Search

Answer. Much depends on circumstances. Here are your options:

There are three acceptable methods:

(1) Personal delivery;

(2) First class mail; or

(3) Only if the lease/rental agreement permits for both landlord and tenant, either party may use "nail and mail." This allows a written notice to be sent from the landlord to the tenant by first class mail addressed to the tenant at the premises and a copy of the notice to be attached in a secure manner to the main entrance to that portion of the premises; and

Here are the rules for calculating the time periods, depending on the method of service:

(1) Where the time for compliance is measured in days, they are calculated by consecutive calendar days, not including the initial day of service, but including the last day until 12 Midnight of the last day.

(2) Where the time for compliance is measured in hours, they are calculated in consecutive clock hours, beginning immediately upon service.

(3) When "nail and mail" is used for a 72-hour or 144-hour nonpayment notice, the time period for compliance begins at 11:59 p.m. the day the notice is both mailed and attached to the premises. The time period ends 72 hours or 144 hours, as the case may be, after the time started to run at 11:59 p.m. on the day of mailing.

Here are some rules of thumb; they may not be for everyone, but they generally work for me. My approach is to assume that Murphy's Law is ever-present, so I err on the side of being too cautious.

1. When calculating days or hours, always add a few extra just to be safe. Just because it's called a "72-hour notice," doesn'tmean you can't add a few more hours. Same for 24-hour notices.
2. don't forget the additional 3-day period for mailing. It applies to virtually all written notices you give, from 30-day notices, to park closure notices. I frequently add five days rather than three.
3. If you're going to serve a written notice personally, take a witness, just to avoid the possibility of the resident denying service. If someone other than the tenant comes to the door, I'd think twice about making "substituted service," as it's too easy for the person answering to "forget," and you've now got an issue you could have avoided. I suggest finding out when the resident is returning, and come back. Never deliver the notice to a child or teenager - for obvious reasons. If they won't answer the door, don't think you can slip it under the door, behind the screen, or drop it in an open window. Just go back to the office and mail it regular mail.
4. Never, never, never use certified mail or any other form of delivery like UPS or Fed Ex.
5. Remember, if the written notice is properly addressed, stamped and posted, the law "presumes" receipt. While the resident can try to deny it, the "presumption" requires them to prove a reason for non-receipt, which is pretty difficult to do. I've never seen the argument work. A good precaution is to obtain a certificate of mailing from the post office, which confirms that you posted the letter.
6. I'm not a fan of nail and mail. Unless your rental agreement permits it both ways, i.e. from landlord to tenant, and vice versa,[1] you should not use this method. If you're insistent on using this method, don't forget the 11:59 PM rule.
7. don't forget to keep true copies of the notice. You'll have to attach it to eviction complaint, if the matter isn'tresolved by the notice.
8. "Measure twice, cut once." In other words, calculate the number of days or hours a couple of time, just to make sure you've got the proper amount of time. Have someone else review it, just to make sure.

Conclusion. If time is of the essence, and the resident will actually answer the door (not their 6-year old child, or a friend), I would say personal service will suffice. However, my strong preference is to mail all notices, making sure to add at least three days. I prefer this approach since the law presumes receipt, so long as it was properly addressed, stamped and posted. It also avoids the potential for a confrontation at the door.

[1] The MHCO complies with this requirement.

COVID Questions 

(Corrected)

Question No. 1:.  If the resident hat has not been financially impacted by Covid-19 but is not paying rent what should we do?  Should we give a 72-hour notice, or should we wait?

Answer: First and foremost, remember that this situation is very fluid. Regulations can change overnight. This could affect the answers we give today. For example, CDC was previously saying face masks were not necessary, but recently reversed itself to recommend masks for use even where the person has no symptoms (“asymptomatic”) but “…is in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especiallyin areas of significant community-based transmissionsocial contact.” See, link, here. Likewise, various jurisdiction can implement regulations at almost any time.

Under the Governor’s Executive Order 20-13, issued April 1, 2020, there is a 90-day moratorium on virtually every part of an eviction, from issuance of the termination notice, to the filing of the eviction complaint, and execution of the FED judgment. 

Here is summary:

· Subject to the following, landlords of residential properties in Oregon shall not, for any reason, terminate a tenant's rental agreement. This includes filing, serving, delivering or acting on any notice, order or writ of termination or the equivalent.

· Nor may landlords “…otherwise interfere in any way with such tenant's right to possession of the tenant's dwelling unit.”

·  This relates to:

• • Nonpayment of rent, late charges, utility charges, or any other service charge or fees owed to the landlord; or 
  • Any termination without cause under ORS 90.427.

· The Executive Order does notrelieve a residential tenant's ultimate obligation to pay rent, utility charges, or any other service charges or fees; they still must be repaid.

· Late charges or other penalties due to the landlord arising from nonpayment are specifically waived during the Moratorium; i.e. repayment is notrequired after the Moratorium is over.

· The Executive Order also prohibits enforcing any existingnonpayment or no-cause eviction judgments.

· It does notapply to the termination of residential rental agreements for causes other thannonpayment of rent.

· It also prohibits law enforcement officers in Oregon from serving, delivering or acting on any notice, order or writ of termination of tenancy or the equivalent or any judicial action, arising under the Oregon eviction statutes that relate to residential evictions for nonpayment. 

• During the Moratorium, any residential tenant who is or will be unable to pay the full rent when due under a rental agreement or lease, shall notify the landlord as soon as reasonably possible; and shall make partial rent payments to the extent the tenant is financially able to do so.

See, Executive Order 20-13 here. 

The above discussion refers to statewide Executive Order 20-13, but with limited exceptions, likely applies equally to the City of Portland/Multnomah County which has its own set of rules.  I say “likely” because there is no final word on the issue, as it raises complicated state vs. local preemption issues. But the legal consensus is these prohibitions do apply to the City of Portland/Multnomah County. The only exception is (likely) that the 6-month repayment period still applies to deferred rent for the City of Portland/Multnomah County, but not the rest of the state.

Essentially, other than the power of persuasion, your options are limited in this case until the Moratorium is over.

Question No. 2: If the resident violates the rules, has unauthorized residents, disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of other residents - can we give an eviction notice, or should we wait?

Answer: Almost all hearings and trialshave been postponed indefinitely in Oregon  – not just FED hearings for nonpayment of rent. but for everything else, as well. 

I suggest you first speak with the resident and inform him/her that you can and will issue a 30-day termination notice, and file for eviction if the conduct does not cease. 

However, it may be that you will not be able to have a judge hear the matter. I suggest you check with your local county court to see if a hearing can be set, since this is a safety issue and one that needs to be addressed now. If not, at least if you should proceed with the 30-day notice and, if the conduct continues, file and serve the eviction complaint, so you will be at the front of the line when the courts do open.

Attached (above)  is a copy of a page from a March 27 Oregon Supreme Court Press Release on how the Oregon trial courts will be conducting business going forward.

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’t] 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.  

Answers to Questions Nos. 1 and 2. Under the Fair Housing Act ("the Act") landlords are required to make reasonable accommodations to the rented facilities and common areas, if so requested by a handicapped tenant or their legal occupant. This law applies to the use of assistance animals.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a reasonable change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice or service that will enable a handicapped person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rented facilities and common areas. There must be an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the person's disability. Landlords are not required to make requested accommodations if doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon them or fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's operations. In order to address the request, Landlords are entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate it for a reasonable accommodation. With respect to a person, a "handicap" means: (a) one with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) one with a record of such impairment; or (c) one who is regarded as having such an impairment. Juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances and those with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to others, or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, are generally not protected under the Act. If the landlord refuses a requested accommodation, the requester is encouraged to have a discussion with the landlord concerning an alternative accommodation. This is a summary only and not intended to constitute legal advice. For more information, landlords, tenants and legal occupants of tenants are encouraged to consult with their attorney or a Fair Housing expert if they have any questions regarding their rights and responsibilities.

Note: MHCO has Form No. 15 which permits residents to make reasonable accommodation requests.

I think my first step (which may have already occurred prior to the rule changes, is determine the extent of the problem for emergency vehicles along the narrow streets. Does a single car slow or restrict access to emergency vehicles? In short, how problematic is it for a single car to be parked along the street? Does it create any danger to the community, its drivers, or the emergency vehicles? Once you have that baseline, you will have a sense about the safety of making a reasonable accommodation by permitted on-street parking.

Secondly, if I were to permit anyone to park on the street (assuming the safety issue is properly vetted), I think I would insist that they have a handicapped parking permit. That way, anyone parking on the street without a permit would be easier to spot. (Although you should consider whether the permit is expired or being abused, or in the name of the car's owner.)

The handicapped caretaker is not your direct responsibility - she was hired by your resident. I do not believe convenience is the litmus test here - it's whether the rule prevents her from performing her tasks, and coming and going to the site. I think the biggest problem, and one you've not mentioned but certainly are thinking, is this could become a slippery slope. The more cars you permit to park on the street, the more others will try the same thing. At this point, I believe I'd take the position that if the parking area can accommodate two cars, then that's where they should park - even if it means shuffling them around, handicapped or not.

I do not believe handicapped caretaker has standing to request a reasonable accommodation, since he/she is not a tenant or occupant of the home. But I have not research this issue; you should verify this with your own attorney.

As for the non-handicapped caretaker, a little walk to and from the guest parking is not the end of the world. "Convenience" for a non-handicapped person is not a basis for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, Fair Housing law, or common sense.

The following questions relate to the traditional landlord-tenant relationship in manufactured home parks; specifically, that the landlord rents the dirt to a tenant who owns their manufactured home. If a landlord has park owned homes, they should have their own insurance. Often times, rental agreements may require the tenant to list the landlord as an “additional insured”. Sometimes the landlords are listed, sometimes they aren’t. Sometimes they are listed as “Co-Insured”. The questions below are primarily coming out of the wildfires where several parks have been decimated. The homes have been destroyed, the tenancies have terminated and in some cases, the tenants have taken their insurance money and run (even when a portion of those insurance dollars were to be for “clean up”), leaving the debris behind for the landlord to deal with.

At the outset, I do not believe that we are dealing with “renter’s liability policies” that are defined in ORS 90.222. Rather, these are homeowner policies that protect the home. Assuming it is the latter, I do not believe ORS chapter 90 prohibits a manufactured home park landlord from requiring a tenant to name a landlord as an “Additional insured” (defined below). If these were “renter’s liability policies” then there are specific prohibitions in ORS 90.222 that prohibit a landlord from requiring a tenant to name a landlord as “Additional Insured”.

Question 1:  Our Lease states that Tenants must return the space in a clean first class condition.  We also are on all of the Tenants' insurance as a “co-insured for purposes of notification.”  Only one insurance company made the check out to the Tenant and us.  Since they are to return the space clean and we are listed as co-insured, should the insurance companies have listed us on the checks?  All the Tenants received monies for Debris Removal, do we have a right to that money? (only 30% gave it to us). And if so, how do we handle getting it?

Answer 1:  Without reviewing the specific insurance policy language at issue, it’s difficult to answer the questions, as insurers may define “co-insured” differently.  That said, generally speaking, a “co-insured” is so designated for the purpose of receiving notice from the insurer in the case of pending cancellation of the insurance, for non-pay or other reasons.  Simply being named a “co-insured” does NOT necessarily provide the full rights bestowed onto the First Named Insured, i.e. the person or entity named on the declarations page of the policy as the “insured.”

The insurance company likely was not under any obligation to list the landlord as an additional payee on any checks it issued to its insured (the tenant) just because the landlord was listed as a co-insured.  While the landlord likely has a right to pursue the money from the tenant (based on a claim of breach of contract – the rental agreement), the landlord almost certainly does not have a viable legal challenge against the insurance company, but again, the policy should be reviewed by an attorney. In most cases, a landlord’s only remedy is to sue the tenant in small claims court for the amount to make the landlord whole – mainly, to leave the space in a first class condition. Since this would not be the collection of rent, pursuing those type of damages would not violate the current restrictions on attempting to collect unpaid rent.

It may be helpful to explain the difference in the terms “First Named Insured,” “Named Insured,” “Co-insured,” and Additional Insured.”  As stated above, the “First Named Insured” is the person or entity named the insured on the declarations page.  There is only one First Named Insured on any insurance policy.  They are bestowed all of the coverages provided under the policy, have the obligation to pay the premiums, and are the ONLY person who can make any changes to the policy.

A ”Named Insured” is a person or entity that is formally added to the policy, and also is bestowed all of the coverages provided under the policy, but they are not responsible for paying any premiums, nor can they make any changes.

A “Co-insured” is almost always defined as a person or entity who is guaranteed to receive notice from the insurer in the case of pending cancellation of the insurance, for non-pay or other reasons.  A co-insured is NOT bestowed any rights to any of the coverages provided under the policy.

An “Additional Insured” (which is what the landlords should probably insist on being named in their tenant’s insurance policies moving forward) is a person or entity that is specifically named in the insurance policy (typically via an endorsement) and is bestowed certain rights under the policy, which are also typically explained in the endorsement.  A common example of an additional insured is in the construction context, where the General Contractor will require that it be named as an additional insured by all of its sub-contractors for any claims involved a specific construction project. Please note that a Landlord would also want to also be listed as “Co-Insured” because they would want to continue to get notice if a policy is not renewed.

Again, assuming these are not “Renter’s liability insurance” policies as found in ORS 90.222, then I do not believe there is a restriction.

Question 2:  Some tenants have told me that they have been told by a State Representative not to sign the right of way and to not give the Landlord's their Debris Removal monies.  The State Representative feel all parks should wait and let FEMA/ODOT and State of Oregon do the cleanup free.  Naturally there have been HUGE problems with this, the time it takes, devastation to roads and concrete, etc.  Many parks like us are trying to do some of the work ourselves and hire some of it too.  The sooner you are open, the more likely people can buy homes and get in.  Anyway, our Tenants are now refusing to give us their Debris Removal money.  The State Rep has recommended the tenants contact Legal Aid.  It's a nightmare. 

Answer 2:  This whole situation is a nightmare. I believe (and John Van Landingham agrees), that upon the destruction of the home, and assuming the tenant has vacated the space, the tenancy ended. Because the tenancy ended, the tenant no longer has possession of the premises and has no authority to give permission to access the premises. What’s the best way to handle the stuff that’s left behind? Assuming that you can affirmatively say that the tenant has no desire to assert any ownership over the debris remaining (i.e. it’s a burned out home and nothing is salvageable), you should send an abandonment notice (please remember that DWT can help with this). Upon the completion of the abandonment, you can dispose of the material as you see fit. As with the first question, if the rental agreement says the tenant is responsible for any cleanup of the space, you could seek compensation from the tenant for the clean-up costs, although actually getting compensation may likely be difficult. Hopefully, the Legislature will address this. The state representative is smart to advise tenants to contact Legal Aid; however, a tenant would be smart to contribute the portion of their insurance that was attributed to the clean-up and obtain a release from their landlord.

Question 3:  Can we use the cleanup money that the few Tenants gave us to clean up their space?

Answer 3:  Yes. Additionally, if tenants give you the money they received from insurance to clean up their space, I would not recommend any further action against the tenant (even if the clean up money is not adequate to clean up the space).  

Question 4: Should we have been listed on the insurance checks?

Answer 4:  Again, without reading the specific language of the policies, we cannot say for certain, but if the landlord was only listed as a “co-insured,” the carrier was likely under no legal obligation to list the landlord as an additional payee on checks it wrote to its insured, the tenant.  Being a co-insured only guarantees that you will be notified if the policy was being cancelled.  If you were listed as “additional insured” as defined above, then you may have a claim against the insurance company.

Question 5: Do landlords have any rights to Debris Removal Insurance money?

Answer 5:  Probably, but it is based on a claim of breach of contract on the part of the tenant, and likely only if the landlords are not otherwise compensated by FEMA or the state for cleanup.  The landlords almost certainly do not have any viable legal claim against the insurance company.

Question 6: If we have a right to the Debris Removal insurance money, how do we handle getting it?

Answer 6:  As stated above, the landlord’s likely only avenue for getting Debris Removal insurance money would be to pursue those monies from the tenant, based on a breach of contract claim, i.e. the rental agreement.

New Forms

For the first time, MHCO is making long term Leases available to its members. The new Lease form is entitled, “MHCO Form 5F: Manufactured Dwelling Space Long Term Fixed Term Lease Agreement.” The corollary forms, which must be used in conjunction with form 5F, are entitled “MHCO Form 5G: Manufactured Dwelling Space Utility Addendum” and “MHCO Form 5H: Rent Addendum.”

The look and feel of the new Lease is a radical departure from prior formats. The new Lease contains clearer headings, consolidates similar concepts, and guides readers through its contents. The new Lease further adds many clauses that fill preexisting gaps and further clarify the parties’ rights and obligations throughout the term of the Lease. 

Familiarization and Independent Reviews

Before using the new Lease and the aforementioned corollary Addendums, members are encouraged to read them and to familiarize themselves with their contents. Members are also encouraged to forward a copy of all three forms to attorneys of their choosing, prior to using the Lease package, in order to procure independent opinions and advice. 

While MHCO believes the new Lease package complies with Oregon law, others may disagree. MHCO is not aware of any Oregon litigation focusing on the validity of these types of Leases, but that may be due to their recent introduction. In any event, make sure that the Lease and Addendums are within your realm of risk tolerance, should you elect to utilize the same going forward.

How to Use the Long Term Lease Package: Rent

Assuming you’ve decided to use the Long Term Leases, first compare the Lease language and customizable portions to the park’s goals. Pay special attention to such items as the duration of the Lease and the Addendums that must be – or may be – added. 

Since desired Lease durations and rent structures will inevitably vary from one park to the next, Lease sections 7.1 and 19.40 cross reference a Rent Addendum. That Rent Addendum (Form 5H) is a necessary addition to the Long Term Lease, as it sets forth the rent rates for each year of the lease term. 

MHCO’s Rent Addendum (form 5H) provides a clearly stated amount of rent for each year of the Lease. However, MHCO simultaneously recognizes that different parks may desire different Rent Addendum language and made sure that the Lease takes that into account. Parks that wish to use formula-based rent tiers or other structures can add their own Rent Addendums to the Lease, and the generic appearance of the title, “Rent Addendum” in Lease sections 7.1 and 19.40 allows for the integration of those customized, park-specific Rent Addendums.

The New Utility Addendum

A number of lawsuits focusing on utility billing practices have recently jumped into the spotlight. That litigation trend has triggered a change in the way utility billings are being handled via the new Long Term Lease.

Utility allocations and billing practices are far more complicated than most landlords have realized. Inserting utility clauses into the Long Term Lease became cumbersome, as the clauses burgeoned in their breadth and scope. Rather than bloat the new Lease with utility provisions, a new Utility Addendum (Form 5G) was created. As with the Rent Addendum, the Utility Addendum is a necessary component of a complete Lease package (which would minimally consist of the Long Term Lease, Rent Addendum and Utility Addendum). 

The new Utility Addendum may intimidate first time users. However, a quick perusal of the headings, followed by a more detailed reading of the options listed under each heading, will assuage those fears and reveal common patterns that are surprisingly user friendly. Nonetheless, landlords should take their time filling in Utility Addendums, so as to ensure they’re complete, accurate, and compliant with all relevant laws. 

MHCO’s Forms Database 

While three new forms have been described in this article, many other forms remain available to customers and may remain part of your Rental Agreement packages. For example, landlords will still provide Rules and Regulations (and check the correlating box in Lease section 19.40) and may use one of the many other Addendums listed in Lease section 19.40. Further, as new forms become available, they too may be incorporated into future Lease packages. 

Supporters, Detractors and the Future

Anytime a new form hits the market, there will be an inevitable division between its supporters and detractors. Further, most forms tend to evolve over time. (If the foregoing comments weren’t true, we’d be using the same Rental Agreements today that we had in place decades ago.) We anticipate that the Long Term Lease – and its related Addendums – will follow an evolutionary trend, just as so many other forms have done. Alas, MHCO’s goal of providing customers with contemporary forms that recognize the nuances of today’s practices will remain consistent. 

Should any member have questions, comments or suggestions regarding the new forms, please don’t hesitate to contact us. 

Answer. Under ORS 90.100(21), a "hazard tree" is one that:

1. Is located on a rented space in a manufactured dwelling park;
2. Measures at least eight inches DBH;[1] and
3. Is considered, by an arborist licensed as a landscape construction professional pursuant to ORS 671.560 (Issuance of license) and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, to pose an unreasonable risk of causing serious physical harm or damage to individuals or property in the near future.

ORS 90.727(5) provides as follows:

Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a tenant is responsible for maintaining the trees on the tenant's space in a manufactured dwelling park at the tenant's expense. (Emphasis added.)

So my take is that (a) if the trees qualify as hazard trees, the resident must maintain/remove them; (b) if the trees are technically not hazard trees (due to girth), the resident must still maintain them; and (c) if the resident declines to remove them, you should do so.

Given the recommendation of the arborist, you should contact the resident about having the trees removed at their expense. If the resident cannot afford the expense, you will have to work something out (e.g. cost sharing, or you remove them and seek reimbursement), since you cannot afford to allow this dangerous situation to continue, as it might endanger other residents.

ORS 90.740(4)(i) provides that it is the resident's responsibility to: "Maintain and water trees, including cleanup and removal of fallen branches and leaves, on the rented space for a manufactured dwelling except for hazard trees as provided in ORS 90.727." Thus, the resident's failure to do so in this case would constitute a basis for your issuance of a 30-day curable notice of termination under ORS 90.630(1).

If the resident declines to do the removal, and decides to move from the community, you will have to make sure that the buyer of the home is aware of the removal responsibility. You could write that into the new rental agreement. (If you do not make it a condition of the rental agreement, and they are "hazard trees," the new resident will not had a duty to remove - you will at your cost.) My guess is that with your advance notice to the prospective purchaser, the cost of removal would be deducted from the sales price.

As for your insurance agent's less than sage advice, I respectfully disagree. If a dangerous condition exists on a space in the community and it is not remedied, even though it is the tenant's primary responsibility, you will be held liable if you permit it to continue. It may be an "Act of God" in your agent's mind, but it is a foreseeable risk waiting to happen in the eyes of the law. (Henceforth, I promise not to give advice on insurance coverage, if your agent promises to refrain from practicing law.)

[1] "Diameter at breast height" i.e. 4.5 feet. See: http://www.phytosphere.com/treeord/measuringdbh.htm

Answer. Accepting rent for the period beyond the Deadline means that the tenant is entitled to occupy the space even after the failure to cure within the 30-day cure period. Yet the failure to cure is the event after which the landlord may file for eviction; the tenant has no legal right to remain on the space. Accepting rent for that period creates a waiver of the right to treat the failure to cure as a default upon which the eviction may be filed.

There are perhaps three ways to prevent that from happening, so that a landlord may receive rent for the entirety of the second month, notwithstanding the fact that it covers a period beyond the Deadline.

1. The preferred way in my opinion, is to extend the cure period in the notice. When it is issued, extend the 30-day cure period so that it goes through the 30^thor 31^stday (as applicable) of the second month.

EXAMPLE:If a 30-day notice is mailed on March 19, normally, the time to cure would end 33 days hence, i.e. starting with March 20 being the first day, and ending at midnight April 21^stas the end of the cure period. In that case, the landlord can either take no rentfor April or take rent proratedthrough the 21 days of April. 

But if the cure period in the notice is extended through April, and ends  at midnight (end of day) on April 30^ththe L could accept rent for the entire month of April. If the tenant pays the rent for April andcures the violation by April 30, the problem has gone away.  

Of course, there still is a problem if the tenant does not cure and does not pay any rent, if the courts are still closed and no eviction (either for the failure to cure, or failure to pay after issuance of a 72-hour notice) can be filed.

2. Another alternative is to unilaterally extend (in writing) the cure period for another 30 or 31 days on condition rent was paid, to span the following month. Can a landlord do that? In my opinion yes – it does not reduce a tenant right, but expands it. Of course, a judge could see it differently.

3. Lastly, the landlord can try to enter into a written agreement with the tenant (after issuance of the 30-day notice) that acceptance of rent for the balance of the second month shall not be construed as a waiver. But what’s in it for the tenant?

The only time this seems feasible is where the tenant is cooperative about curing within the 30 days, and agrees in writing that if landlord accepts the full rent for the second month it will not constitute a waiver.

Answer. Oregon law requires that unless exempted, an individual must use a "mortgage loan originator" ("MLO") [e.g. mortgage bankers or mortgage brokers] license if he/she:

• Takes a residential mortgage loan application; or
• Negotiates the terms or conditions of a residential mortgage loan.

It is the second of these two requirements that affect you as a park owner re-selling formerly abandoned homes. You must either use a MLO or be covered by an exemption. However, as you will see under the Oregon MLO laws below, the statute is not limited only to "abandoned homes" - just "previously owned homes."

The Safe Act. The federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Lending Act ("S.A.F.E. Act") of 2008 requires that MLOs register with the Oregon Department of Business and Consumer Services ("DCBS"). As required by the S.A.F.E. Act, all states must adopt their own set of laws governing MLOs. Oregon's version is found at ORS 86A.200 to 86A.239. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB"), a Dodd- Frank created mega-agency, and DCBS have taken the position that the S.A.F.E. Act applies not only to third-party loans, but also to seller-carried transactions, including manufactured homes both inside and outside of parks.

Oregon MLO Laws. An individual may not engage in business as a mortgage loan originator in Oregon without first:

• Obtaining and maintaining a MLO license; and
• Obtaining a unique identifier from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ("NMLS").

Oregon Exemptions to MLO Laws:

• A registered MLO acting within the scope of their employment;
• One who offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan with or on behalf of the individual's spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild or a relative in a similar relationship with the individual that is created by law, marriage or adoption;
• One who offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan that is secured by a dwelling that served as the individual's residence;
• An Oregon-licensed attorney [subject to limitations]:
• An individual licensed as a manufactured structure dealer under ORS 446.691 and who:
  • Offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan related to a sale for occupancy of a previously owned manufactured dwelling in a manufactured dwelling park three (3) or fewer times in any 12- month period; and
  • Uses a written sale agreement form with the purchaser that: (a) complies with the requirements of ORS 646A.050, 646A.052 and 646A.054; (b) with any applicable administrative rules; and (c) any other applicable requirements for residential mortgages for manufactured dwellings.
  • Note: This exemption does not permit the individual to hold more than eight (8) residential mortgage loans at any one time.
• An individual who is licensed as a limited manufactured structure dealer, and who:
  • Has an ownership interest in a manufactured dwelling park;
  • Offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan related to a sale for occupancy of a previously owned manufactured dwelling in any manufactured dwelling park in which the individual has an ownership interest, five (5) or fewer times in any 12-month period; and
  • Uses a written sale agreement form with the purchaser that: (a) complies with the requirements of ORS 646A.050, 646A.052 and 646A.054, (b) with any applicable administrative rules, and (c) with any other applicable requirements for residential mortgages for manufactured dwellings.
  • This exemption does not permit the individual to hold more than twelve (12) residential mortgage loans at any one time.
• An employee of a licensed manufactured structure dealer is not subject to the MLO licensing requirements if the employee:
  • Performs only administrative or clerical tasks; and
  • Receives only a salary or commission that is customary among dealers and employees of dealers.
• An employee of a dealer may become subject to the licensing provisions if the CFPB determines, in a guideline, rule, regulation or interpretive letter that this exemption granted is inconsistent with requirements set forth in 12 U.S.C. 5101 et. seq. (S.A.F.E. Act)

The 2015 Oregon Legislative Session convened this month with House and Senate Committees beginning their work the first week in February.  There are a wide variety of issues the Oregon Legislature will be dealing with - many being repeats from previous sessions such as education funding and taxes that never seem to go away.

The Manufactured Housing Landlord-Tenant Coalition continues to work on possible legislation.  The group has been meeting since June 2014 - at least once a month to address a variety of issues.  The issues have been significantly narrowed down as we rapidly approach the end of these negotiations.  The odds are that there will either be a compromise bill (typically know as the coalition bill) or we could face some nasty political battles on some onerous legislation.  The coalition provides a venue for both landlords and tenants to work through selected issues.  In general the coalition's work tends to be better thought out than most of the knee jerk legislative proposals we see from individual legislators. 

The biggest challenge of any negotiation process is the end - reaching a final compromise.   We all know, compromise is something that is not easily accomplished in today's political environment.  Perhaps the best sign of a successful compromise is when both sides are unsatisfied with the final product.  Having worked on coalition bills since 1999 most times both sides grumble their way to agreement.  I suspect this year will be no different.

Over the last six months MHCO has posted updates on the issues we have been working. There are now four issues in the proposed 2015 Coalition Bill.  Many of these issues are complicated and consume pages of proposed legal language.  We will spare you that in this report but will try to convey the key substance of each issue.  The following is a summary of where those issues stand in very broad brushstrokes:

1. Unpaid Taxes on Abandoned Homes

The County Tax Collector and the Oregon Department of Revenue have agreed to cancel all unpaid property taxes and special assessments as provided under ORS 311.790.  There is no limit on the market value of the home or limit on the amount of tax to be canceled.

In general, in order to obtain the tax cancelation of unpaid taxes on an abandoned home the landlord will be required to file an affidavit with the county tax collector stating that the landlord will sell the property in an arms length transaction to an unrelated buyer who intends to occupy the property in that facility.  Once the home is sold by the landlord another affidavit or declaration with the county tax collector would have to be filed stating that the landlord has sold the property, the sale price and description of any costs incurred by the landlord to improve the property for sale.

MHCO will create these affidavits as new MHCO Forms for community owners or managers to utilize. 

This is an issue MHCO has wanted to address over the past ten years.  We are very happy that the issue is finally resolved and the unpaid taxes on an abandoned home will be completely eliminated.  This will impact nearly every community in the state of Oregon.  

In addition, on a separate issue there will also be and increase in the yearly fee paid by community owners paid to Oregon Housing and Community Services.  The department will charge $50 for communities with more than 20 spaces and $25 for those communities with less than 20 spaces.  Under ORS 446.525 the special assessment levied annual upon each manufactured dwelling will increase from $6 to $10.  This  $10 assessment is to be paid by the tenants.

2. Habitability - Ground Support, Natural Gas and Garbage Cans

This issue has been significantly altered since it was first introduced last summer. 

One of the main concerns the residents have is being able to cancel a rental agreement or lease if the foundation of their home is partially washed away.  The proposed language is: For manufactured dwellings only