year or two down the road, when they patch things up, or one moves out and the other moves back in. A new lease would require than any new occupants be qualified all over again. Note that if the lease is changed into the name of the remaining resident, the ex-spouse would certainly have no liability for space rent going forward.

2. Can we legally keep the resident that moved out, responsible for the lease after a divorce and separation of assets?

Technically, yes. Neither the divorce decree nor the parties themselves can – without your consent – alter their joint legal duties under a lease they both signed. [This situation is not dissimilar to spouses jointly signing their mortgage and then divorcing; they both remain liable under the mortgage, even though one vacates the home.] The best a divorce court can do is to make the occupying ex-spouse primarily responsible for the rent and give indemnity rights to the non-occupying ex-spouse in case she or he end up having to pay for unpaid rent that should have been paid by the occupying ex-spouse.

3. Do we rescreen the remaining resident to see if he/she qualifies on their own?

I have a visceral reaction to doing so – if they did not pass the credit requirements, then what? Deny them the right to stay in the community in which they have lived for a number of years? Kick them out without waiting to see whether they can – or will make the payments? That is like punishing the remaining ex-spouse for being divorced. Remember, the occupying ex-spouse will likely be the custodial parent, if children are involved. The non-custodial parent will likely have some child support obligation, which would then make the custodial parent’s individual credit score less important. The same may be said even if there are no children; there may be a spousal support obligation by the non-occupying ex-spouse. It seems to me that it will become clear soon enough, whether the occupying ex-spouse can or will make the space rental payments, independent of what their current credit score may be.

4. If we do rescreen the remaining resident and he/she fails the credit or criminal background, what are our options?

Before you re-screen, re-read my answer to Question No. 3 above. If the lease agreement or rules do not address the possibility of spouses divorcing – and I have never seen any that do – the ultimate decision on whether you may re-screen could be left up to a judge. I submit that judges do not like to evict people out of their homes unless there is a compelling reason to do so. A case in which a resident is being evicted for no reason other than that they no longer meet the credit criteria – with no evidence that they are in default under the lease or rules – would be a very difficult sell to most judges. It is unlikely that you would prevail. I compare this situation to requiring a resident to be re-screened upon a job loss or death of a spouse. In cases of such unplanned events occurring after residents have been approved, I suggest that you let the situation play itself out. If a resident cannot afford to pay the space rent, you will then have sufficient cause to evict. But to try to evict because you doubt the ability of the resident to pay rent in the future, is premature and likely to fail.

5. Who owns the security deposit or pre-paid rent?

That depends upon whether you have the remaining resident sign a new lease. If a new lease is signed, you could issue a refund check to both of them under the first least, and require the remaining occupant to pay a new deposit under the new lease. It would be preferable, however, to see if they could agree to authorize you to leave the existing deposit in place, but permitting you to refund it, if appropriate, to the remaining occupant at the end of his/her tenancy. If no agreement can be reached, simply hold the deposit until expiration of the tenancy by the occupying non-spouse, and then, if a refund is in order, make the check out to both of them.

Answer: Disclaimer: Certain folks, especially those of the regulatory bent, will likely disagree with my answer. The reason stems, I believe, from one of four sources: (a) Rigid (some might say "stubborn" or "dogmatic") adherence to a law or regulation, regardless of how illogical and silly it may be; (b) A belief that everyone is a victim, and deserves to pampered and coddled even in the face of obvious evidence they are gaming the system; (c) Political correctness run amok; or (d) A combination of some or all of the preceding causes.

Whew! I feel better already!

I admit I am one of those folks who have watched in disbelief as some residents have taken the most outlandish positions in an effort to keep a pet they know full well violates the community rules. I recently saw a situation where a new tenant, knowing that the community did not permit pets, moved in and promptly moved her large dog in to live with her, having paid to get the necessary sham certifications and paperwork online, no questions asked.

Here are some general rules:

• The Americans with Disabilities Act, or "ADA" does not apply to private residential housing - only public accommodations.
• ORS 659A.143 governs the use of assistance animals in public accommodations. The rules seem rational and reasonable.
• The Fair Housing Act applies to the use of assistance animals in housing.
• HUD has set out the issues to be vetted for a landlord to make a determination whether to grant a resident the right to have an assistance animal.
• Assistance animals are not pets, and accordingly, pet rules do not strictly apply (such as requiring pet deposits).
• You do not have to accept just any animal as an assistance animal. If it requires some additional cost to the landlord, it is not required. (See, HUD article here.)

The Fair Housing law basically requires that if one has a disability, they may request that their landlord grant them a "reasonable accommodation" - that is, an exception to the community rules, allowing the resident permission to do that which is otherwise prohibited.

Thus, size limits don't strictly apply. And occasionally, residents attempt to have a second pet, claiming that it isn'ta "pet," but an assistance animal. However, here is where the line blurs. How far does the landlord have to bend to accommodate residents, especially in those situations where the resident is gaming the system?

MHCO has forms for dealing with requests for reasonable accommodations, whether they be a non-compliant animal, or some other issue, such as an additional parking space, etc. First and foremost, I suggest following the same protocols in all cases, from the legitimate to the illegitimate.

Secondly, I suggest following the 3-prong test (besides cost, which doesn'treally apply in most cases) as follows: Would granting of the request endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of other residents or guest in the community. If the resident, for example, asks to have a pit bull as an assistance animal, it is not altogether unreasonable, after vetting the dog's demeanor, socialization, etc., to propose another less aggressive animal as a "reasonable accommodation."

Third, for such breeds with known vicious propensities, you should check with your liability insurance carrier to see if they have a short list of animals they will not insure if there is an attack. If the carrier says the animal is on that short list, then you should propose another less aggressive animal.

Then there are cases in which the request is clearly a ruse to get a pet approved as an assistance animal, when and it is clear to any reasonable person, it is a ruse. You will have to decide on your own, or with the assistance of your attorney, how to proceed. If, after giving the resident the MHCO form to complete, you are satisfied that it is a ruse, you are going to have to decide whether to call their bluff, or relent. If you relent, you will have done so only after requiring them to complete the necessary paperwork. However, be prepared for more copycats - pardon the pun.

1. If the tenant, in violation of the rental agreement, keeps on the premises a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property, the landlord may deliver a written notice specifying the violation and stating that the tenancy will terminate upon a date not less than 10 days after the delivery of the notice unless the tenant removes the pet from the premises prior to the termination date specified in the notice. If the pet is not removed by the date specified, the tenancy shall terminate and the landlord may take possession in the manner provided in ORS 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) to 105.168 (Minor as party in proceedings pertaining to residential dwellings).

1. For purposes of this section, a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property means an animal that, because of the nature, size or behavioral characteristics of that particular animal or of that breed or type of animal generally, a reasonable person might consider to be capable of causing personal injury or property damage, including but not limited to, water damage from medium or larger sized fish tanks or other personal injury or property damage arising from the environment in which the animal is kept.

1. If substantially the same act that constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given under subsection (1) of this section recurs within six months, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement upon at least 10 days written notice specifying the breach and the date of termination of the rental agreement.

1. This section shall not apply to any tenancy governed by ORS 90.505 (Definition for ORS 90.505 to 90.840) to 90.840 (Park purchase funds, loans). [Formerly 91.822; 1995 c.559 _28; 1999 c.603 _25]

While I suppose there is an argument that this statute doesn'tapply, since it pertains to "pets," I believe that argument begs the question, since it is your position that these are pets disguised as "assistance animals." If the resident believes you're prepared to commence an eviction proceeding, perhaps they will relent. If not, the judge can decide. Of course, be prepared for the resident to bring in some doctor, chiropractor, or therapist, to claim the resident needs the animal for some protected purpose.

If the animal is dangerous, I strongly believe you are correct to take the issue to the mat, since doing nothing could result in injury to a resident or guest, and you can be sure you will then be accused of permitting the animal to remain when you should not have. Unfortunately, these issues can become expensive, and there is no assurance of victory in court.

It is possible for you and your attorney to develop some type of agreement which closes the loophole that is occurring at your community. I can envisage language that with the proper recitals and provisions, would give you more protection than you now have. However, as we know, until the matter is litigated, you'll never know if the form is bullet-proof. But having it in place is probably better than where you are now, and would likely make a resident think twice about trying to play the "support animal" card, if the agreement expressly says the animal is a pet and that was the sole reason for their wanting it.