Search

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").

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:
o 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
o 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.
o 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:
o Has an ownership interest in a manufactured dwelling park;
o 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
o 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.
o 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:
o Performs only administrative or clerical tasks; and
o 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)

1. Installation of the Home. Both the home and any accessory buildings, such as sheds, and other structures, such as fences and decks, must be installed in compliance with all applicable laws, such as local ordinances and state building codes.
2. Disposing of Debris. All ashes, garbage, rubbish and other waste must be disposed of in a clean, safe and legal manner. With regard to needles, syringes and other infectious waste, the tenant may not dispose of these items by placing them in garbage receptacles or in any other place or manner except as authorized by state and local governmental agencies.
3. Conduct. Both the tenant and other persons in the home or on the space must behave in compliance with any laws or ordinances that relate to the tenant's behavior as a tenant.
4. Use of the Space and Common Areas. The tenant may not misuse or unreasonably use the space or common areas, taking into consideration the purposes for which they were designed and intended.
5. Debris. The tenant must keep the rented space in every part free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin as the condition of the rented space permits and to the extent that the tenant is responsible for causing the problem. The tenant must reasonably cooperate in assisting the landlord in any reasonable effort to remedy the problem. For example, if the space becomes infested with vermin due to the unkempt nature of the space, the tenant must do those things necessary to accommodate the landlord's extermination efforts.
6. Hazards of Fire. The home and the rented space must be kept safe from the hazards of fire. This means that any conduct or conditions occurring inside or outside of the home must be corrected by the tenant if it poses a fire hazard.
7. Smoke Alarms. The tenant is required to install and maintain a smoke alarm approved under applicable law.
8. Storm Water Drains. The tenant is required to install and maintain storm water drains on the roof of the home and connect the drains to the drainage system, if any.
9. Use of Systems. The tenant is required to use all electrical, water, storm water drainage and sewage disposal systems in a reasonable manner and maintain the connections to those systems.
10. Destruction of Property. The tenant may not deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any community property, other than the tenant's own home - nor may he or she knowingly permit any other person to do so.
11. Landscape Maintenance. Unless the rules or rental agreement provide otherwise, tenants are required to maintain, water and mow or prune any trees, shrubbery or grass on the rented space.
12. Peaceful Enjoyment. The tenant is required to behave, and require his or her guests to behave in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors. This is an all-too-frequently overlooked provision of the law. Many times a tenant's offending conduct, while not specifically prohibited in the park documents, is nevertheless bothering to other tenants. Landlords would be well-advised to remember this provision of ORS 90.740 in those difficult cases in which the activities, such as voyeurism or stalking, cause undue concern to the neighbors.

What happens if the tenant violates any of these statutory provisions? Is there a remedy? Assuming that the tenant will not comply with the landlord's requests for voluntary compliance, and there are no other reasonable alternatives, enforcement action is available in the same manner as a violation of the rental agreement or rules, i.e. issuance of a 30-day notice of termination. Under ORS 90.630, this means that the landlord must issue a written notice to the tenant advising that the tenancy will terminate in 30 days if the violation is not cured. The law provides that a second violation occurring within six months of the date of the preceding 30-day notice will entitle the landlord to issue a written non-curable notice terminating the tenancy in 20 days. As with all such notices, members are advised to use the MHCO forms, making sure that they are complete in all respects before delivering or mailing them to the tenant.

House Bill 3054A affects four sections of Oregon’s manufactured housing  laws. Below is a summary of the changes.

ORS 90.324 (Calculation of maximum rent increases). The text in bold print is new:

1.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage allowed for the followingcalendar year:

(a) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600(1)[1] in facilities with more than 30 spaces, assix percent.

(b) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600 (1) in facilities with 30 or fewer spaces or for tenancies subject to ORS 90.323,[2] as the lesser of: (A) Ten percent; or (B) Seven percent plusCPI.

2.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of AdministrativeServices shall publish the maximum annual rent increase percentages allowed under thissection, along with the provisions of ORS 90.323 and 90.600, in a press release.

3. The term “CPI” means the September annual 12-month average change in theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as most recentlypublished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

Comment: This change bifurcates rent caps for MHP month-to-month tenancies into those with more than 30 spaces and those with 30 or fewer spaces. For those with over 30 spaces, the rent cap is six percent (6.00%) and for 30 or less it is the lesser of 10.00% or 7.00% plus CPI.

///

///

///

ORS 90.545 (Fixed term tenancy expiration). The text in bold print is new:

A landlord’s proposed new rental agreement may include new or revised terms, conditions, rulesor regulations, if the new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations:***Are consistent withthe rights and remedies provided to tenants under this chapter, including the right to keep a petpursuant to ORS 90.530 and limits on rent increases under ORS 90.600 (1);

Comment: Prior to HB 3054, , the legislative drafters overlooked leases (i.e., “fixed term tenancies”). The result was that landlords using leases were not limited in their rent formulas (within reason at least) by the same caps as month-to-month tenancies. This new legislation eliminates that oversight, and subjects rental increases in leases to the same rental caps found in month-to-month tenancies.

Since the effective date of this Bill is September 1, 2025, landlords may wish to consider putting their new tenants on fixed term leases before then. This is not to suggest that the rent formulas should be open-ended without limits or guidelines. But a well- drafted rent formula based upon reasonable and objective criteria should survive attack. After all, before the caps, there were never any limits on rent increases (other than the existing good faith provision under ORS 90.130.)

ORS 90.600 (Increases in rent). The text in bold print is new:

A rent increase is not subject to [the rent cap for month-to-month tenancies] if:

***[It] is:

(A) For a facility with more than 30 spaces;

(B) Not greater than 12 percent;

(C) In lieu of and not in addition to a rent increase allowed within the 12-month period asdescribed [above];

(D) Occurring at least five years following a previous rent increase authorized under this paragraph, if any;

(E) Related to a significant project to add, replace, repair or upgrade infrastructure for thefacility;

(F) Approved by a written affirmative vote of 51 percent of the spaces in the facility that areoccupied by tenants on a vote that contains the signature and identifies the space of the voter;

(G) Approved by votes ***that are collected:

(i) At least 30 days after the landlord has provided in writing to each tenant the proposedinfrastructure project, a documented estimate of the cost of the project, an estimated timeline for the start and completion date for the project and the estimate of the rentincrease necessary to cover the cost of the improvement; and

(ii) At least 14 days after the landlord has met with the tenants to discuss the proposal; and

(H) Fully refunded to tenants by the landlord, without demand, less the maximumallowable rent increase under ORS 90.324, if the project is not substantially completed asdescribed [above] in the notice [described above] within 12 months of the estimatedcompletion date in the notice.

(4) A landlord that increases rent in violation of [this subsection] *** shall be liable to the tenant inan amount equal to three months’ rent plus actual damages suffered by the tenant.

Comment:  The purpose of this new text is self-explanatory. It provides an exception to the rent increase statute for communities with over 30 spaces to recover the cost of adding, replacing, repairing or upgrading park infrastructure.

ORS 90.680 (Sale of home on rental space). The text in bold print is new:

A landlord may not require that a selling tenant, prospective purchaser or purchaser consentto the inspection of the interior of the dwelling or home or obtain an inspection of theinterior of the dwelling or home by a third party, including as a condition of:

(a) Acceptance of the [required] notice of sale under subsection (8)(a) of this section;

(b) Approval of a sale under this section; or

(c) Approval of a new tenancy by the purchaser.

Comment: Not having been present during the negotiations of this Bill, I cannot explain its rationale. I will attempt to find out more. But since I participated in the (now discontinued)  landlord-tenant coalitions, I cannot resist the following observation: ORS 90.740(4)(c) imposes upon tenants the duty to “Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire.” (Emphasis added.) This is a required tenant duty to the landlord. So today when the home sells, if the owner had made dangerous non-code wiring alterations to its interior, those risks can be discovered by a required inspection upon transfer. Then the tenant and prospective purchaser can reach agreement upon bringing the wiring up to code and averting electrical fires.

It is for that reason that the current MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements provides that as a condition of landlord’s consent, the homeowner/seller must provide

“…a copy of a current written inspection report from an Oregon-certified and licensed Home inspector, verifying that as of the date of the inspection: (a) the Home, including, but not limited to all heating, cooling, and electrical systems and all appliances located therein, are safe from the hazards of fire; (b) the Home has one or more smoke alarms approved under applicable law, and, where applicable, one or more carbon monoxide alarms****The cost of this inspection shall be the responsibility of the TENANT, but may be negotiated with the prospective purchaser as part of the sale transaction.”

By prohibiting professional inspections upon resale, it would seem HB 3054 creates the risk that dangerous conditions such as defective wiring and resulting fire hazards will be perpetuated. Fire endangers not just the new purchaser but the entire community.

Going forward, landlords may wish to consider including an inspection advisory to all prospective purchasers emphasizing the importance of home inspections prior to closing a sale. While this cannot make inspections a condition of landlord’s consent to the sale, it can certainly encourage the practice.

The above information is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. MHCO Members should consult with their own attorney if they have any questions or concerns on the above legislation.

[1]  ORS 90.600(1) applies to tenancies that are governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

[2]  ORS 90.323 applies to tenancies that are not governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

Answer: Currently, ORS 90.600(2)(b) limits rent increases to 7% plus CPI (“Cap”) for any 12-month period. For 2023 that resulted in a Cap of 14.6%.[1] This amount surprised some, and we can fully expect the Oregon Legislature to pass a new law that could effectively reduce the Cap.

Note, that I do not read the law to limit rent increase after the first year of a month-to-month tenancy to only once per year – so long as the annual Cap is not exceeded in total. However, I believe that rent increase are generally limit to one-a-year by most Oregon MHP landlords.

Note also, that since ORS 90.600 only applies to periodic tenancies, i.e., month-to-month, the Cap does not apply to rent formulas in leases, i.e., fixed term tenancies. However, it has been my understanding that this was a legislative oversight in 2019; if so, the 2023 Legislature may change that, as well.

Currently, the text of ORS 90.600 provides that the landlord may not increase the rent (a) without giving each affected tenant notice in writing at least 90 days prior to the effective dateof the rent increase; and (b) during any 12-month period, in an amount greater than seven percent plus the consumer price index above the existing rent.

My reading of this is that so long as the rent does not exceed the Cap during a particular year – there is no limit on when the notice of 90-day increase may be issued. To put it another way, “increasing the rent” is not the same as “giving notice” of an increase in rent. There is no restriction against the frequency of the notices, just increases that exceed the applicable Cap.

For example, say word was out that the 2023 Legislature was going to dramatically reduce the Cap going forward. In my opinion, a landlord having already issued a 90-day rent increase notice in September 2022, effective January 1, 2023 (or later) would have two choices:

1. Rescind the 2022 notice before it becomes effective, and re-issue a new 90-day notice for a different rent effective in 2023, so long as it was done before the effective date of the new legislation and did not exceed the 2023 Cap establish in 2022.

2. Don’t rescind the earlier 2022 notice but issue a second rent increase notice that does not, in total, exceed the 14.6% Cap - so long as it is issued before the new 2023 legislation becomes effective.[2] Caveat: The 2-notice approach needs to make sure that the rental agreement or other park docs don’t limit increases to one per year.

Note that for both Nos. 1 and 2 above, the rent increase notice cannot be sent to any tenants who still have rent payments due on their first year of tenancy (including occupancy that may have preceded the signed rental agreement).

SB 608, the 2019 law amending ORS 90.600 and creating the Cap, applied to “rent increase notices delivered on or after the effective date of this 2019 Act.” In other words, the Legislature did not attempt to retroactively (and likely illegally) interfere with a rent increase that had already been issued before SB 608 went into effect.

Following that logic, should a landlord wish to rescind a 2022 90-day rent increase for 2023 and reissue a different one, it should be entirely legal so long as it is issued before the effective date of the legislation creating a new Cap.

Caveat: Landlords should check with their own legal counsel before rescinding any 2022 90-day notices or reissuing a second 90-day notice for 2023 rents under the 14.6% Cap.

[1] https://www.multifamilynw.org/news/2023-oregon-maximum-rent-increase-is-146

[2] For example, a 5.00% increase notice issued in September 2022 and a second notice for something less than 9.6% issued before the 2023 legislation becomes effective.

Answer: Currently, ORS 90.600(2)(b) limits rent increases to 7% plus CPI (“Cap”) for any 12-month period. For 2023 that resulted in a Cap of 14.6%.[1] This amount surprised some, and we can fully expect the Oregon Legislature to pass a new law that could effectively reduce the Cap.

Note, that I do not read the law to limit rent increase after the first year of a month-to-month tenancy to only once per year – so long as the annual Cap is not exceeded in total. However, I believe that rent increase are generally limit to one-a-year by most Oregon MHP landlords.

Note also, that since ORS 90.600 only applies to periodic tenancies, i.e., month-to-month, the Cap does not apply to rent formulas in leases, i.e., fixed term tenancies. However, it has been my understanding that this was a legislative oversight in 2019; if so, the 2023 Legislature may change that, as well.

Currently, the text of ORS 90.600 provides that the landlord may not increase the rent (a) without giving each affected tenant notice in writing at least 90 days prior to the effective dateof the rent increase; and (b) during any 12-month period, in an amount greater than seven percent plus the consumer price index above the existing rent.

My reading of this is that so long as the rent does not exceed the Cap during a particular year – there is no limit on when the notice of 90-day increase may be issued. To put it another way, “increasing the rent” is not the same as “giving notice” of an increase in rent. There is no restriction against the frequency of the notices, just increases that exceed the applicable Cap.

For example, say word was out that the 2023 Legislature was going to dramatically reduce the Cap going forward. In my opinion, a landlord having already issued a 90-day rent increase notice in September 2022, effective January 1, 2023 (or later) would have two choices:

1. Rescind the 2022 notice before it becomes effective, and re-issue a new 90-day notice for a different rent effective in 2023, so long as it was done before the effective date of the new legislation and did not exceed the 2023 Cap establish in 2022.

2. Don’t rescind the earlier 2022 notice but issue a second rent increase notice that does not, in total, exceed the 14.6% Cap - so long as it is issued before the new 2023 legislation becomes effective.[2] Caveat: The 2-notice approach needs to make sure that the rental agreement or other park docs don’t limit increases to one per year.

Note that for both Nos. 1 and 2 above, the rent increase notice cannot be sent to any tenants who still have rent payments due on their first year of tenancy (including occupancy that may have preceded the signed rental agreement).

SB 608, the 2019 law amending ORS 90.600 and creating the Cap, applied to “rent increase notices delivered on or after the effective date of this 2019 Act.” In other words, the Legislature did not attempt to retroactively (and likely illegally) interfere with a rent increase that had already been issued before SB 608 went into effect.

Following that logic, should a landlord wish to rescind a 2022 90-day rent increase for 2023 and reissue a different one, it should be entirely legal so long as it is issued before the effective date of the legislation creating a new Cap.

Caveat: Landlords should check with their own legal counsel before rescinding any 2022 90-day notices or reissuing a second 90-day notice for 2023 rents under the 14.6% Cap.

[1] https://www.multifamilynw.org/news/2023-oregon-maximum-rent-increase-is-146

[2] For example, a 5.00% increase notice issued in September 2022 and a second notice for something less than 9.6% issued before the 2023 legislation becomes effective.

Your "Screening Criteria" is another important document that should be provided to an interested applicant. This is the document that will determine where you draw the line between acceptance and denial. Your "Screening Criteria" is a written statement of the factors the landlord considers in deciding whether to accept of reject an applicant and any qualification required for acceptance. What can you have on that list? That is up to you. Here is a brief list to get you started: unsatisfactory rental references, the absence of any prior tenant history or credit history, unsatisfactory character references, criminal history, bankruptcy filed in the past two years, payment of rent problems, no social security number, and inaccurate information on the application, insufficient debt to income ratio. All of these are reasons for denial - it is up to you establish them as a basis for acceptance into you community. For example - maybe you accept applicants with felony conviction that are 20 years or older - it is up to you to include that on your screening criteria.

Remember to apply your criteria uniformly in all applications. Do not make exceptions. The question of whether you denied one person and accepted another could be tied to a potential discrimination case. Save yourself the agony of these situations - write a "screening criteria" and apply it uniformly. Used properly and consistently it can be a tool that keeps you above any suspicion of discrimination. The one limit on your screening criteria is that you cannot deny residency to anyone because of his or her race, color, sex, handicapped status, familial status, national origin or sources of income. However, you can deny tenancy to anyone - even if they are in a protected class - if they do not meet any of the minimum criteria that you establish in your screening criteria. Often potential applicants will "self screen" themselves by reading your "screening criteria" and realizing that they do not qualify, thus saving you and the potential applicant time and energy.

Screening/Admission Criteria: All applicants should be presented with a full explanation of the established basis for acceptance or rejection. This should be a written statement of any factors a landlord considers in deciding whether to accept or reject an applicant and any qualifications required for acceptance. This may include:

• Unsatisfactory rental references
• Applicant must be 18 years or older
• Provide two pieces of identification, one with each applicant's photo from a government office (i.e. Driver's License, State ID Card, Passport) and Social Security Card
• Be gainfully employed or have verifiable income from retirement, social security or periodic income.
• If the community is either an "age 55 or older" or an "age 62 or older" Community, you must provide proof that you meet the age requirements
• The absence of any prior tenant history or credit history
• Unsatisfactory credit history
• Unsatisfactory character references
• Any criminal history
• Insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly rental and other expense obligations
• Presence of pets or the number, type or size of pets
• Evidence that the prospective tenant has provided landlord with falsified or materially misleading information on any material items
• If the prospective tenant refuses to sign a new written rental agreement or lease agreement
• The number of additional occupants
• Adverse information contained in the public record

Additional criteria that may be added to qualify could include:

• Minimum two-year verifiable references with previous landlords
• No payment of rent problems over the past two years
• Two years of verifiable employment
• No criminal convictions
• No tax liens
• Sufficient income to pay all outstanding obligations after payment of rent
• Any individual who is a current illegal substance abuser, or has been convicted of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance will be denied tenancy
• Any individual or pet/animal whose residency would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals.
• If pets are permitted they must meet the requirements of state and local laws, ordinances, and the Community in regards to number, size and breed. Farm animals, exotic and/or wild animals, livestock and certain breeds of dogs. You should list breeds of dogs that are not allowed in your community
• You may want to set a percentage of net-income that should be left over after meeting all financial obligations.
• Homes must be owner occupied - no subleasing

You MUST post your community's screening criteria publicly in the office and provide written copies to all prospective residents.

Remember to apply your criteria uniformly in all applications. Do not make exceptions! Once you make an exception for one of your criteria you are opening up the possibility of future problems. You will be in the awkward position of having to explain why you made the exception to one applicant and not to another applicant. The question of whether you denied one person and accepted another could be tied to a potential discrimination case. Save yourself the agony of these situations and do not make exceptions to your screening criteria. Take the time to put your screening criteria in writing to protect yourself and provide prospective residents with a copy so that they can have the necessary information upon which to make a decision.

Remember - you cannot deny residency to anyone because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, handicapped status, familial status, national origin or source of income. However, you can deny tenancy to anyone - even if they are in a protected class - if they do not meet any of the minimum criteria.

For example: If someone applies for a space in your park and reveals that they are Catholic and have a bad credit record you cannot deny tenancy based on the fact that the individual is Catholic. However, you may deny the tenancy based on the fact that the prospective tenant has bad credit so long as the minimum screening criteria have been consistently applied.

Tell the applicant that you require a certain amount of time to screen the completed application, but that they will be notified within seven days, in accordance with Oregon law. This will give you the opportunity to complete credit and criminal checks, determine the condition of the home for pre-sale or move-in requirements, check employment and personal references; and get information about current and past tenancies.

Example: Landlord/Community
Screening or Admission Criteria

General Requirements:

1. Positive Identification with photo ID
2. A complete and accurate application. Incomplete applications will not be processed.
3. Applicant must be able to enter into a legally binding contract
4. Any applicant currently using illegal drugs or reporting a conviction for the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance will be denied.
5. Any individual who may constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of an individual, complex, neighborhood, or the property of others will be denied.
6. An application insufficient in credit and rental requirements shall require an additional security deposit equal to 50% of stated rental amount, over and above any other security deposit or additional security deposit required.
7. Applicants may qualify individually, however no person may reside in the property if they do not meet the general requirements of (3), (4) and (5).
8. In order to qualify as a co-signer you must meet all the general requirements and have a monthly income of five times the stated rent.
9. Proof of ownership of the home.

Income Requirements:

1. Gross monthly household income should be equal to two and half time the monthly rent
2. A current pay stub from your employer will be required if we are unable verify income over the phone. If you are unemployed you must have income or liquid assets equal to two and half time the annual rent. Self employed individuals will be required to show the previous year tax return and employment will be verified through the state. A recorded business name or corporate filing will suffice.
3. If applicant does not earn enough income to reside in the property then a co-signor will be required.
4. Your application will be denied if we are unable to determine you earn a legal source of income.

Rental Requirements:

1. One year of rental history or mortgage history verifiable by a third party is required. Current or previous mortgage history showing late payments will require an additional deposit of one month rent.
2. Eviction free rental history is required.
3. Rental history from a non-third party will require an additional deposit of one month rent or a cosignor.
4. Rental history with past due rent or an outstanding balance will be denied.
5. If previous landlord fails to give a reference or give a negative reference application will be denied.
6. Three (3) or more 72 hour notices within a one year period will result in denial.
7. Three (3) or more NSF checks within a one year period will result in denial.
8. Rental history demonstrating disruptive complaints or neglect will result in denial.

Credit Requirements:

1. A credit history with negative reports will not be accepted. A negative report is considered an non medical item 60 days past due or greater, collections, repossessions, liens, judgments or garnishments. Negative credit will result in additional guidelines as follows
   1. A credit report containing a discharged bankruptcy will require an additional deposit of one month's rent or co-signor.
   2. 1-2 items 60 days past due or greater, collections, repossessions, liens judgments or garnishments will require an additional deposit of one month's rent or co-signor.
   3. 3-5 of the items above will require an additional one and half time security deposit.
   4. 6-8 of the items above will require an additional one and half time security deposit plus a cosignor.
   5. 9 or more will result in complete denial

Criminal:

Upon receipt of the rental application and a screening fee, Landlord will conduct a search of the public records to determine whether the applicant or any proposed tenant has been convicted of, or pled guilty to, or no contest to, any crime.

1. A conviction, guilty plea, or no-contest plea, ever for: any felony involving serious injury, kidnapping, death, arson, rape, sex crimes/ and or child sex crimes, extensive property damage, or drug related offenses (sale, manufacture, delivery, possession with intent to sell) A/ Felony burglary or class A/ Felony robbery or;
2. A conviction, guilty plea, or no-contest plea, where the date of disposition, release or parole have occurred within the last seven years for any; felony charges or;
3. A conviction, guilty plea, or no-contest plea, where the date of disposition, release or parole have occurred within the last seven years for; any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor involving assault, intimidation, sex related, drug related (sale, manufacture, delivery or possession), property damage or weapons charges; or
4. A conviction, guilty plea, or no-contest plea, where the date of disposition, release or parole have occurred within the last three years for; any class B or C misdemeanor in any of the above categories or any misdemeanors in the above categories or any misdemeanors involving criminal trespass I, theft, dishonesty, prostitution shall be grounds for denial of the rental application. Pending charges or outstanding warrants for any of the above will result in suspension of the application process until the charges are resolved. Upon resolution, if the desired unit is available, the application process will be completed. Units will not be held awaiting resolution of pending charges.

Denial Policy:

If you applicant is being denied to adverse and negative information being reported, you should:

1. If it is credit related, contact the credit reporting agency listed in the denial letter in order to:
   1. Identify who is reporting negative information about you
   2. Request a correction if the information being reported is incorrect.

Remember - the "Ideal Resident":

1. Pays the rent on time.
2. Keeps the outside of the manufactured home and the space in a clean and well maintained manner.
3. Does not litter, damage or destroy community property.
4. Does not disturb the neighbors.

The key to identifying the "Ideal Resident" is a thorough and complete processing of the rental application and the supplemental verification forms, combined with a personal interview of the prospective tenant. "Snap judgements" or a "hurry to rent the space" must be avoided.

Used properly and consistently, the Rental Application and supplemental verification forms will prove helpful in countering charges of discrimination in renting spaces. The application should be used in conjunction with a personal interview of the entire household, which can reveal characteristics that do not come through on the written application. In order to protect yourself against claims, you must adopt and consistently follow specific guidelines and procedures by which each and every application is reviewed. The "Resident Acceptance Policy" will assist you in documenting the basis for your acceptance or rejection of each application. It is a good idea to maintain all rejected applications and supporting information for a period of at least three years. Tenant screening is a very important part of community management and it should not be done without reason and consistency. Tenant screening cannot be based on your personal feelings or emotions.

A thorough screening is your best resource for finding good residents. Current residents in surrounding home sites will feel more secure knowing their neighbors have also been screened. 

Answer. This issue is not dissimilar to one asked recently where the hospitalized resident's sister came as a concerned family member and, bringing her small child, wanted to stay at the home which was located in a 55+ community.

My response then, s here, is that ORS Chapter 90, like most laws, is enacted to address essentially 80% of the most commonly observed landlord-tenant issues. That leaves the other 20% to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, i.e. as they arise. This situation raises issues that do not have a direct answer under the law.

Here, the issue deals, perhaps more directly, with what authority management has to permit friends and family to reside in the home of the comatose resident? Without some assurance that any of these folks would be permitted to stay in the home, the answer is a bit easier than whether a visiting sister with a small child is in violation of the 55+ park rules (she was not).

The most conservative answer is, to me, the best one; unless there is some basis for granting consent, I would not permit anyone to occupy the home, other than the resident. You have no knowledge of the visitor's backgrounds, and permitting them to encamp in the resident's home could pose problems to other residents.

The Oregon landlord-tenant law contains nothing one could point to that would authorize management to turn over possession to friends and family. Even family alone, should not be permitted access. There are simply too many things that could go wrong, and families can do strange things when a member passes away.[1]

• Like taking items from the home that now belong to the estate;
• Like moving in and claiming the home was "inherited";
• Like selling the home and retaining the proceeds, etc.

And what if the resident recovers? Will there be issues when he/she wants to return home, and one or more persons are staying there? What if valuables are missing?

The take-away is this: Absent some fairly clear instructions from the resident, or the attorney-in- fact under a durable power of attorney, the downside in permitting occupancy far outweighs any upside. Your explanation should be simple and straight forward: Oregon law does not authorize you to turn over possession of a resident's home to any unauthorized third parties. Under no circumstances should you accept any rent payments from them.

Lastly, if the friends and family are already staying in the home, you have a different set of problems. These folks are squatters, in that they did not enter into possession under any legal claim of right. ORS 90.100(43) defines a "Squatter" as:

... a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit. "Squatter" does not include a tenant who holds over as described in ORS 90.427 (7).

Accordingly, you should first try to get them to vacate immediately and peaceably. If they refuse, your only alternative is to file for eviction against them. You do not need a written notice, since this case does not arise under the Oregon Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. You should contact an attorney familiar with eviction law, who can assist you in using the proper summons and complaint. (See, ORS 105.126) Once filed, the case will proceed in much the same fashion as all other evictions.

[1] Remember that the abandonment law has a specific protocol upon death of a resident living alone. Management is required to secure the home, issue a 45-day letter, and give the estate the same rights as a lienholder, with the obligation to pay storage fees and maintain the home until removal or resale. And no one may occupy the home. See, ORS 90.675(21).

Evictions.

Most evictions are either for failure to pay rent or violation of rules. An eviction (formally known as a "forcible entry and detainer" or "FED") is an expedited legal procedure designed to allow landlords to obtain possession of their property through the court system. Oregon does not require that landlords obtain an attorney in order to file an FED. The necessary summons and complaint can be obtained from the courthouse and they can be filed and served quickly. This has its advantages and disadvantages: It is good insofar as it keeps the cost of the process down, but it is bad if the owner or manager fails to strictly follow all of the legal procedures required by the statutes. Accordingly, for the inexperienced manager or new owner, it is strongly, recommended that guidance first be sought, either through the MHCO, from an experienced attorney, or by consulting with a knowledgeable community management company.

Since the FED process is designed to be a "summary" or quick proceeding, the law imposes upon those seeking its assistance, i.e. owners and managers, the duty to strictly comply with all of the requirements set out in the statutes. This means, for instance, that the written notice that must precede the filing of the complaint (e.g the 72-hour nonpayment of rent notice or the 30-day notice of termination for cause) must be properly filled out to the letter. Since the notice is required to be attached to the FED complaint, and thereby becomes a part of it, if it is defective in any respect, the Court can unilaterally dismiss it - thus forcing the landlord or manager to start all over again. It is for this reason that before actually filing the summons and complaint which starts the FED court process, the plaintiff should closely review the notice to make sure it complies with the law.

Leases & Rental Agreements.

As a result of MHCO's efforts in the recent Legislative Session, landlords will be able to use leases for two year terms or more. At the end of the term, the tenant must either agree to a new updated lease as well as rules and regulations. Briefly, the process is as follows: Not more than 60 days prior to the termination of the lease, the landlord must provide the tenant with a copy of the new proposed lease and rules. Thereafter, the tenant has 30 days within which to either agree to the new terms or to vacate and remove the home. If the tenant declines to sign and elects to vacate, he/she can try to re-sell the home in the park for up to 12 months, so long as storage fees are paid.

The one limitation on landlords - and not an unreasonable one - is that the new lease agreement or rules that the tenant may be asked to sign must be the substantially the same as those the landlord is currently offering others who are seeking to rent a space in the community.

One caveat for landlords: If they fail to offer the new rules and lease agreement to the tenant on or before 60 days prior to expiration of the current term, the lease turns into a month-to-month tenancy.

Thus, the use of leases under the new law will now permit landlords to unilaterally update their rental agreements and rules. We'll be talking about this in depth at the Annual Convention.

Day Care Facilities.

Frequently, community managers are confronted with tenants who seek to open day care businesses in their home. There are multiple issues involved here. First, is it a violation of the existing zoning laws to use the home for a commercial business? Secondly, will it impact the landlord's insurance rates? Lastly, what about increased traffic and risk of accidents? All of these issues militate against permitting tenants to open such enterprises.

Landlords should review their rules and regulations to make sure they have adequate limitations on day care businesses. If they do not, consideration should be given to updating the rules to make the appropriate amendments. However, for those landlords or managers whose rules do not address the issue, how is one to proceed? Oregon law provides that violation of the law constitutes a breach for which a curable 30-day notice of termination may be given. Accordingly, the landlord or manager should first check the zoning law. If it is a residential neighborhood, there may be zoning restrictions on such business enterprises. Also, even if there is not current restriction, there is nothing illegal about instituting a restriction of day care facilities immediately. Oregon law permits such rules, even if they make a material modification to the landlord-tenant relationship, so long as they are passed by the tenants in a legally adopted rule change (i.e. 51% or more do not object.)

1. How to Initiate Mediation or Informal Dispute Resolution

Mediation may be initiated by a Landlord, a Tenant or Group of Tenants. Either party may contact the mediation services available through: (a) park/marina manager, (b) Local Community Dispute Resolution Center (CDRC), or (c) Manufactured and Marina Communities Resource Center (MMCRC) hotline: 1-800- 453-5511 (Toll Free in Oregon) or email:hcs.mmcrc@oregon.gov or the MMCRC Website.

2. Disputes Eligible for Mandatory Mediation

• Those between the landlord and one or more tenants, initiated by any party.

• Those between more than one tenant as initiated by the landlord.

• Information dispute resolution, disputes between two tenants, initiated by either party. Consistent with statute, upon intake the CDRC will determine the eligibility of an issue for mediation (reference Section 6 below).

3. Good Faith Efforts

Participants must make good faith effort to: (a) schedule a mediation within 30 days after initiation: (b) attend and participate; and (c) cooperate with reasonable requests of the mediator.

4. Mandatory mediation only:

 If a party refuses to participate in good faith in mandatory mediation with another party, or uses mediation to harass another party, the other party:

(a) has a defense to a claim related to the subject of the dispute for which mediation was sought; and

(b) is entitled to damages of one month’s rent against the party.

Effect of Filing for Mandatory Mediation

Between the commencement and conclusion of the mediation:

• If the request for mandatory mediation is made before the landlord files a Forcible Entry5. 6.and Detainer, Oregon Revised Statute 90.767 calls for a “stay” or “toll” (suspension) of

any related court action until conclusion of the mandatory mediation.

• A party may not file a court action over the dispute until conclusion of the mandatory mediation; (c) tenant has continuing duty to pay rent; and (d) landlord’s receipt of rent does not constitute a waiver under Oregon Revised Statute 90.412(2).

5. Matters Subject to Mandatory Mediation

Except as provided in Section 6, below, the following disputes are eligible for mediation:

(a) landlord or tenant compliance with the rental agreement or Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 90 (Oregon landlord/tenant statutes); (b) landlord or tenant conduct within the Park/Marina; and (c) rule changes initiated under Oregon Revised Statute 90.610.

Matters Not Subject to Mandatory Mediation

Unless specifically provided for in a mediation policy established under this section, or agreed to by all parties, no party may initiate mediation for:

(a) Facility closures consistent with ORS 90.645 or 90.671.

(b) Facility sales consistent with ORS 90.842 to 90.850.

(c) Rent increases consistent with ORS 90.600.

(d) Rent payments or amounts owed.

(e) Tenant violations alleged in a termination notice given under ORS 90.394, 90.396 or

90.630 (8).

(f) Violations of an alleged unauthorized person in possession in a notice given under ORS

90.403.

(g) Unless initiated by the victim, a dispute involving allegations of domestic violence,

sexual assault or stalking or a dispute between the victim and the alleged perpetrator.

(h) A dispute arising after the termination of the tenancy, including under ORS 90.425,

90.675 or 105.161.

7. Confidentiality

Subject to Oregon Revised Statute 36.220 (confidentiality of mediation communications and agreements), all communications between the parties and mediator are strictly confidential and may not be used in any legal proceedings.

8. Limitations on Mandatory Mediation Process

Participation in mediation does not require any party to: (a) reach an agreement on any or all issues submitted; (b) participate in more than one mediation session; (c) participate foran unreasonable length of time in a mediation session; or (d) waive or forego any legal rights or remedies.

9. Designees for Parties

Any party may designate any other person, including a non-attorney(“Designee”), to represent the interests of that party provided that the Designee has complete written authority to bind that party to any resolution of the dispute reached in mediation. The Designee shall be equally bound by all rules of the mediation, including confidentiality.

10. Resolution/Nonresolution

The mediator shall notify Oregon Housing and Community Services whether a dispute was resolved but may not disclose the contents of any resolution.

This article was created by Oregon Housing and Community Services

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) went into effect on March 12, 1989.  That Act amended Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the sale, rental, or financing of residential housing.  The FHAA added two additional protected classes; (1) persons with disabilities and (2) families with children.  Children include persons under the age of 18 years.

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.
2. Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.  Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 
3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 
4. Comply with HUD age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that 80% of the facility be intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older. 

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

The above article is a discussion of the federal Fair Housing law governing 55+ communities.  The contents are not intended to constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon by the reader as such.  All legal questions regarding this complicated and important law should be directed to legal counsel familiar with the area.

© Copyright 2006.  Phillip C. Querin.  No portion may be reproduced without the express written consent of the author.