Search

According to the American Psychological Association, “Don't let your fear of meddling in someone else's business stop you from reporting your suspicions. You could be saving someone's life. . . ”

You can help. You do not need to evict. You can help your abused resident oust the abusive caregiver immediately.  You can report, help with “move-out” orders, “stay-away” orders, and other relief for your abused residents in your parks. 

■ California Mobilehome Residency Law’s 

Absence of Protection for Seniors Can be 

Supplemented with Management Help (E.g., 

Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection

Act (EADACPA), Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)

     The common wisdom is that evicting an abusive co-occupant, even a criminal, is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. But the elder subject to an abusive caregiver, or other abusive household members, can seek an order to oust them by court order and without notice. The California Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code §§798, et seq.) (“MRL”) is no help here. The MRL is a prime enabler of elder abuse by its “hands off” policy to any occupants, and its unintended consequences welcome every predatory opportunist who cajoles his or her way into a senior’s coach. This while management is handcuffed from interceding with prevention, remedies, or even effective detection. But if we choose, we can do plenty to help the resident once we know.

     Evictions take forever.  Management must always wait for a 60 day notice to expire (once prepared and served) to even file suit to evict the abuser. That 60 day period enables the abuser to intimidate, terrify and coerce witnesses not to testify. Horrified, residents take shelter, lock themselves in and become prisoners in their homes. When WMA introduced legislation to evict such violent criminals, the State Senate Judiciary Committee killed the bill: not enoughreason to give management this remedy. So, the park owner’s hands remain tied for 60 days after notice of termination of possession based on outrageous abuse or even dangerous felonies (all on a “substantial annoyance” grounds) if anyone will testify as to the annoyance. But an at-risk elderly frail resident can go to court nowand obtain a “move-out” order without notice. We, as management, can educate and help.

     Move-Out Order Issue NOW- Without Notice.  In summary, management can assistthe abused or harassed senior and help get to court and get the abusive caregiver out NOW. Many residents cannot afford a lawyer, and often, it is the family that is responsible for the abuse. Management can do more than report. Maybe senior protective services will respond, maybe not. But court forms are designed for non-lawyers. We can help with these preprinted forms–and attend court with the resident, offer to be a witness, and also report to the police, County agencies and other family. As for courts, there are no filing fees or service costs.

     As the numbers of elder victims climbs, understanding management options will become a customary “best” management practice: a sign of good quality management, and a reflection of care and concern for frail and vulnerable residents. Actively enhancing lifestyle and atmosphere has always been a hallmark of the manufactured housing industry. 

     We can help end pain and misery to elder abuse victims of caregivers, family and deceitful predators. There are ways to bring immediate relief to desperate, life-threatening situations which usually are never detected, and which the Mobilehome Residency Law does not allow a park owner to initially prevent.

■ The Scope of the Mushrooming Epidemic:

For Every Reported Elder Abuse Case, 24 More are Unreported.

     The New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study found that for every case known to programs and agencies, 24 were unreported. Another reports that 1 in 10 older adults report emotional, physical, or sexual mistreatment, or neglect. Often, physical, emotional or psychological abuse accompanies financial abuse. Neglect and abandonment, for example, when the kids get a power of attorney and ability to withdraw money. 

     For about 40 years now, from 55+ to “all-age” parks, owners and management bring me problems that they observe or their residents bring to them. This is because of genuine concern, not out of sense of legal duty or obligation.  Because they care.       

■ Warning Signs and Indicators of Caregiver Elder Abuse.

     Watch for the following from your residents. There are signs that elder abuse may be occurring at the hands of the caregivers residing on the space. Bear in mind that the homeowner may not be capable of telling us of the abuse. The elder may also be ashamed, fearful of retaliation or punishment, or somehow assuming some of the blame for his or her own condition. 

     Who are The Exploitive and Abusers?  They May be Closer Than They Appear.

■        Family members, abusive children, nieces, nephews, past or present paramours, homeless 

■        Caretaker/caregiver/care custodian - any person who has the care, custody, or control of or who stands in  position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.

■        Banks, mortgage brokers, lenders

■        Insurance companies and their agents

■        Financial advisors and life agents

■        Trust mills

■        Real estate agents, title and escrow companies

■        Attorneys (and others holding themselves out as having legal expertise–tax preparers, paralegals, assistants, J.D. graduates)

■        Scams – lotteries, sweepstakes

■        Home repair, unsolicited work

■        Sweetheart scams

SUMMARY OF SIGNS OF ELDER ABUSE

Physical Abuse

■ Unexplained signs of injury such as bruises, welts, scars, broken bones or sprains

■ Report of drug overdose or apparent failure to take medication regularly

■  Signs of being restrained, such as rope marks on wrists

■  Caregiver's refusal to allow you to see the person alone

■ Physical or chemical restraints for caregiver's convenience 

■ Repeated unexplained injuries

Emotional Abuse

■ Threatening, belittling, or controlling caregiver behavior that you witness

■ Behavior from the elder that mimics dementia, such as rocking, sucking, or mumbling

■ Uncommunicative and unresponsive

■ Unreasonably fearful or suspicious 

■ Lack of interest in social contacts

■ Evasive or isolated 

■ Unexplained or uncharacteristic changes in behavior

■ Unexplained venereal disease or genital infections

■ Torn, stained, underclothing

Financial Exploitation

■ Significant or unauthorized withdrawals from the elder's accounts

■ Sudden changes in the elder's financial condition

■  Items or cash missing from the household

■ Suspicious changes in mobilehome title, legal owner, wills, power of attorney, titles, and policies

■ Addition of names to the elder's signature card

■ Unpaid bills or lack of medical care, although the elder has enough money to pay for them

■ Financial activity the elder couldn't have done, such as an ATM withdrawal by a bedridden account holder

■ Unnecessary services, goods, or subscriptions

■ New caregiver cars in the driveway; new high frequency of deliveries

■  Evidence of inadequate care when bills are paid in full

Elders May Contribute to Abuse, Secreting of Abuse, Fail to Recognize or Report

■  May lack cognitive ability to recognize abuse and/or their rights to safety and protection 

■ May be in denial; distorted view of treatment

■ May not have functioning neuro-pathways; not feeling normal pain, discomfort

■ May be incapacitated– unable to message out

■ Are often reluctant to report or prosecute

■ “Report me and I will put you in a home”

■ Afraid of removal from home

■ Fear of retribution

■ Dependence on others to assist with activities of daily living and personal care;

■  Communication or physical impairments which may limit ability to verbally or physically defend against a perpetrator and disclose abuse

■ FIVE (5) IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO CONSIDER NOW:

★  CONTACT FIRST RESPONDERS: USUALLY, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

                        ■             Adult Protective Services (“APS”) can provide investigations, needs assessments, remedial and preventative social work activities, food, transportation, emergency shelter.

■          Cross report to police for criminal restraining orders.

■          State mandates that each County establish a 24/7 emergency response adult protective services program to take and investigate reports of abuse of an elder or a dependent adult. Cal. W&I Code §15763)

■          “Protective services” include investigations, needs assessments, remedial and preventive social work activities; the necessary tangible resources such as food, transportation, emergency shelter, and in-home protective care; the use of multi-disciplinary teams; and a system in which reporting of abuse can occur on a 24- hour basis. (Cal. W&I Code §15760).

Keep Adult Protective Services Honest–Insist They Do Their Jobs: Mandatory Effort to Investigate

■          When an allegation of abuse of an elder or dependent adult is reported; and,

■              The agency social worker has reason to believe an elder or dependent adult has suffered or is at substantial risk of abuse pursuant to  Cal. W&I Code §15630; 

■          The social worker is required to attempt to obtain consent to:

–          enter and meet privately with the elder or dependent adult in the residence or dwelling in which the elder or dependent adult resides, 

–          without the presence of the person's caretaker, attendant, or family or household member, unless the person requests the presence of the attendant, care giver, or family member, or refuses to meet with the social worker. (Cal. W&I Code §15762)

■          APS action requires victim consent unless a Penal Code violation has been alleged. Cal.  W&I Code § 15636)

■          If the victim is incapacitated and cannot legally give or deny consent to protective services, APS may initiate a petition for temporary conservatorship.

★  HELP RESIDENT GET ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY OUST THE ABUSER. 

The courts make the applications, declarations and orders available as consumer friendly forms. No lawyers needed. Lawyers may be helpful in many circumstances. But do not let the absence of a lawyer stop a valid  application to the court from being made. 

Help the resident obtain a Move-Out Order (“Elder Abuse Restraining Order”) under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Originally, the Elder Abuse Act was designed to encourage the reporting of abuse and neglect of elders and dependent adults and continues to be a major component of the Elder Abuse Act as it stands in its current form today.

            The Elder Abuse Act now permits and even requires certain heightened remedies subject to statutory criteria and limitations, including attorney's fees, punitive damages, pain and suffering damages even after the abused elder's death, and fees for a conservator who successfully brings an elder abuse claim.

■          EADACPA allows a court to issue an order protecting an elder or dependent adult from further abuse by an individual including ordering a move-out from the property.  Cal. W&I Code §15657.03(c) provides that an order may be issued with or without notice, to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of abuse, if a declaration shows, to the satisfaction of the court, proof of a past act or acts of abuse of the petitioning elder or dependent adult. 

The evidence of past abuse is sufficient even without a particularized showing of evidence or risk that  wrongful acts will continue or be repeated.

■          Does Your Resident Qualify? In order to obtain an Elder Abuse Restraining Order, or EARO, the person requesting the order:

■          Must be an elder or dependent adult;

■          Must have suffered abuse.

■               An “Elder” is one who is 65 years of age or older.

■          For a Move Out Order, Must be a Legal or equitable Owner, and Defendant cannot be sole owner. 

■          Also included is the “Dependent Adult”, defined as a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict the person's ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights.

■          If the Resident hires counsel, there is an entitlement to attorney’s fees. No reason park owner cannot supply counsel with reimbursement agreement. There is a right to recovery of attorney’s fees.

■          Does Your Resident Qualify for a Move Out Order?  The court may issue a restraining order excluding the abusive caregiver (including family members) from the resident’s home on a showing of the following:

■          Proof that the resident has a right of possession.

■          Proof that the abusive caregiver assaulted or threatens to assault the resident or other named family or household member including a conservator.

■          Proof that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the person to be protected.

■           After the restraining order is issued (without notice), the court may issue, after notice and hearing, an order excluding a person from a residence or dwelling if the court finds that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the petitioner, other named family or household member of the petitioner, or conservator of the petitioner.

■          An order excluding the abusive caregiver from the dwelling is permitted, except not if legal or equitable title to, or lease of, the residence is in the sole name of the abuser, or is in the name of the party to be excluded and any other party besides the petitioner. Cal. W&I Code §15657.03 (b) (3) (B).

The courts provide pre-printed forms. This makes it easier to go to court and get the orders. The courts are familiar with the forms and often provide relief with the right language. Of course, management can assist in the preparation of the papers, if the resident is unable to do so in a winning fashion. 

The law states that (Cal. W&I Code §15657.03(d)) on filing a petition for protective order, “the petitioner may obtain a temporary restraining order.” The law says that an injunction is available without notice if:

■          It appears that great or irreparable injury will result before the matter can be heard on notice. 

■          The resident or his or her attorney certifies one of the following: 

–          That within a reasonable time prior to the application the applicant informed the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney at what time and where the application would be made. 

–          That the applicant in good faith attempted but was unable to inform the opposing party and the opposing party's attorney, specifying the efforts made to contact them. 

–          That for reasons specified the applicant should not be required to so inform the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney.

Note, that the court may grant a an elder abuse restraining order on a preponderance of the evidence.

★         HELPKICK-OUT THE ABUSER!!

(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT– DVPA). 

Your resident may seek a DVPA “move-out” order to immediately oust the abusive, dangerous or harassing caregiver. The “kick out” order forces an ouster of an abusive caregiver.  An order can be issued to restrain contact either directly or indirectly:

■         By mail or otherwise, 

■         Coming within a specified distance of, or

■         Disturbing the peace of the other party.  Cal.Family Code §6320, 6211.

            The law provides that a court may issue an order, without notice, to exclude a party from the family dwelling, the dwelling of the other party, the common dwelling of both parties, or the dwelling of the person who has care, custody, and control of a child to be protected from domestic violence. “Domestic violence” is abuse perpetrated against spouses, co-habitants, children and blood relatives within the second degree.  But the order may issues regardless of the owner of the property. 

            Types of “domestic violence protective orders” includes an order enjoining specific acts of abuse (Cal.Family Code §6320), excluding a person from a dwelling (Cal.Family Code §6321) and enjoining other specified behavior. (Cal.Family Code §6322).

■         For an order excluding a party from a dwelling, the following proof is required:

--         The resident has a right to possess the mobilehome; 

--         The resident’s spouse or significant other has assaulted or threatened to assault the abused resident,  child, or any person that is under the resident’s care, custody, and control;

--         If the exclusion order were not granted, physical OR emotional harm would otherwise result. 

While title ownership is not required, still, the relationship to the victim is a requirement must be established.  The resident must reasonably show that if the order were not granted, that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the other party, to any person under the care, custody, and control of the other party, or to any minor child of the parties or of the other party. (Cal.Family Code §6321)

■   What is  “Abuse”within the meaning of the DVPA? (Cal.Family Code §§6203 (a), (b), (c), (d).)

--         Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; or

--          Sexual assault; or

--         “Reasonable apprehension” of imminent serious bodily injury to person or

 another; or

--         Engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined

 (Cal. Family Code  §6320).

Thus, the requisite “abuse” need not be actual infliction of physical injury or assault.

★         HELPGET A HARASSMENT INJUNCTION!! 

CAL. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §527.6

Civil injunctive scheme has a separate procedure to prevent civil harassment to prevent unlawful violence, threats of violence and suffering of emotional distress. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §527.6).

■   Court forms are available: ttp://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ch100.pdf

■   Civil injunction requires demonstrating imminent irreparable harm, probability of success on the merits and a balancing of equities. An elder who has suffered financial abuse may seek a protective order, including a TRO:

            --         Enjoining someone from abusing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, or harassing the petitioning elder,

            --         Preventing the destruction of the elder’s personal property, and

            --         Excluding someone from the elder’s home.

            ■   Family members residing in the home with the elder and caregivers can be added as protected parties to receive the full protection of the temporary restraining order.

★         HELPARREST A “SHORT TERM” ABUSER, GET JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION FOR LONGER TERM ABUSER (CAL. CIVIL CODE §1946.5)

■              If there is a single lodger in the home:  Your resident can seek to oust the abusive occupant, boarder, lodger or caregiver.  Cal. Civil Code §1946.5 applies, only, if requirements are satisfied.

            --         The mobilehome must also be occupied by the resident; 

            --         The resident retains a right of access to all areas of the mobilehome and have overall control; 

            --         The abusive person is the sole, other, occupant, and 

            --         The abusive person must have contracted either for room, or room and board.

            ■         If all of the above conditions apply, the law prescribes an expedited procedure to bring about the removal of the lodger.The resident may terminate tenancy by serving written Notice of termination. The length of time must be equal to the tenancy period (e.g., 30 days for a month-to-month).  Note the occupant has no tenancy rights and is not subject to the MRL. 

            ■         At the expiration of the required Notice period, the resident must file an action for unlawful detainer. For short term occupants, the occupant can also be arrested if required conditions are met. A private person's arrest is authorized, on condition, for violation of Penal Code §602.3 (an infraction). 

            ■         In summary, if the situation involves a single occupant, the resident can make a private person arrest for Cal. Penal Code §602.3 in lieu of proceeding through the eviction process.  Penal Code§602.3 states:

  (a) A lodger who is subject to Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code and who remains on the premises of an owner-occupied dwelling unit after receipt of a Notice terminating the hiring, and expiration of the Notice period, provided in Section 1946.5 of the Civil Code is guilty of an infraction and may, pursuant to Section 837, be arrested for the offense by the owner, or in the event the owner is represented by a court-appointed conservator, executor, or administrator, by the owner's representative. Notwithstanding Section 853.5, the requirement of that section for release upon written promise to appear Shall not preclude an assisting peace officer from removing the Person from the owner-occupied dwelling unit.

(b) The removal of a lodger from a dwelling unit by the owner pursuant to subdivision (a) is not a forcible entry under the provisions of Section 1159 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Shall not be a basis for civil liability under that section.

            * * * 

            (f) This section applies only to owner-occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. Nothing in this section shall be construed to determine or affect in any way the rights of persons residing as lodgers in an owner-occupied dwelling where more than one lodger resides.

■              No “Good Samaritan” standing:  Management is not entitled to be a party to assist the resident. But we may be of assistance and help save a life. 

There is no “Good Samaritan” standing to help an abused senior escape elder abuse. A park owner cannot assert claims directly for residents. Management can report claims and keep up the pressure to insist on positive and prompt action. As revealed by various cases of recent elder abuse, not even the agencies touting their dedication to ending elder abuse take any action in very clear cases. 

There are limits as to who may have standing to bring an elder abuse action on behalf of an alleged victim during the elder’s lifetime.

            The EADACPA supports third-party standing for certain representativesto bring an elder abuse claim on behalf of an abused elder while he or she is still alive. Such as conservators. But not many others, including concerned family members. There is also no “Good Samaritan” standing, which would allow concerned persons to intercede and seek relief.

★         YOUR RESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND RETURN OF PROPERTY

WRONGFULLY TAKEN–ITSELF AN ACT OF ELDER ABUSE¹

■         The elder or a “representative of the elder” may demand the return of real or personal property from a person or entity who took, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained, or assisted in those acts when the elder or dependent adult lacked capacity or was of unsound mind.

■        The failure to return the property on demand gives rise to a separate claim for financial elder abuse, even if the original taking was not financial elder abuse within the meaning of EADACPA.

★        DEFINITIONS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, FURTHER INFORMATION 

              ■  What is Elder Abuse??  

Cal. W&I Code§15600 et seq.defines elder abuse as physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction or other treatment resulting in physical harm or pain or mental suffering, or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. This definition applies to elders and dependent adults. Cal.W&I Code§15610.63:  

As defined by Penal Code, “physical abuse” includes: 

■  Assault, battery, sexual assault, battery or rape, 

■  Prolonged or continual deprivation of food or water,

■  Use of physical or chemical restraints for punishment,

    convenience, or without or beyond the scope of the doctor's order.

■  What Is “Neglect” And “Self-Neglect”?

“Neglect”means either of the following:

■ The negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.

■  The negligent failure of an elder or dependent adult to exercise that degree of self care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.

■  Neglect includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

■  Failure to assist in personal hygiene, or in the provision of food, clothing, or shelter.

■  Failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs.

■  Failure to protect from health and safety hazards.

■  Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.

■ Failure of an elder or dependent adult to satisfy the needs specified in paragraphs (1) to (4) for himself or herself as a result of poor cognitive functioning, mental limitation, substance abuse, or chronic poor health.

         ■  What is “Isolation” ? 

“Isolation”means any of the following:

■ Acts intentionally committed for the purpose of preventing, and that do serve to prevent, an elder or dependent adult from receiving his or her mail or telephone calls.

■  Telling a caller or prospective visitor that an elder or dependent adult is not present, or does not wish to talk with the caller, or does not wish to meet with the visitor where the statement is false, is contrary to the express wishes of the elder or the dependent adult, whether he or she is competent or not, and is made for the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from having contact with family, friends, or concerned persons.

■ False imprisonment, as defined in Section 236 of the Penal Code.

■ Physical restraint of an elder or dependent adult, for the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from meeting with visitors.

         ■  What is “Financial Elder Abuse”?

“Financial abuse”of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:

■  Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

■ Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

■ Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence.

■ A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.

■ A person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.

■  Watch for “Powers of Attorney”  as Another Form of Elder Abuse

Powers of attorney are a frequent tool of abuse. These are low cost, easy to execute, can grant very broad powers and available on the internet without the need for legal counsel. The “POA” often grants the agent the same broad general powers of a Trustee but, unlike revocable trusts, generally lack provisions defining duties owed by the agent to the principal.  Because general POAs are not tied to particular assets, there may be multiple conflicting instruments empowering multiple agents.

■  Care-Giver Cannot Take from Estate of Deceased Resident 

California  law prohibits bequests to caregivers–they are barred from receiving anything from a homeowner.   A caregiver cannot move in with the hope of convincing residents to give them property after death. Cal. Probate Code §§21360 -21392. A caregiver, or "care custodian,"  means any ". . . person providing health services or social services. . . " Cal. W&I Code §15610.17(y). Fraud or undue influence is presumed if a bequest is made. Cal. Probate Code §21380(a)(3). The bequest is invalid.

Caregivers Can Steal Our Residents Blind (and do). Do they try to be signed on title for a "quick flip" of the mobilehome? Nothing stops that. And management must approve the buyer and not interfere with a sale. 

■ Conclusion: Make A Difference 

The expansive rights of “care-givers” and “companions” is a product of a pro-mobilehome-resident legislature that actively prevents park owners from ejecting even serious criminals. Moreover, the potential for resident abuse is drowned out by claims that owners will abuse such a remedy. So, the needy continue to suffer for sake of appeasement of tenants, who oppose anythinga park owner proposes. Usually, we do not evict without resident support. 

Plainly, the probability of resident abuse increases as the numbers of retirees grows in leaps and bounds. These people live in your parks. The additional occupant has an open invitation for interloping, domineering, and controlling the frail resident.  All these visitors–usually abusive family--are empowered to quash the free will of your frail resident, take the check book and lock them away. And the MRL provides no management rights to approve, affect or detect elder abuse. Management has no ability to intervene even if requested by a resident.

Watch for signs of elder abuse. Report it. You could be saving someone's life. Remember: The resident has five (5) options which can be pursued as soon as discovered.

Management’s powers of observation are therefore needed to report and persistently complain if needed. When objective evidence tells your instincts that something is “just not right,” report it and ask questions. Legally, is there a duty to do so? Absolutely not. But that is not us. We are in business to serve.

Answer: Bad news on both fronts. Let me answer your second question first. You may NOT share in a real estate commission unless you have your own Oregon real estate license. This prohibition against commission sharing even applies between real estate agents and the homeowner they represent. Here is the applicable Oregon Law:

ORS 696.290 [Sharing compensation with or paying finders fee to unlicensed person prohibited]

(1)A real estate licensee may not offer, promise, allow, give, pay or rebate, directly or indirectly, any part or share of the licensees compensation arising or accruing from any real estate transaction or pay a finders fee to any person who is not a real estate licensee licensed under ORS 696.022 (Licensing system for real estate brokers and property managers). However, a real estate broker or principal real estate broker may pay a finders fee or a share of the licensees compensation on a cooperative sale when the payment is made to a licensed real estate broker in another state or country, provided that the state or country in which that broker is licensed has a law permitting real estate brokers to cooperate with real estate brokers or principal real estate brokers in this state and that such nonresident real estate broker does not conduct in this state any acts constituting professional real estate activity and for which compensation is paid. If a country does not license real estate brokers, the payee must be a citizen or resident of the country and represent that the payee is in the business of real estate brokerage in the other country. A real estate broker associated with a principal real estate broker may not accept compensation from any person other than the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated at the time. A principal real estate broker may not make payment to the real estate broker of another principal real estate broker except through the principal real estate broker with whom the real estate broker is associated. Nothing in this section prevents payment of compensation earned by a real estate broker or principal real estate broker while licensed, because of change of affiliation or inactivation of the brokers license.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prohibits a real estate licensee who has a written property management agreement with the owner of a residential building or facility from authorizing the payment of a referral fee, rent credit or other compensation to an existing tenant of the owner or licensee, or a former tenant if the former tenant resided in the building or facility within the previous six months, as compensation for referring new tenants to the licensee.

(3)(a) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prevents an Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker from sharing compensation on a cooperative nonresidential real estate transaction with a person who holds an active real estate license in another state or country, provided:

(A)Before the out-of-state real estate licensee performs any act in this state that constitutes professional real estate activity, the licensee and the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker agree in writing that the acts constituting professional real estate activity conducted in this state will be under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon broker and will comply with all applicable Oregon laws;

(B)The cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker accompanies the out-of-state real estate licensee and the client during any property showings or negotiations conducted in this state; and

(C)All property showings and negotiations regarding nonresidential real estate located in this state are conducted under the supervision and control of the cooperating Oregon real estate broker or principal real estate broker.

(b) As used in this subsection, nonresidential real estate means real property that is improved or available for improvement by commercial structures or five or more residential dwelling units.

As for requiring that residents use your preferred agent, that too is a No-No. Here is that statute [I've underscored the applicable provision in subsection (1).] The term "services" can clearly be applied to real estate brokerage services, and as such, I cannot recommend that you impose that condition on residents when they want to sell their home.

90.525 [Unreasonable conditions of rental or occupancy prohibited.]

(1) No landlord shall impose conditions of rental or occupancy which unreasonably restrict the tenant or prospective tenant in choosing a fuel supplier, furnishings, goods, services or accessories.

(2) No landlord of a facility shall require the prospective tenant to purchase a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer or one of a group of dealers.

(3) No landlord renting a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall give preference to a prospective tenant who purchased a manufactured dwelling or floating home from a particular dealer.

(4) No manufactured dwelling or floating home dealer shall require, as a condition of sale, a purchaser to rent a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home in a particular facility or one of a group of facilities. [Formerly 91.895; 1991 c.844 _7]

Answer.  By way of disclaimer, ORS 90.630 was amended in the 2019 Legislative Session, and this bifurcated violation scheme (separate/distinct conduct vs. repetitive/ongoing conduct) is brand new. MHCO’s 2020 violation forms make an effort to deal with this, but largely by paraphrasing the statute. In short, the concept and statute can be confusing, as your question implies.

Although I did not sit on the Landlord-Tenant Coalition meetings discussing this change, I believe I understand the rationale for doing so, which is very legitimate: Before the 2019 legislation, if a person violated the rental agreement, the rules, or a law or ordinance, the only recourse was to issue a 30-day notice requiring that the act (e.g. noise, unruly conduct) or omission (e.g. failure to maintain the space) cease by the end of the 30^thday.  While that approach works satisfactorily in most instances, there was always an open question whether, on single violations (e.g. yelling at the neighbors) could reoccur for the next 29 days and stop on the 30^th, thereby avoiding termination of the tenancy, since it was “cured” within 30 days.

I always maintained that the statute permitted non-curable termination if the misconduct re-occurred within the 30 days, but the statute was not clear on the point, and I suspect others did not agree with me.

So the purpose of the 2019 amendment to ORS 90.630 was, in part, I believe, to address repeat violations within the 30-day period. To the extent it addresses the conundrum of allowing multiple isolated violations to continue for 29 days without termination, I believe it did a very good job.

Now to the new statute, ORS 90.630, which seems to raise the question you’re asking – since repetitive or continuing violations cannot involve pets or assistance animals; does that mean you cannot use Form 43 for an unauthorized pet?

My interpretation of the statute is that an “unauthorized pet” does not fall into the same category as a “pet” or “assistance animal” that has been previously approved by management. In the latter case, management should have a Pet Agreement (but not for the assistance animal) governing violations which would trigger a fine.[1]

So I believe you coulduse either notice here. But since treating it as a continuing violation would permit the offender to keep the animal in the community for 29 days and remove it by the 30^thday to avoid termination of the tenancy. I don’t believe that is what you want.

My view is that the preferred approach is to treat the violation as a single event: i.e. bringing the pet into the community when it was never approved.  This gives you the fastest recourse in getting the pet removed, at the risk of a noncurable termination of the tenancy.

This is my opinion only, and based upon what I believe to be the rationale of the revised ORS 90.630; there are others that might disagree. So check with your own legal advisor for a definitive opinion.

Answer: By your question, it appears that your community is not sub-metered. If it were, the owners of the home would likely recognize the problem and immediately and fix it.

In my experience when water is included as a part of the base rent, most owners really don't care, and don't check. But when the community institutes a sub-metering program, everyone becomes an overnight conservationist. Sub-metering is a win-win for everyone; the landlord saves money in not having to pay for wasted water, and the residents save in (a) controlling their own water bills, and (b) not having to suffer needless rent increases to recapture the cost of wasted water.

Now to your questions. Clearly, if water is visibly running out of the home, the tenants should be notified and told to fix the problem. They are responsible for their own homes.

As for the less obvious leaking problems, the only way to find out is to survey the tenants on the issue; e.g. do they hear the toilet leaking, for example.[1]Same question for faucets. Next, what about under the home? Has anyone checked lately? I have heard of management offering to do inspections under the home for free, as a part of instituting a submetering program.

But can you require residents take these proactive steps, especially hiring someone to inspect under the home. Except for the rules regarding the siting of home on a space, there are likely no regulations that mandate such action on an ongoing basis - at least if there is no present evidence of leaking. If there is evidence, ORS 90.740 can be relied upon to secure compliance, if nothing can be found in the rules or rental agreement:

90.740 Tenant obligations. A tenant shall:

(4)Except as provided by the rental agreement:

(a)Use the rented space and the facility common areas in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended;

(e)Install and maintain storm water drains on the roof of the dwelling or home and connect the drains to the drainage system, if any;

(f)Use electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems;

If the rules do not contain such a provision, consider amending them to add language to address the issue. Rule changes can be done in a fairly straightforward manner. See, ORS 90.610. Alternatively, even if submetering is not addressed in your rules, you can unilaterally add it to your rental agreements, as a "Plan B", if you are unsuccessful in implementing the necessary rules.

[1]From the City of Portland website here: "How to check for toilet leaks: Lift of the toilet tank lid. Place 1 dye tablet in the toilet tank. Do not flush. Wait 15 minutes (or more) without flushing. Check the water in the bowl of the tank. If color appears in the bowl, the toilet has a leak."

Answer: [Note: This answer presumes that the landlord has legally declared the abandonment, and following the statute regarding issuance of the 45-day letter. It also presumes that there are no liens on the home, since they would have prior right to determine what happens.]

Interestingly, I find nothing in the abandonment statute [ORS 90.675]that prohibits the tenant from selling the home during the 45-day period following the landlord's issuance of the 45-day letter. In fact, I believe that possibility was contemplated when the statute was drafted and/or amended. [My answer might be different if the tenant sold the home after expiration of the 45-day letter, since the statute says that under that circumstance the home is "conclusively presumed" to be abandoned. To me this means that the tenant had nothing to convey. But we'll deal with that issue another time.]

So the real issue is not with the abandonment statute, but with ORS 90.680, which deals with on-site sales of the manufactured home. In relevant part, the statute provides as follows:

1. If the new purchaser wants to live in the home, prior to a sale, they '_ must submit to the landlord a complete and accurate written application for occupancy of the dwelling or home as a tenant after the sale is finalized";
2. They may not occupy the space or the home until after the prospective purchaser is accepted by the landlord as a tenant;
3. If the sale is not by a lienholder [it wasn'] the prospective purchaser '_must pay in full all rents, fees, deposits or charges owed by the tenant *** prior to the landlord's acceptance of the prospective purchaser as a tenant";
4. The landlord must accept or reject the prospective purchaser's application within seven days following the day the landlord receives a complete and accurate written application. If a tenant has not previously given the landlord the 10 days' notice, this period is extended to 10 days;
5. The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant;
6. The following apply if a landlord does not require a prospective purchaser to submit an application for occupancy as a tenant:
   • The landlord waives any right to bring an action against the tenant under the rental agreement for breach of the landlord's right to establish conditions upon and approve a prospective purchaser of the tenant's dwelling or home;
   • The prospective purchaser, upon completion of the sale, may occupy the dwelling or home as a tenant under the same conditions and terms as the tenant who sold the dwelling or home; and
   • If the prospective purchaser becomes a new tenant, the landlord may not impose conditions or terms on the tenancy that are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the seller's rental agreement unless the new tenant agrees in writing.

So in this case, the landlord should immediately contact the new buyer, notify them that if they intend to occupy the home, they must submit an application for tenancy and bring current all unpaid accrued rents, etc. They may not occupy the home or space until they have done so and been approved as a tenant.

If the purchaser is a dealer, or intending to flip the home to another prospective buyer/tenant, these same requirements would apply. Although this may require a legal opinion before proceeding, if the current buyer intends to remove the home, I would consider asserting a possessory lien on the home [i.e. it cannot be removed until payment of the past due rents, etc.] Note this is not "legal advice" so you must secure an opinion from your own counsel.

Answer: This is a timely and important question. In March 2023 HB 2001 was enacted, which reinstated some of the earlier Pandemic tenant protections including restoring the 10-day and 13- day period in nonpayment of rent notices. It also enacted a new notice that must accompany it.[1]

Also, HB 2001 adopted a new expandeddefinition of the term “Nonpayment”:

“Nonpayment” means the nonpayment of a payment that is due to a landlord, including apayment of rent, late charges, utility or service charges or any other charge or fee as describedin the rental agreement or ORS 90.140, 90.302, 90.315, 90.392, 90.394, 90.560 to 90.584 or90.630.[2] “Nonpayment” does not include payments owed by a tenant for damages to the premises.

Of importance to the above rent-tender question is the following provision in HB 2001:

2. A court shall enter a judgment dismissing a complaint for possession that is based ona termination notice for nonpayment if the court determines that:
   1. The landlord failed to deliver the notice as required under subsection (2) of this section;
   2. The landlord caused the tenant to not tender rent, including as a result of the landlord’s failure to reasonably participate with a rental assistance program; or
   3. The tenant has tendered or caused to be tendered rental assistance or any other payment covering the nonpayment amount owed under the termination notice for nonpayment. (Emphasis added.)

So, to the question of whether the resident must pay the landlord’s filing fee after having to file the eviction the answer is a “Yes.” See, ORS 90.395(5):

(5) Notwithstanding ORS 90.302, a landlord may charge a tenant for filing fees paid under ORS 105.130, if the complaint for possession is dismissed under subsection (3)(c) of this section. Payment of the fees is not a prerequisite for dismissal under subsection (3)(c) of this section. [2023 c.13 §55]

But this does not mean the landlord should refuse the rent-tender unless it is accompanied by the filing fee.

The Take-Away.  It is my opinion[3] that HB 201 results in the following approach for MHP landlords:

1. If rent is not paid after the time prescribed in the Nonpayment of Rent Notice, and before filing the eviction, the landlord should make one last reasonable effort such as a call, visit or email, to see if the resident will pay immediately. It should not include threats or intimidation. If the resident pays, the landlord will have a right to assess late charges if provided in the rental agreement, but should accept the rent even if the late charge is not tendered.

2. If the FED is filed and the tenant pays before going to court, the landlord should accept it even if the landlord’s filing fee is not reimbursed.

3. If the tenant tenders rent at the first appearance in court the landlord should accept it even if the filing fee is not reimbursed.

4. Recovery of the landlords filing fees for the FED, late fees, and other “nonpayments” (as defined above) can be sought by following the default procedures in ORS 90.630. (I cannot forecast what the FED judge might do if the matter goes past the first appearance, but my suspicion is that unless the tenant demands a trial, the court would dismiss if rent paid at the time. Whether a judgment of restitution is issued if rent is not paid at that time is up to the judge; I would foresee a judgment of dismissal if paid the same day or a similar result to avoid the eviction and still get the rent paid.)

[1] Note there are several additional provisions including new first-appearance requirements; mandating landlord declarations for default judgments; changes to first appearance scheduling; and subject to specific court findings, an annual setting-aside of eviction-related judgments occurring after January 1, 2014; and new rent assistance fund provisions.

[2] ORS 90.630 is the statute important to MHP landlords, since it deals with defaults (other than nonpayment of rent) in manufactured housing communities.

[3] This article is not legal advice, It is my opinion only, based upon my reading of HB 2001. Members should check with their own legal counsel.

Answer:  By your question, it appears that your community is not submetered.  If it were, the owners of the home would likely recognize the problem and immediately and fix it.

In my experience when water is included as a part of the base rent, most owners really don’t care, and don’t check. But when the community institutes a submetering program, everyone becomes an overnight conservationist. Submetering is a win-win for everyone; the landlord saves money in not having to pay for wasted water, and the residents save in (a) controlling their own water bills, and (b) not having to suffer needless rent increases to recapture the cost of wasted water.

Now to your questions. Clearly, if water is visibly running out of the home, the tenants should be notified and told to fix the problem. They are responsible for their own homes.

As for the less obvious leaking problems, the only way to find out is to survey the tenants on the issue; e.g. do they hear the toilet leaking, for example.[1] Same question for faucets. Next, what about under the home? Has anyone checked lately? I have heard of management offering to do inspections under the home for free, as a part of instituting a submetering program.

But can you require residents take these proactive steps, especially hiring someone to inspect under the home. Except for the rules regarding the siting of home on a space, there are likely no regulations that mandate such action on an ongoing basis – at least if there is no present evidence of leaking. If there is evidence, ORS 90.740 can be relied upon to secure compliance, if nothing can be found in the rules or rental agreement:  

90.740 Tenant obligations. A tenant shall:    

(4) Except as provided by the rental agreement:

      (a) Use the rented space and the facility common areas in a reasonable manner considering the purposes for which they were designed and intended;

      (e) Install and maintain storm water drains on the roof of the dwelling or home and connect the drains to the drainage system, if any;

      (f) Use electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems;

If the rules do not contain such a provision, consider amending them to add language to address the issue.  Rule changes can be done in a fairly straightforward manner. See, ORS 90.610. Alternatively, even if submetering is not addressed in your rules, you can unilaterally add it to your rental agreements, as a “Plan B”, if you are unsuccessful in implementing the necessary rules.

Question: A home was purchased by a local dealer from a resident who had not paid rent for several months. The dealer then sold the home to another person who applied for tenancy and passed the screening criteria. The landlord wants the past due rent ($900) paid before permitting applicant to move into the home. Can the landlord go after the dealer to pay the past due rent? Can the landlord keep the applicant from moving in until the $900 is paid? Should the landlord have given some notice to the existing tenant, the dealer, and/or the prospective tenant, regarding how the unpaid rent should be handled? What about other expenses the tenant who sold the home ran up, such as utilities, late fees, maintenance clean up expenses, etc.? What do you suggest as far as notices to the dealer stating the amount of money owed? The dealer is not the lien holder.

Answer: Landlords should become intimately familiar with ORS 90.680, and then make sure their rules and rental agreements conform to what is allowed. Set forth below is a summary of those portions of the statute that address your questions:

o If the prospective purchaser of a manufactured dwelling or floating home desires to leave the dwelling or home on the rented space and become a tenant, the landlord may require the following:

o That a tenant give not more than 10 days' notice in writing prior to the sale of the dwelling or home on a rented space;

o That prior to the sale, the prospective purchaser submit to the landlord a complete and accurate written application for occupancy of the dwelling or home as a tenant after the sale is finalized;

o That a prospective purchaser may not occupy the dwelling or home until after the prospective purchaser is accepted by the landlord as a tenant;

o That a tenant give notice to any lienholder, prospective purchaser or person licensed to sell dwellings or homes of the requirements of the resale requirements [Emphasis mine - PCQ];

o If the sale is not by a lienholder, that the prospective purchaser pay in full all rents, fees, deposits or charges owed by the tenant prior to the landlord's acceptance of the prospective purchaser as a tenant [Emphasis mine];

o If the landlord's rules and/or rental agreement requires prospective purchasers to submit an application for occupancy as a tenant, at the time that the landlord gives the prospective purchaser an application the landlord shall also give the prospective purchaser copies of the statement of policy, the rental agreement and the facility rules and regulations, including any conditions imposed on a subsequent sale ;

o The following conditions apply if a landlord receives an application for tenancy from a prospective purchaser:

o The landlord shall accept or reject the prospective purchaser's application within seven days following the day the landlord receives a complete and accurate written application ;

o An application is not complete until the prospective purchaser pays any required applicant screening charge and provides the landlord with all information and documentation, including any financial data and references, required by the landlord;

o The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant. Reasonable cause for rejection includes, but is not limited to:

o Failure of the prospective purchaser to meet the landlord's conditions for approval;

o Failure of the prospective purchaser's references to respond to the landlord's timely request for verification within the time allowed for acceptance or rejection;

o In most cases, the landlord must furnish to the seller and purchaser a written statement of the reasons for any rejection ;

o The landlord may give the tenant selling the home a notice to repair the home [e.g. for damage or deterioration] under ORS 90.632. The landlord may also give any prospective purchaser a copy of that notice.

o The landlord may require as a condition of tenancy that a prospective purchaser who desires to leave the dwelling or home on the rented space and become a tenant must comply with the repair notice within the allowed period under ORS 90.632.

o If the tenancy has been terminated for failure to timely complete the repairs under ORS 90.632, a prospective purchaser does not have a right to leave the dwelling or home on the rented space and become a tenant.

Obviously, the statute was drafted with tenant/purchasers in mind. However, as long as the home remains on the space, the landlord has complete control over the situation. In your case, I suspect the delinquent tenant made no effort to notify the landlord of his planned sale to the dealer. However, that does not prevent him from imposing these requirements on the dealer if he wants to put a tenant in the park.

Going forward, it might be advisable for all landlords who have faced this situation before, to prepare a summary of requirements to give dealers when they purchase homes from tenants already sited in the park. They may want to expressly address this in their rules, so tenants cannot say they didn't know. The written summary to dealers should clearly state that if a departing tenant owes monies to the landlord, repayment will be required before occupancy of the home will be permitted by a new resident. [A more difficult question that is not addressed by the statute, ORS 90.680, is whether the landlord may prevent the dealer from removing the home without paying the past due sums. I suspect the answer may be Yes" a landlord may do so

Background. Hickey v. Scott was an eviction action. Under the lease at issue, the tenants were to pay a $1,500 security deposit and $850 in monthly rent. Upon move-in their landlord received the $1,500 as a subsidy from a not-for-profit institution, but only $525 in “rent” from the tenants. Two months later the landlord issued the tenants a notice of nonpayment saying that they must pay $1,700 (two month’s rent at $850/month) to cure or face eviction. The tenants did not pay, and the eviction was filed.

The trial court sided with the Landlord on the eviction but ultimately determined that the tenants only owed $1,175 (i.e., the remaining $325 of the first month’s rent ($850 - $525), plus the full $850 for the second month). The tenants appealed contending that, because the Landlord asked for an overstated amount, the 72-hour notice was defective, and the case must be dismissed.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Landlord, upholding the trial court’s eviction. The tenants appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, who disagreed with the Court of Appeals and trial court. It held that the eviction notice was faulty since the notice sought an overstated amount of rent due and therefore automatic dismissal was required.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning. The Court’s written opinion engaged in both statutory interpretation and an expanded look at the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship. 

1. Statutory Interpretation. The Court reasoned that an FED proceeding requires two events: (a) That the tenant violated the rental agreement in some manner, and (b) That the landlord delivered a valid notice of termination. 

While it wasn’t disputed that the tenants had violated their rental agreement by failing to pay their rent, the landlord had not provided a valid notice of termination because the 72-houe notice had overstated the amount of money required to cure.

In short, the Court’s interpretation of ORS 90.394(3) was that there be a specific sum due and a date and time within which the tenant had cure. This led to the inescapable conclusion that the rent demand must be accurate. Overstating the demand, even innocently, renders the notice invalid and requires a dismissal of the case. Understating it is OK.[2]

2. Landlord-Tenant Relationship. The Court also acknowledged that there is an imbalance of power in the landlord-tenant relationship. Because of their business, landlords are in the best position to accurately determine the amount they will accept to cure the tenant’s default. If the landlord’s notice is wrong, the case is dismissed, but the eviction can be refiled seeking the proper amount. 

Where Does This Leave Oregon Landlords? The Court recognized that the ruling appears to be overly harsh to landlords, since there is no requirement that a landlord act in bad faith. An innocent mistake over the amount due will merit a dismissal just as quickly as an intentional act.

Landlords have two options if their claim is dismissed for an invalid notice.

1. Option #1. If an FED is dismissed because the Landlord overstated the amount due in the termination notice, the landlord may re-issue a notice with the correct amount and immediately re-file the eviction. It is the summary nature of FEDs, i.e., the speed with which a landlord may have the case decided, that requires absolute accuracy.

2. Option #2. In Hickey, the Court was only concerned with landlords overstating the amount of rent due. The Court, however, had no problem with a landlord stating an amount of rent necessary to cure that is less than the full amount of rent due. They make a distinction between the amount that will be accepted to “cure” versus the amount “owed.”[3]

MHCO Form Changes. MHCO Form 82A, the ten-day notice of nonpayment of rent has been modified (a) to encourage tenants to notify management if they dispute the “Total Rent Due,” and (b) to encourage landlords to (i) make sure the “Total Rent Due” is accurate, (ii) if the amount is disputed, to verify the figures, and (iii) if there are questions, to check with legal counsel before proceeding.

Conclusion. Landlords should use caution to accurately determine the amount of outstanding rent due before issuing the notice of nonpayment. The risk for having an overstated figure is automatic dismissal of the eviction. 

If an accurate amount is difficult to arrive at, or there is disagreement over the amount, landlords should consult with their legal counsel. One consideration may be that rather than risking an overstated disputed amount, is to accept a lesser amount to cure. An inaccurate, but lower, estimate of the outstanding rent will not trigger an automatic dismissal, and if that sum is not paid, the eviction will still be legal.

Answer: The general answer is "yes," both the park models and regular RVs can (and should) be treated the same with regard to landlord-tenant laws. However, there are certain regulations that you must follow to ensure that the park models fully qualify as "recreational vehicles" as defined by Oregon law.

First and foremost, a "recreational vehicle" is defined by statute (ORS 446.003 (33)) as a vehicle "with or without motive power that is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes" and as further defined by administrative rule. "Recreational vehicle" is then defined in various rules as (1) being identified as an RV by the manufacturer, and (2) not exceeding 400 square feet in the setup mode, including all tip-outs, slide-outs, expandable rooms, and other horizontal projections.

However, this does not mean that park models cannot be equipped with various accessory structures like decks, steps, porches, roof overhangs and other similar construction. The guiding rule is that these external structures cannot be supported by the RV itself and cannot be enclosed with walls, glass or other solid materials if that would exceed the maximum allowed gross floor area of the RV.

While there are other construction exceptions as well (basements, lofts, certain bay windows, freestanding cabanas, etc.), you should consult with a knowledgeable expert to carefully comply with these regulations. The primary Oregon Administrative Rules can be found at OAR 918-525 and 918-530, which are administered by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division.

Assuming you meet the park model regulations, you can use the same rental agreement that you use with regular RV tenants. In many cases, MHCO Form 80 (RV Space Rental Agreement) will work just fine. In other cases, you may want to use a form specifically designed for your park - just make sure that it contains all of the required information, such as how accessory buildings and structures will be dealt with at the end of the tenancy.

In any event, an RV tenancy (unlike a manufactured home tenancy) can be terminated with a no-cause notice if the tenancy is month to month. If the tenant has been in the park less than a year, the no-cause notice period can be 30 days. After the first year of tenancy, the notice period must be at least 60 days. While you would certainly hope not to need to evict a park model tenant, since they technically live in "recreational vehicles," the law gives you that option as a landlord.