Search

By: Phil Querin, MHCO Legal Counsel

Current Oregon Law. ORS 90.680 is the statute governing the on-site sale of homes in a manufactured housing community. It previously contained no limitations on landlords who required, as a condition of tenancy, that residents selling their homes must enter into a consignment agreement with the landlord. That will change on January 1, 2016.

New Oregon Law. ORS 90.680 is now amended as follows:
1. It defines the term consignment" to mean a written agreement in which a resident

authorizes a landlord to sell their manufactured dwelling or floating home in the

community for compensation.

1. It prohibits landlords from requiring as a condition of occupancy

Answer. ORS 90.630(1)(a) (Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent) permits you to issue a 30-day termination notice for any of the following if the resident:

• Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740;
• Violates a rule or rental agreement provision related to the tenant's conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with a rental agreement regarding a program of recovery in drug and alcohol free housing

I read these prohibitions as relating to events or conduct inside the community. However, as to the following two, the conduct is not required to have occurred inside the community:

• Is classified as a level three sex offender under ORS 163A.100 (3);
• Is an unclassified adult sex offender designated as predatory prior to January 1, 2014, or a person whom the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, the Psychiatric Security Review Board or the Oregon Health Authority has classified as a level three sex offender under section 7 (2)(b), chapter 708, Oregon Laws 2013.

Both of the above two sex offender violations are non-curable, so that presumably the resident must vacate within the 30-day period. As I read ORS 90.630, with the exception of the sex offender violations, the others must relate to the tenant's conduct as a tenant, and by definition (to me at least) mean "while in the community"; for purposes of termination of a tenancy, a tenant is not a tenant when he or she is outside of the community.

90.396 (Acts or omissions justifying termination 24 hours after notice) provides that you may issue a 24-hour notice if:

• The tenant, someone in the tenant's control or the tenant's pet seriously threatens to inflict substantial personal injury, or inflicts any substantial personal injury, upon a person on the premises other than the tenant;
• The tenant or someone in the tenant's control recklessly endangers a person on the premises other than the tenant by creating a serious risk of substantial personal injury;
• The tenant, someone in the tenant's control or the tenant's pet inflicts any substantial personal injury upon a neighbor living in the immediate vicinity of the premises;
• The tenant or someone in the tenant's control intentionally inflicts any substantial damage to the premises or the tenant's pet inflicts substantial damage to the premises on more than one occasion;
• The tenant, someone in the tenant's control or the tenant's pet commits any act that is outrageous in the extreme, on the premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises. Acts that are "outrageous in the extreme" include, but are not limited to, the following acts by a person: Prostitution, commercial sexual solicitation or promoting prostitution; Manufacture, delivery or possession of a controlled substance, but not including the medical use of marijuana in compliance with Oregon law; Possession of, or delivery for no consideration of, less than one avoirdupois ounce of marijuana; or possession of prescription drugs; intimidation, as described under Oregon criminal law; or burglary.

Under the definition section of the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act, ORS 90.100 (34), the term "premises" means "a facility for manufactured dwellings or floating homes", i.e. the park itself. Thus, again, all of the prohibited conduct must have occurred inside the community.

Conclusion. However, you should remember that when a resident commits a crime outside the community, especially one that entails incarceration, the problems don't usually stop there, i.e. he or she frequently is unable to pay their rent, which can lead to eviction. Or your issuance of three 72-hour (or 144-hour) late notices, can result in issuance of a noncurable 30-day notice of termination. In cases in which the tenant has committed some particularly aggravated crime outside the park, which causes you concern for their coming back into the community, I suggest you consult your attorney to determine whether there might be some other basis for termination.

Answer: It’s easy to get confused. There is a lot to remember. Generally all of the answers are contained in ORS 90.630 [Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent]. Here is a short summary: • The landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy in a manufactured housing community by giving not less than 30 days’ notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant: o Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740 [Tenant Obligations]; o Violates a rule or rental agreement provision; o Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587; or o Fails to pay a (i) a late charge pursuant to ORS 90.260; (ii) A fee pursuant to ORS 90.302; or (iii) a utility or service charge pursuant to ORS 90.534 or 90.536. • The tenant may avoid termination of the tenancy by correcting the violation within the 30-day period specified in notice of violation. However, if substantially the same act or omission recurs within six months after the date of the notice, the landlord may terminate the tenancy upon at least 20 days’ written notice specifying the violation and the date of termination of the tenancy. In such cases, the tenant does not have a right to correct the violation – and the notice must so state. • Oregon’s “three strikes” law only applies to cases in which the tenant is issued three 72-hour [or 144-hour] notices within a 12-month period. The “three strikes” law is found at ORS 90.630(8)-(10). As noted above, multiple violations of the same or similar rule within six months can result in the landlord’s issuance of a non-curable 20-day notice to the tenant.

Answer: First things first. If you simply want to get rid of Kris, you can immediately serve him with a no-cause eviction notice. Since it seems like he has been there far longer than a year, Oregon law requires a 60-day notice to evict. MHCO form 43 C is the form for you.

The "reasonable accommodation" request does raise a potential retaliation defense, however, so don't be too quick to ruin the holidays with an eviction notice. It would probably be best to give Kris a reasonable accommodation request form (MHCO Form 15). That form requires Kris to give the park information about his disability and get a medical provider or other specialist to sign off on the fact that he actually needs an accommodation. Assuming Kris returns the completed form, go ahead and do background checks on his guests (conduct and criminal check only, not credit history). If everything checks out, have his guests sign a temporary occupancy agreement (MHCO Form 25).

The reindeers are definitely a problem. If you're okay with them being there, have Kris fill out a pet agreement (MHCO Form 21). If you want the beasts out, you can give a 10-day pet notice forcing Kris to remove Rudolph and Co. if the herd is capable of causing damage to persons or property. (MHCO doesn'thave this particular form, so contact attorney Lionel Hutz at "I can't Believe It's a Law Firm!" in Springfield.)

The parking is easy to remedy if you have clearly posted signs stating that street parking is not allowed and unlawfully parked vehicles are subject to tow. You should also have local towing company signs posted. If you fit these requirements, call the tow company and they will put that eyesore in the impound lot.

The wild card here is if Kris happens to break into your park office and leaves a lump of coal in your stocking. If you can prove it was him, you could likely issue a 24-hour eviction notice for either substantial damage to the premises if he breaks the chimney, or perhaps for outrageous behavior for forcing his way into the building. And, if Kris instead happens to leave you presents that cause your heart to grow 3 sizes, you can probably get him with a 24-hour notice for inflicting substantial personal injury.

Happy Holidays to All!

Fair housing law generally prohibits discrimination based on familial status, but there’s a limited exception that applies to senior housing communities that qualify as “housing for older persons.” To qualify, senior housing communities must meet strict technical requirements. Unless they satisfy those requirements, communities may not enforce “adult only” policies or impose age restrictions to keep children from living there.

The focus of this article is on federal law, but it’s important to check the law in your state governing senior housing communities. The specifics may vary, but you could draw unwanted attention from state enforcement agencies if you exclude families with children without satisfying legal requirements to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

Example: In January 2019, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced a $10,000 settlement in a fair housing complaint alleging familial status discrimination against the owners of a six-unit rental community and a residential real estate brokerage firm that managed the property.

Fair housing advocates filed the complaint, alleging that the property was advertised online as an “adult complex” and included a restriction of “maximum 2 adults.” During a follow-up call, the property manager reportedly told a tester that children weren’t allowed. DFEH found that the complex wasn’t a senior citizen housing development and that there was cause to believe a violation of state fair housing law had occurred.

“In California, senior housing developments can, with some exceptions, exclude residents under 55 years of age if they have at least 35 units and meet other requirements,” DFEH Director Kevin Kish said in a statement. “All other rental properties violate the law if they categorically exclude families with minor children. By identifying such policies through testing, fair housing organizations such as Project Sentinel play an important role in ensuring that families with children have access to housing.” 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability—what’s known as “protected classes.”

Congress added familial status to the list of federally protected classes when it amended the FHA in 1988. In a nutshell, the familial status provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. Specifically, the FHA’s ban on discrimination based on familial status apply to one or more children under 18 living with:

• A parent;
• An individual with legal custody; or
• An individual who has the written permission of the parent or custodian.

The familial status provisions also apply to pregnant woman and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of one or more children under 18.

Nevertheless, Congress recognized the need to preserve housing specifically designed to meet the needs of senior citizens. Consequently, the 1988 amendment created an exemption from the FHA’s familial status requirements for communities that qualified as “housing for older persons.” Congress later amended the law in the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA), resulting in the current version of the federal exemption for senior housing.

The exemption allows senior housing communities that meet specific requirements to legally exclude families with children. The exemption applies to housing communities or facilities, which are governed by a common set of rules, regulations, or restrictions. A portion of a single building isn’t considered a housing facility or community, according to HUD. The senior housing exemption applies only to the FHA’s familial status provisions; communities must still abide by the law’s protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability.

The law describes three types of communities that are eligible for the senior housing exemption:

• Publicly funded senior housing communities: Housing communities where HUD has determined that the dwelling is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly persons under a federal, state, or local government program;
• 62-and-older communities: Communities intended for, and occupied solely by, persons who are 62 or older; and
• 55-and-older communities: Communities that house at least one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older.

7 RULES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

IN SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES

Rule #1: Comply with Technical Requirements for Senior Housing Exemption

Senior communities must adopt policies and procedures to ensure strict compliance with the technical requirements of the senior housing exemption. If you don’t comply with the law’s requirements, then you lose the exemption, which in essence makes your community automatically liable for excluding or discriminating against families with children. 

Complying with the law governing the 62-and-older exemption is relatively straightforward. To qualify, the community must be intended for and occupied solely by persons aged 62 and older. For example, HUD regulations explain that a 62-and-older community would have to refuse the application of a 62-year-old man whose wife is 59. In the same vein, a community would lose its exemption if it allowed continued residency by a current resident who married someone under the age of 62.

Complying with the law governing the 55-and-older exemption is more complicated. To qualify, the community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

• At least 80 percent of the occupied units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older;
• The community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as “55 or older” housing; and
• The community must comply with HUD’s regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

1. 80 percent rule. To meet this requirement, a community must ensure that at least one person 55 or older lives in 80 percent of its occupied units. The law doesn’t restrict the ages of the other occupants in those units. Furthermore, there are no age limits for the occupants of the other 20 percent, so communities may accept families with children, although they don’t have to do so.

The 80 percent rule applies to the percentage of “occupied units,” which includes temporarily vacant units if the primary occupant has resided in the unit during the past year and intends to return on a periodic basis. That means that a unit would count toward the 80 percent requirement if its 55-year-old occupant resided in the unit for only part of each year.

To maintain eligibility for the exemption, it’s a good idea to ensure that more than 80 percent of your occupied units are occupied by at least one person aged 55 or older. If you skate too close to the line, your community could be forced into a difficult situation—for example, if a 60-year-old resident dies, leaving a 54-year-old surviving spouse.

To prevent just such a problem, HUD advises communities to plan with care when renting the 20 percent portion of the remaining units to incoming households under age 55. Such planning should address notice to incoming households under the age of 55 regarding how the community will proceed in the event that the 80 percent requirement is threatened.

2. Intent to operate as senior housing. A community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to operate as housing for persons 55 years of age or older. HUD offers some examples of the types of policies and procedures to satisfy this requirement, including:

• The written rules, regulations, lease provisions, or other restrictions;
• The actual practices of the community used to enforce the rules;
• The kind of advertising used to attract prospective residents to the community as well as the manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; and
• The community’s age-verification procedures and its ability to produce, in response to a familial status complaint, verification of required occupancy.

3. Verification of occupancy. To qualify under the 55-and-older exemption, communities must able to produce verification of compliance with the 80 percent rule through reliable surveys and affidavits.

HUD regulations require communities to develop procedures to routinely determine the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant is 55 or older. The procedures may be part of the normal leasing arrangement. And, every two years, communities must update, through surveys or other means, the initial information to verify that the unit is occupied by at least one resident age 55 or older.

In addition, communities must establish procedures to verify the age of the occupants in units occupied by persons 55 and older through reliable documentation, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, immigration cards, military identification, and other official documents that show a birth date. HUD regulations also allow a certification signed by any member of the household aged 18 or older asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 or older.

Rule #2: Market Your Community as Senior Housing

For 55+ communities, it’s essential to ensure that your advertising and marketing doesn’t undercut your ability to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

To qualify for the senior exemption, the law requires communities to demonstrate an intent to provide housing for older persons. The manner in which your community is described to potential residents is among the relevant factors listed in HUD regulations to determine whether a community has complied with the intent requirement. Using the wrong words to describe yourself not only may trigger a fair housing complaint, but also undercut your ability to demonstrate your intent to operate as “55 or older” housing.

As an example, fair housing expert Doug Chasick points to the increasing number of housing developments that market themselves as “Active Adult” or “Empty Nester” communities. Yet, he points out, using the term “Adult Only” housing was outlawed back in 1988, when President Reagan signed amendments to the FHA into law. He says that some state and local enforcement agencies claim that using these phrases are always illegal because they’re incompatible with the intent requirement.

HUD doesn’t take it that far. It’s true that HUD regulations state that “Phrases such as “adult living,” “adult community,” or similar statements in any written advertisement or prospectus are not consistent with the intent that the housing facility or community intends to operate as housing for persons 55 years of age or older. But HUD says that the use of these terms does not, by itself, destroy the community’s ability to meet the intent requirement, according to HUD. If a facility or community has clearly shown in other ways that it intends to operate as housing for older persons, meets the 80 percent requirement, and has in place age verification procedures, then HUD says that the intent requirement can be met even if the term “adult” is occasionally used to describe it.

That’s not to say that Chasick says it’s a good idea to use those terms in your advertising or marketing materials. In fact, he recommends against it unless you want to be caught up in an expensive investigation or enforcement action. Instead, Chasick recommends using words like “senior housing,” “senior living community,” “a 55 and older community,” or even a “55 and Better Community” when describing your community to demonstrate your intent to operate as housing for older persons.

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Race or Other Protected Characteristics

The FHA’s senior housing exemption is limited: It offers protection from federal fair housing claims based upon familial status as long as your community meets the FHA’s requirements to qualify as housing for older persons. It doesn’t exempt senior housing communities from any claims based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability, or other characteristic protected under state or local law.

That means that senior communities must take steps not only to qualify under the senior housing exemption, but also to ensure they don’t exclude or otherwise discriminate against applicants or residents based on race or other protected characteristic. For example, senior communities must adopt nondiscriminatory policies and procedures governing the application process and treatment of residents in addition to complying with the age-verification and other requirements to qualify for the senior housing exemption. And train your staff to apply those policies consistently to all applicants and residents, regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability, or other characteristic protected under state or local law.

Rule #4: Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment by or Against Residents

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 her race, sex, or any other protected class, then you should take the complaints seriously.

You shouldn’t be expected to police the behavior of your residents, but you should make it clear that bullying or any other forms of harassment based on protected characteristics won’t be tolerated. Depending on the circumstances, you could face liability under fair housing law if you knew that a resident was subjected to severe and persistent abuse from other residents, but you did nothing to stop it.

Example: In August 2018, a federal court reinstated a fair housing case against an Illinois retirement community for harassment and retaliation. The complaint alleged that the resident endured months of physical and verbal abuse by other residents because of her sexual orientation, and that despite her complaints, the community did nothing to stop it and in fact, retaliated against her because of her complaints.

Fair housing law prohibits discriminatory harassment that creates a hostile housing environment. To prove the claim, the resident had to prove that: (1) she endured unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic; (2) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to interfere with her tenancy; and (3) there was reason to hold the community responsible.

The resident’s complaint satisfied the first and second requirements. She alleged that she was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on her sex, and the community agreed that the court’s earlier ruling—that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation qualifies as discrimination based on sex—applied equally to housing discrimination claims. And the alleged harassment could be viewed as both severe and pervasive—for 15 months, she was bombarded with threats, slurs, derisive comments about her families, physical violence, and spit.

The complaint also satisfied the third requirement. When the case goes back for further proceedings, the focus will be on the management defendants to determine whether they had actual knowledge of the severe harassment that the resident was enduring and whether they were deliberately indifferent to it. If so, then they subjected the resident to conduct that the FHA forbids [Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, August 2018].

Rule #5: Watch for Potential Disability Discrimination Claims

Senior housing communities must pay particular attention to fair housing protections for individuals with disabilities. The FHA prohibits communities from excluding individuals with disabilities or discriminating against them in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the tenancy.

Example: In December 2018, the owners and operators of a California senior housing complex agreed to pay $2,500 to resolve claims that they violated state fair housing laws by denying housing to a prospective resident because she has a disability.

In her complaint, the prospect alleged that the property manager initially approved her tenancy application but rescinded the approval after meeting her and seeing that she uses a wheelchair. The prospect’s daughter had handled most aspects of the application process, including viewing the unit. When the prospect arrived in a wheelchair to sign the lease, the property manager allegedly refused to rent her the unit and accused her and her daughter of misrepresenting the prospect’s identity by bringing other individuals to view the unit.

“The Fair Employment and Housing Act promises that all tenants, regardless of disability, have equal access to housing,” Kevin Kish, Director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, in a statement. “Housing providers have a legal obligation to eliminate unlawful bias from every stage of the housing application process.”

Fair housing law bans discrimination against applicants and residents because they—or someone they’re associated with—is a member of a protected class. HUD says that the FHA’s disability provisions were intended to prohibit not only discrimination against the named tenant, “but also to prohibit denial or housing opportunities to applicants because they have children, parents, friends, spouses, roommates, patients, subtenants or other associates with disabilities.”

Example: In December 2018, HUD announced that a New Jersey condo association representing residents of a 55-and-older condominium development has settled a complaint alleging that it refused to sell a condo to a man with disabilities and his wife because the couple planned to have their adult disabled daughter live with them. The settlement requires the association to pay a $9,000 civil penalty to the United States, undergo fair housing training, and make changes to the associations’ bylaws as they relate to reasonable accommodations. The wife, now a widow, is pursuing claims against the association in state court. The association denies that it discriminated against the family.

“No family whose members have disabilities should be denied the reasonable accommodations they need to make a home for themselves,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Hopefully, today’s ruling will remind homeowner associations of their obligations under the Fair Housing Act and encourage them to follow the law” [Secretary, HUD v. Tamaron Association, December 2018].

Senior communities must be prepared to comply with the full array of disability protections. For example, the FHA requires communities to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. The law also requires owners to permit residents with a disability, at their expense, to make reasonable modifications to the housing if necessary to afford them full enjoyment of the premises.

Example: In December 2017, the owner and property manager of a California community agreed to pay $11,000 to resolve a HUD complaint alleging disability discrimination against a resident with a mobility impairment. According to her complaint, the resident requested to have a live-in aide and a key to a locked gate near her unit to make it easier for her to come and go. In both instances, she said that the owner and property manager asked her intrusive questions about her disability, challenged whether she really had a disability, asserted that the development was for individuals who could live independently, and ultimately denied her requests.

“Residents with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations that allow them to use and enjoy their home, without unnecessary and invasive questioning,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work with housing providers to ensure they meet their obligation to comply with national fair housing laws.”

Example: In December 2018, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced that a settlement has been reached with the remaining defendants in two federal lawsuits against the operators of dozens of nursing homes and assisted living facilities for allegedly refusing to make American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter services available to deaf and hard-of-hearing residents. Though denying the allegations, the defendants in the latest settlement agreed to pay $245,675 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the case.

The FHJC says that the settlements in these cases ensures that deaf and hard-of-hearing people will have access to ASL services and other auxiliary aids and services as a reasonable accommodation in 61 nursing homes and 35 assisted living facilities in the New York City region. The settlement agreements reached with the defendants in these two cases also yielded a total monetary recovery of nearly $1.2 million in damages and attorney’s fees.

Rule #6: Review ‘Independent Living’ Requirements

Depending on the circumstances, you could face a fair housing complaint for imposing independent living requirements on applicants or residents. Courts have found that a policy requiring applicants to demonstrate an ability to live independently violates fair housing laws protecting individuals with disabilities [Cason v. Rochester Housing Authority, August 1990].

Example: In September 2017, the owner and managers of a 41-unit community in California agreed to pay $18,500 to resolve allegations of discrimination against elderly residents with disabilities who relied on support from caregivers. A fair housing organization filed the complaint on behalf of an elderly resident facing eviction after returning from the hospital with support from a part-time caregiver. Allegedly, the owner and property manager said that they didn’t want the “liability” of her remaining in her home, threatened to call the county to have her “removed,” ordered her to move out, and asked invasive questions about the extent of her disabilities. According to the organization’s complaint, its investigation corroborated the resident’s allegations and revealed that testers calling for disabled relatives were told that the complex was for “independent living” and people who “can take care of themselves.”

Example: In Michigan, fair housing advocates recently sued an affordable senior housing apartment complex, alleging that the community applies “independent living” requirements to force residents with disabilities to move, even if those residents are meeting all the requirements of the lease. The complaint asks the court to recognize the community’s practices as discriminatory and prevent the complex from forcing tenants with disabilities to leave their homes when they remain capable of meeting all of their lease obligations.

“Civil rights laws ensure that people with disabilities can decide for themselves where and how to live in the community of their choosing,” says Susan Silverstein, Senior Attorney at AARP Foundation. “The law doesn’t allow landlords to refuse to accommodate tenants with disabilities,” adds a lawyer for the Michigan Clinical Law Program, “and it certainly doesn’t allow landlords to refuse to let tenants age in place just because they might need some outside help.”

Example: And in New York, fair housing advocates and two individuals sued the state and four adult care facilities, alleging that they maintained and enforced blanket policies barring wheelchair users, regardless of their individual needs or abilities, and steered applicants who use wheelchairs to nursing homes.

One of the individual plaintiffs, an elderly woman with disabilities, alleged that she was barred from returning to one of the communities once she began using a wheelchair. According to the woman, the community tried to evict her because of an internal policy barring admission of people who use wheelchairs and state health department regulations that supported such policies at these and other facilities.

The lawsuit also alleges that New York State promotes disability discrimination through its regulations and policies, including its policy permitting adult homes to ban wheelchair users from admission. Until recently, state health department regulations stated that adult homes and assisted living programs should not admit or retain people who are “chronically chairfast.”

The state has since amended the regulations to eliminate the phrase “chronically chairfast” and to add language that operators may not exclude individuals solely because they primarily use a wheelchair for mobility and must make reasonable accommodations as necessary to comply with the law. Last fall, the court issued an order directing the community to allow the elderly woman to return to her home. The case is still pending in federal court.

Rule #7: Comply with Applicable State and Local Laws

It’s critical to review applicable state and local fair housing laws because the laws affecting senior housing may vary substantially, depending on your location. For example, HUD points out that federal fair housing law doesn’t cover age discrimination, which is a protected characteristic under some state and local fair housing laws.

Moreover, HUD notes that some state and local governments with fair housing laws that have been determined to be substantially similar to the federal law may not include an exemption from the familial status discrimination for housing for older persons.

Alternatively, some state or local laws impose different standards for the senior housing exemption. In California, for example, the legislature adopted more stringent requirements on senior housing than is required under the FHA “in recognition of the acute shortage of housing for families with children” in that state. The law imposes specific requirements related to accessibility, common areas, and refuse collection.

Still other state and local laws apply an older version of the federal exemption. Under the original 1988 legislation, 55-and-older communities had to have “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons” to qualify for the exemption.

Though Congress eliminated the “significant services and facilities” requirement from federal fair housing law, some states didn’t follow suit. In Georgia, for example, communities are still required to furnish “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons” to qualify for the senior housing exemption.

Tip: HUD urges communities to check all relevant state, local, and federal laws, as well as any requirements imposed as a term of governmental financial assistance before implementing policies and procedures that limit residents’ eligibility. Because of the complexity of the issues involved, you should get legal advice from an attorney well versed in the legal requirements for senior housing issues in your jurisdiction. 

Answer. Here is a short summary of the law regarding "service animals" and "assistance animals."

Service Animals. A "service animal" under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") is limited solely to dogs that have been individually trained to work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, e.g. guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, or protecting a person who is having a seizure. The ADA does require that landlords make reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities requesting to have a service animal. Note that the term "disability" under the ADA is very, very, broad.[1]

Although service animals must be on leash or harness, they may also be controlled through voice commands or hand signals. Service animals are not "pets." This means, among other things, that certain park rules for pets, such as requiring residents sign a Pet Agreement, cannot be required if it is a service animal. Dogs whose only purpose is to provide comfort or emotional support to a resident do not qualify under the ADA.

Assistance Animals. Under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, housing providers, including manufactured housing communities, must make also "reasonable accommodations" for persons with disabilities requesting to have an assistance animal for emotional support, or to provide other forms of help.

Similar to service animals, assistance animals are not regarded as "pets," and residents cannot be required to sign a Pet Agreement for them. According to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (here), as assistance animal:

'_ is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability. Assistance animals perform many disability-related functions, including but not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to sounds, providing protection or rescue assistance, pulling a wheelchair, fetching items, alerting persons to impending seizures, or providing emotional support to persons with disabilities who have a disability-related need for such support. For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests (the law does not require) an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified. While dogs are the most common type of assistance animal, other animals can also be assistance animals."

Companion Animals. A "companion animal" is more of a generic term, and the role it serves is what determines which laws will apply.

Approval Requirements. You are correct that you may not refuse to permit an assistance animal or service animal based upon size or breed. This means that you may not, based upon an animal's "propensity" restrict a resident from having a particular animal. There must be some evidence of actual risk to persons or property, such as history of such conduct.

The one limitation where it appears there is some latitude, where the landlord's liability insurance carrier would increase the premium or deny coverage. However, according to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, even this issue could be problematic for landlords, unless they first sought, as a reasonable accommodation, to obtain another liability insurance carrier that did provide coverage. I suggest that if/when such issues arise in your community that you check first with your attorney to determine how to proceed. Better safe than sorry!

For a very good summary of reasonable accommodations under the federal law, go to: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/huddojstatement.pdf

[1] An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

See, http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

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.

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, but technically do not directly apply to private housing.
• 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, emotional support and service animals are not pets, and accordingly, pet rules do not strictly apply (such as requiring pet deposits).
• Service animals (or “assistance animals” under Oregon’s definitions) are required to be certified as such. Not so for emotional support animals. Nevertheless, all such animals are to serve the disability of the requesting resident. But getting a doctor’s letter, or that of another person in the medical profession is not that difficult.
• 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.)

Here is what HUD says in the above article (HUD footnotes omitted):

“For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests, neither the FHA nor Section 504[1] requires an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified.  While dogs are the most common type of assistance animal, other animals can also be assistance animals.

Housing providers are to evaluate a request for a reasonable accommodation to possess an assistance animal in a dwelling using the general principles applicable to all reasonable accommodation requests. After receiving such a request, the housing provider must consider the following:

1. Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability - i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?

1. Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance animal? In other words, does the animal work, provide assistance, perform tasks or services for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of a person's existing disability?

If the answer to question (l) or (2) is "no," then the FHA and Section 504 do not require a modification to a provider's "no pets" policy, and the reasonable accommodation request may be denied.

Where the answers to questions (1) and (2) are "yes," the FHA and Section 504 require the housing provider to modify or provide an exception to a "no pets" rule or policy to permit a person with a disability to live with and use an assistance animal(s) in all areas of the premises where persons are normally allowed to go, unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider's services. “(Emphasis added.)

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’t a “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’t really 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 that animal is on that short list, then you should propose another less aggressive animal. In discussing this with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon while drafting the reasonable accommodation request portions of MHCO’s form, they acknowledge the financial burden exception – however, suggested another step, i.e. finding an insurance carrier that would insure such aggressive animals if it was not overly expensive for the landlord to do so. I will leave extra step for discussion with your own attorney.

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’t apply, 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.

The take-away here is that landlord must deal with reasonable accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis. Each set of facts are different. Not long ago I had a park client who refused a reasonable accommodation request, because it was too outlandish. A complaint was filed with BOLI, and we butted heads for a while. Eventually, BOLI relented, largely because the resident was too unreliable. Landlords must remember to pick their shots. Some principles are worth defending, and others not. In this case we believed that the issue was worth defending, to send a message to the tenant, and others who might be waiting to see the outcome, before they stepped up to test the landlord.

Lastly, there are indications that HUD may be tightening the definitions and loopholes so that landlords do not continue dealing with either gamesmanship, or accepting the risk of a dangerous breed, just to avoid a fight.

[1] Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was the first disability civil rights law to be enacted in the United States. It prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in programs that receive federal financial assistance, and set the stage for enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 504 works together with the ADA and IDEA to protect children and adults with disabilities from exclusion, and unequal treatment in schools, jobs and the community. [See link here.]

 Published: Friday, February 24, 2012, 10:30 PM Updated: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 9:56 AM Helen Jung, The Oregonian By Helen Jung, The Oregonian The Oregonian

When the Sazykin family's 14-year-old son rode his scooter on pathways around the Wah Mai Terrace Apartments complex in Southeast Portland, the apartment manager fined his parents $20.

When they left their children's play furniture and other items out on the patio, the apartment manager issued a few warnings and then another $20 fine.

The family's actions violated apartment policies, according to a complaint filed last September in Multnomah County Circuit Court. But under an agreement with the state announced Friday, the apartment complex and its property management firm will pay nearly $65,000 to tenants, the state and a legal aid organization. They will have to ditch policies that tenants criticized as discriminating against families.

And they will have to install a playground structure.

"It's a really good (result) for families in Oregon," said Christina Dirks, who represented the Sazykins, one of several families who made claims against the apartment complex and property management firm Norris & Stevens. "It's helping to assure that families in our community have equal access to enjoy their rental housing."

Under the agreement, Wah Mai Terrace and Norris & Stevens, do not admit any wrongdoing.

Norris & Stevens representatives did not return a call for comment.

Jonathan Radmacher, an attorney for the Wah Mai Terrace owners, said the policies were never meant to be anti-children.

He noted that the apartment complex owners and property managers were quick to address the problems as soon as they were brought up.

The policy that barred tenants from storing items other than bikes and barbecue grills on their patios was to keep the look of the complex presentable and clean, Radmacher said. The policy that prohibited children from riding bikes, tricycles, Big Wheel-type toys, skateboards and rollerskates on the property was out of concern for older residents, he said.

"There are lots of places to play in the neighborhood," he said, noting Ventura Park and Floyd Light Middle School, both about a block or two away from the complex at SE 111th and SE Stark.

He criticized the state, saying that the apartment complex and property managers were not aware of the discrimination concerns until the state intervened and threatened them with tens of thousands of dollars in state legal fees. "I know my client would never want to have any policy that's discriminatory... They would always want that brought to their attention, and they would fix it," he said. About $35,000 of the settlement will go to six current and former tenants. Norris & Stevens and Wah Mai Terrace also must pay attorney fees and costs of $20,000 to the Oregon Department of Justice and $9,816.36 to Legal Aid Services of Oregon.

Representatives for the two entities must participate in training on fair housing practices.

They also cannot try to collect fines and other debts that were levied against tenants under the potentially unlawful" policies.

Norris & Stevens

Answer: This is an issue that the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act (“ORLTA” or the “Act”) is not fully equipped to address. Nowhere in the Act is there a clear answer. But connecting some dots, I think we can arrive at a logical answer. • Technically, the 18-year old is not a tenant under the manufactured housing park (“MHP”) side of the Act, since he does not “own” the home. At best, he is a “tenant” under the non-MHP side of the law – he could be considered a month-to-month tenant, and therefore subject to the 30-day right of termination by the landlord. Assuming this, what is the landlord to do? First, do the rules permit subleasing? If not, he could be compelled to leave. • Second, rent should not be accepted from him until this situation is clarified and a solution reached. • Third, if the landlord is willing to accept the 18-year old under these circumstances (i.e. assuming he goes into title), he could be offered a monthly tenancy, subject to his qualifying under the community rules, etc. which, of course, require the background check, etc. • Lastly, again assuming the landlord is willing to accept him, a guarantee by the parents might be in order. • Keep in mind that since he was not a signatory to the original rental agreement since he was a minor, the fact that he is the only person remaining at the home, technically makes him an authorized occupant that has not yet been approved by park management. This is your strongest card, and you should use it to fashion the solution that best fits your needs. All of these things require some legal guidance, but the answer to the above question is that the landlord, by acting carefully, should be able to protect his position and either require the 18-year old to vacate or qualify in all respects as a new resident (assuming he goes into ownership of the home). In all cases a background check is not only appropriate, but essential.