Search

Answer: The submetering statutes, ORS 90.531 - 90.539 are complex and confusing. As most owners and managers know who have explored converting to submeters, the concept is relatively simple. But the devil is in the details, i.e. the statutes. The basic concept is that for communities with utilities [e.g. water and sewer] that are buried in the base rent, they may extract those charges from base rent, and pass them through to the residents directly for payment. The "quid pro quo" for this is that the residents' base rent is reduced in a commensurate amount, so in theory, there is no initial net difference to landlord or tenant. But when utilities are increased, it becomes the residents' immediate responsibility to pay the increased charge - the landlord no longer has to raise the rent via a 90-day notice to recover the increase. Your question specifically pertains to one of the "devilish details' of this conversion process, i.e. passing through the utility cost for common areas. Specifically, you are referring to subsection (5) of ORS 90.537 ("Conversion of billing method for utility or service charges"). That statute provides that a landlord who has previously included utilities and services in their base rent [called "the rent billing method"] and converts to the "submeter billing method" may unilaterally, and at the same time as the conversion to submetering, begin billing for common areas to a "pro rata billing method" [i.e. where the residents' cost of the utility is charged and paid separately from the rent in an amount determined by apportioning on a pro rata basis the provider's charge to the landlord as measured by a master meter]. This common area charge must be included in the 180-day notice to residents that precedes the submeter conversion process. This means that the landlord would charge each resident a prorata portion of the master meter readings attributable to common area costs. Obviously, master meter readings do not distinguish between utility services provided to residents, versus those provided to common areas. For purposes of determining the amount of the offset the landlord should check with the utility provider to find out the cost of its service to the common areas. If the provider cannot provide the landlord with an accurate cost for service to the common areas, the landlord "shall assume the cost of serving the common areas to be 20 percent of the total cost billed." Note: Only if the landlord continues use the rent billing method for the cost of utilities to the common areas may the landlord may obtain an offset against the total rent reduction given to residents. This is because if the common area utility cost is still buried inside the base rent. It would be unfair to the landlord to require a dollar-for-dollar rent reduction for all utilities, since those attributed to the common areas are not passed directly through to the tenants for separate payment. In other words, the right of offset '_is not available if the landlord chooses to bill for the common areas using the pro rata method." If the cost of the utility service to the common area is apportioned on a prorate basis and passed through to the residents, there will be no need for offset against the rent reduction as a part of the conversion to submeters. In those cases, the landlord may only apportion the common area utility cost on a prorata basis. For purposes of determining the pro rata charge per resident, ORS 90.534 ("Allocated charges for utility or service provided directly to space or common area") clarifies the protocol to be followed: - A utility charge that is assessed to residents on a pro rata basis must be allocated among them '_by a method that reasonably apportions the cost among the affected tenants and that is described in the rental agreement." - Methods that reasonably apportion the cost among the residents include, but are not limited to, methods that divide the cost based on: _ The number of occupied spaces in the facility; _ The number of residents or occupants in the home compared with the number of residents or occupants in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service; or _ The square footage in each home compared with the total square footage of occupied homes in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service. - A utility or service charge to be assessed to a resident for a common area must be described in the written rental agreement separately and distinctly from the utility or service charge for the tenant's space. - A landlord may not: _ Bill or collect more money from residents for utilities or services than the provider charges the landlord; _ Increase the utility or service charge to a resident by adding any costs of the landlord, such as handling or administrative charges. See, I said the devil was in the details! ~PCQ

By Bill Miner and Seth (Moe) Tangman

First, the bad news: Recent uptick in class action lawsuits puts manufactured home park landlords at risk of damages for technical statutory violations.

There has been an uptick in class action lawsuits filed by manufactured home tenants related to submeter or pro rata utility billings passed through from landlords. The recent spate of lawsuits seek damages for noncompliance with statutory invoicing requirements, irrespective of whether tenants were actually overcharged for utilities, or whether any invoicing deficiency is harmless.

ORS 90.560 et seq. governs a manufactured home park landlord’s ability to charge manufactured home tenants for utilities in the State of Oregon and sets forth procedures and billing requirements for submeter or pro rata utility billings to which landlords must comply. ORS 90.582(3)(a)&(b) states that if a landlord “fails to comply with a provision of ORS 90.560 to 90.584, the tenant may recover from the landlord the greater of: . . .One month’s rent; or . . .Twice the tenant’s actual damages, including any amount wrongfully charged to the tenant.” This penalty applies irrespective of whether a tenant actually suffered any overbilling damages or if the landlord’s failure to comply with the invoicing requirements were minimal and otherwise harmless.

Now the good news: The Oregon Supreme Court recently held that the proper measure of damages under ORS 90.582 is not one month’s rent for each violation; rather it’s the greater of one month’s rent or twice the tenant’s actual damages.

In Shephard Investment Group, LLC v. Ormandy, 371 Or 285 (2023), the Oregon Supreme Court was  asked  to  determine  the  proper  calculation  of  damages  that  may  be  awarded  to  a  tenant,  following  multiple instances  of  landlord  noncompliance  with  certain  utility  billing  requirements  that  repeated  each  month,  over  a  series of months. ORS 90.315 governs the inclusion of utility or public service charges such as for sewer or water service, in non-manufactured home park rental agreements. ORS 90.562 (which applies to manufactured home park tenancies) is substantially similar to ORS 90.315.

Both statutes require  landlords  to  “disclose  to  the  tenant in writing at or before the commencement of the tenancy any utility or service that the tenant pays directly to a utility or service provider that benefits, directly, the landlord or other tenants.” Both statutes state that a landlord “may require a tenant to pay to the landlord a utility or service charge or a public service charge that has been billed by a utility or service provider to the landlord”, also known as “pass-through” billing. However, the statutes condition pass-through billing upon a number of procedural requirements, such  as  billing  the  tenant  within  30  days,  setting  out  the  utility  or service  charge  separately  from  rent,  and  providing copies of the service provider’s bill or an opportunity to inspect it to a tenant. If a landlord engages in pass-through billing for public service charges without having met all of the conditions  of  the statutes,  a  tenant  may  recover  “an  amount  equal  to  one  month’s  periodic  rent  or  twice  the  amount  wrongfully  charged  to  the  tenant,  whichever  is  greater.” 

In this case, the landlord  brought  an eviction action  against the tenant to  recover  possession  of  the landlord’s premises. In response, the tenant alleged a counterclaim that landlord  had  failed  to  comply  with  certain  utility  billing  requirements  found  in  ORS  90.315(4)(b).  Specifically, the tenant alleged that, over the previous  year,  landlord  had  failed  to  (1)  timely  bill  him  in  writing for each month’s utility charges, as required under ORS  90.315(4)(b)(A);  and  (2)  provide  him  with  an  explanation  of  the  “pass  through  charges”  in  either  the  written  rental  agreement  or  separate  billings,  as  required  under  ORS  90.315(4)(b)(B). The  trial  court  agreed  with  tenant,  concluding  that  landlord  had  committed  12  separate  violations—one  per  month  - over  the  12  months within the one-year statute of limitations that governs  landlord-tenant actions. The trial court  awarded  tenant  statutory  damages  in  an  amount  equal  to  12  months  of  rent. 

The landlord appealed and the  Court  of  Appeals  reversed,  concluding  that  the  plain  text  of  ORS 90.315(4)(f)  showed the legislature had not intended for each landlord billing violation  to  be  subject  to  a  separate  sanction.

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed with a thorough analysis, one that you may want to read, if you are so inclined. The crux of the Supreme Court’s logic is that while there may be substantive violations that are ongoing (i.e. not having specific language in a rental agreement and not placing particular language on a utility bill each month), the fact that they are ongoing is more procedural. The allegations complained of in this particular case were procedural, thus the Supreme Court held that the proper measure of damages is not one month’s rent for each violation, but there is one violation that is ongoing.

While this is a good case to address these types of claims, manufactured home park owners would be wise to reach out to their legal advisors who are well versed in manufactured home park law to review their billing practices to ensure that they are complying with the law.

Bill Miner, Partner-In-Charge Davis Wright Tremaine.  Experience includes defending and prosecuting business torts; breach of contract claims; disputes between and among members of limited liability companies; residential and commercial real estate matters, including landlord-tenant, title, lien, and timber trespass disputes; and probate and trust cases.

Moe Tangman is an attorney at Davis Wright Tramaine and applies his firsthand litigation experience to help his clients find business-oriented solutions tailored to resolve their commercial and corporate disputes. He represents clients in complex commercial litigation matters, particularly with respect to real estate, corporate governance, transactions, business tort, and contract disputes. Moe also maintains a robust class-action defense practice, with an emphasis in the data privacy and cybersecurity space.

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.

That is the question on the minds of most MHCO members we speak to. As you have likely noticed, the costs of water, sewer, and other utilities has increased exponentially in the last few years for both commercial and residential properties alike. The addition of unrelated or undefined fees, such as street maintenance, base charges, and additional services, has become commonplace. Combine that with careless usage of water by tenants and you have a perfect storm for losing revenue. Since we cannot directly control these increasing costs or the careless usage, it is nearly impossible to try and keep up by using rent increases alone.

Our recommendation is to focus on what you can control: who is directly paying for the utility expense. According to the Alliance for Water Efficiency (http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org), the average submetered customer uses up to 20% less than a customer on a master metered system. In our professional experience, we have seen decreases of up to 40%. It is really no surprise that when you transfer the responsibility to the tenant, they instantly become more aware of the leaks and conservation behaviors that they had been ignoring previously. It is just human nature that if something doesn'tcost you anything, you are less likely to be conscientious.

In order to place this responsibility on the tenant and get control of your utility expenses, you need to convert your park to the "Submeter Billing Method" outlined in the Oregon statutes. This can be a daunting task to take on alone, so it is important that you use someone who is an expert. We have spent the last few years immersed in research and have designed Jet Utilities' Submeter Conversion Program around the laws specific to Oregon. We have consulted the best minds in the business, including many Coalition board members, as well as independent council. We can confidently call ourselves experts in not only regulations and project management, but also in the actual installation of the system. Jet has its own licensed journeyman plumbers who are dedicated to the installation of submeters at mobile home parks. We have the knowledge and experience to handle a park of any size, with any type of plumbing material, anywhere in Oregon, Washington, or California.

We are confident that submetering is the right thing to do for your manufactured home community. The largest obstacle that many owners face after realizing their need to submeter is finding a way to fund the project. Until recently, your choices have been very limited: use your own capital or try and secure financing on your own. Neither of those is very attractive or very easy to do given the current economic state. Jet Utilities' Submeter Conversion Program offers owners and managers a turn key solution including the funding for the equipment and installation. There are no loans to qualify for, no up-front capital, and no cost to you. How can we do this, you ask? It is simple. We already have the funding for these projects. We simply install an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) System and utility grade water meters at each space, and then bill you a flat monthly fee that Oregon law allows you to pass directly through to the tenants.

There are some very important laws and regulations that go into the preparation of this as well as the requirement for a Unilateral Amendment to the Rental Agreement which is now available to MHCO members in the "Forms" section of the MHCO website. (MHCO Form 14 - Unilateral Amendment to Rental Agreement for Sub-Metering). This is the first step in preparing for Submeter Conversion.

For more information and a quote for your park, please visit our website www.jetutilities.com or call 1-844-JET-UTIL (844-538-8845) and ask for Erik.

Under a limited exception, senior housing communities may lawfully exclude families with children, but that exception applies only if your community satisfies specific technical requirements. Unless you meet these requirements, your community could be liable for restricting or otherwise excluding families with children from living there.

In this lesson, we’ll review the law governing familial status and offer 10 rules—the essential Dos & Don’ts—for complying with fair housing law when dealing with families with children. Finally, you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on familial status. In general, that means you can’t discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. Specifically, the FHA’s ban on discrimination based on familial status applies when one or more children under the age of 18 are living with:

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

It also applies to pregnant woman and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of one or more children under 18.

In a nutshell, the familial status provisions apply whenever there’s one or more children under 18 living in the household. The children may be living with one or both birth parents—whether they’re married, divorced, single, gay, or straight. The adult could also be an adoptive parent, foster parent, or legal guardian. Individuals with legal custody include family members or others approved by the courts. More broadly, the law applies to people with written permission of the parent or legal guardian.

Senior housing exemption. Under a limited exception, senior housing communities may lawfully exclude children, but only when they satisfy strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” The exemption applies to housing communities or facilities that are governed by a common set of rules, regulations, or restrictions. A portion of a single building is not considered a housing facility or community, according to HUD. And remember: The senior-housing exemption applies only to the FHA’s familial status provisions; the community still must abide by the law’s protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability.

FOLLOW 10 RULES FOR DEALING WITH FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

Rule #1

DO Make Housing Available to Families with Children

DON’T Deny Housing Because There’s a Child in the Household

Though it’s been unlawful for more than 30 years, communities continue to run afoul of fair housing provisions by denying housing to families with children.

It’s important to remember that familial status is on the same footing as race and any of the other protected classes under fair housing law. Just as it’s unlawful to turn people away because of their race, you can’t turn prospects away because they have one or more children living with them. It doesn’t matter whether you—or your current residents—would prefer to be living among adults; it’s unlawful to deny housing to people—or to treat them differently—because there’s a child under the age of 18 in the household. In fact, simply expressing a preference against families with children can lead to a fair housing complaint.

Example: In February 2020, the owners of a California community and its leasing agency agreed to pay $10,000 to resolve allegations that its leasing agent denied a father of two children the opportunity to rent a condominium. In his HUD complaint, the father alleged that he was denied the opportunity to rent the condo because his two young daughters would be living with him part time. According to the father, the leasing agent refused to consider his application for the unit, saying, “I don’t want to waste your time or mine. Sorry.” The housing providers denied that they discriminated against the family.

“Families today face enough challenges without being denied a place to call home because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue working to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation under the Fair Housing Act to treat home seekers with children equally.”

Example: In March 2019, a California rental property owner and his management company agreed to pay $15,000 to resolve a HUD complaint alleging that they refused to rent a unit to a couple because they have three children. The case came to HUD’s attention when Project Sentinel, a HUD Fair Housing Initiatives Program agency, filed a complaint alleging that the family was denied the opportunity to rent a two-bedroom unit because they have children. The housing providers denied that they discriminated against the couple.

“Families shouldn’t have their access to housing denied simply because they have children,” Farías said in a statement. “This type of discrimination has been against the law for more than 30 years, and HUD will continue working to make the public and housing providers aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #2

DO Follow the Rules to Qualify for the Senior Housing Exemption

DON’T Adopt or Enforce Adults-Only Policy

Although fair housing law generally prohibits discrimination based on familial status, there’s a limited exception that applies to senior housing communities that meet strict legal requirements to qualify as “housing for older persons.” Senior communities that comply with these technical requirements are exempt from the general rules that protect families with children. There’s no middle ground—you either meet those requirements or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re likely to trigger a fair housing complaint if you adopt or enforce an “adults-only” policy that prevents families with children from living there.

Example: In January 2019, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced a $10,000 settlement to resolve a fair housing complaint against the owner of a six-unit rental community and the real estate brokerage firm that managed it. Fair housing advocates filed the complaint, alleging that the property was advertised online as an “adult complex” and included a restriction of “maximum 2 adults.” During a follow-up call, the property manager allegedly told a tester that children were not allowed. DFEH found that the complex wasn’t a senior citizen housing development and that there was cause to believe a violation of state fair housing law had occurred. The case was settled prior to formal mediation.

“In California, senior housing developments can, with some exceptions, exclude residents under 55 years of age if they have at least 35 units and meet other requirements,” DFEH Director Kevin Kish said in a statement. “All other rental properties violate the law if they categorically exclude families with minor children.”

Rule #3

DO Apply Same Terms and Conditions Regardless of Familial Status

DON’T Treat Prospects Differently Because They Have Children

Treat prospects consistently, regardless of whether there are children in the household. It’s unlawful to impose different terms and conditions of a tenancy on households based on familial status, so you can’t make the leasing process more cumbersome, or quote higher rental terms, for families with children.

Example: In May 2019, a court refused to dismiss a fair housing case against a Virginia couple who engaged the services of a real estate agency to assist them in leasing their five-bedroom, five-and-a-half bath, 8,500 sq. ft. home. Shortly after it was listed for rent at $3,750 per month, a prospect contacted the realty agent about leasing the home for his multigenerational family. When the agent asked how many people would be living there, the prospect said his family consisted of him and his wife, their five minor children, and his two parents.

A few days later, the agent allegedly told the prospect that the owners “were not interested in renting to a large family.” Later, the owner allegedly told the agent that he was willing to rent to the prospects “if they paid more.” According to the prospect, the agent told him that he could rent the home if he was willing to pay “a few hundred dollars” more since there would be two families living there. The prospect said he told the agent that there would not be two families living there. The home was later rented to a family consisting of a husband, wife, and two children for the advertised rent.

The prospect sued the owners and the agency for discrimination based on familial status under state law. The prospect claimed that the agent’s “tone and communications” made him believe that the landlords feared additional wear and tear on the home because his family included five children and that the couple wasn’t willing to rent them the home, despite the prospect’s willingness to pay the advertised rent, because they were “a large family.” According to the prospect, the owner’s use of terms “additional family” and “two families” were code words to mask their preference to refuse to rent to his family because it included five children under age 18.

The court refused to dismiss the case. The owner alleged that his request for additional rent was related to the presence of the additional adults, not the minor children, in the household, but court ruled that further proceedings were needed to resolve the case [Commonwealth ex rel. Real Estate Board v. Tutt Taylor & Rankin Real Estate LLC., Virginia, May 2019].

Rule #4

DO Be Prepared to Justify Reasonableness of Occupancy Standards

DON’T Apply Unreasonably Restrictive Occupancy Standards

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from maintaining reasonable occupancy policies as long as you apply them consistently. But it’s illegal to set overly restrictive occupancy standards that have the effect of excluding families with children. If a community’s occupancy policy keeps the number of occupants unreasonably low, it’s likely to discourage families with children from living there unless they’re willing to pay for a larger unit.

To ensure your community’s occupancy standards pass muster, the first step is to check applicable state and local laws, which may limit occupancy based on the number of people, square footage, and other factors. In general, federal fair housing law defers to reasonable state and local restrictions on occupancy, so you have to be familiar with those laws before you set or enforce your occupancy standards.

Subject to state and local law, two persons per bedroom is a reasonable occupancy policy under federal fair housing law, according to HUD guidelines issued in 1991 known as the “Keating memo.” Nevertheless, HUD says that’s only a rule of thumb, which may not be reasonable in certain cases because of the size of the bedrooms and of the overall unit, the age of the children, the unit configuration, other physical limitations of the housing, state and local law, and other relevant factors. Among other things, HUD will look at evidence, such as discriminatory statements or rules, which may suggest that the occupancy policy was adopted as a way to restrict children from living there.

Example: In February 2020, HUD approved a settlement between fair housing advocates and a group of California property owners and managers resolving allegations of discrimination based on familial status. Fair housing advocates filed the HUD complaint, alleging that fair housing testing showed that the owners and two property managers refused to rent to families with children or offered them different lease terms and conditions. The advocates also claimed that the owners and managers implemented an unreasonably restrictive two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy at two rental properties. The housing providers denied the allegations.

“Families looking for safe, decent housing shouldn’t be penalized because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Today’s agreement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to ensuring that housing providers meet their obligation to treat all applicants the same.”

To avoid fair housing trouble, you’re better off focusing on the number of people who may occupy units, not the number of children you’d prefer to live there. HUD guidelines state that an occupancy policy that limits the number of children in a unit is less likely to be reasonable than one that limits the number of people per unit.

Example: In September 2019, the owners and managers of a large rental home in Idaho agreed to pay $15,000 to settle allegations that they refused to rent the home to a married couple because they had more than four children. Specifically, the HUD charge alleged that the homeowners discriminated against a family attempting to lease their 2,600 square foot, four-bedroom rental home because they had seven minor children. When the couple met with the property manager about renting the home, he allegedly said that the owners had set a limit of four children for the home. The charge also alleged a policy restricting the number of children was written in the rental contract.

“Persons attempting to provide a home for their family should not have their housing options limited because they have children,” Farías said in a statement. “Today’s action will hopefully serve as a reminder to all housing providers of the importance of meeting their obligations to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #5

DO Be Careful About Applying Occupancy Standards When a Child Joins a Household

DON’T Penalize Residents for Having a Baby

Fair housing rules banning discrimination based on familial status apply not only to families with children under 18, but also to pregnant women and others who have or are in the process of adopting or obtaining custody of a child.

Consequently, it’s unlawful to discriminate against a resident who has a baby, adopts a child, or takes custody of grandchildren. As long as the unit is large enough for the family under applicable state and local occupancy limits, you could face fair housing liability if you evict them, refuse to renew their lease, or insist that they move to a larger unit.

Example: In September 2019, the Justice Department sued the manager and owners of a Missouri apartment complex for discrimination on the basis of familial status. The case began with a HUD complaint filed by a couple, who alleged that the owners and manager terminated their tenancy because of the birth of their second child. At the time, the couple said they and one minor child had been renting their one-bedroom unit at the community for more than a year. The complaint also alleged that the community’s application form, lease agreement, and correspondence with the couple stated an explicit “No children” policy.

Example: In August 2018, HUD charged the owners of a South Dakota community and their property management company with housing discrimination for refusing to let a couple and their newborn baby stay in their one-bedroom apartment because of the community’s occupancy policies. According to the charge, shortly after the new baby arrived, the mother allegedly asked agents of the property management company how long two adults could live in a one-bedroom unit with an infant and was told that they would have to move to a two-bedroom unit. The community claimed that the two-person-per-bedroom occupancy policy was required by the city’s occupancy code. But HUD alleged that the city code was more flexible than that by allowing consideration of additional areas beyond bedrooms that may be considered for sleeping and occupancy purposes.

“Occupancy policies that exclude families with children or make it harder for them to obtain housing are unlawful and have no place in today’s often tight housing markets,” said Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Rule #6

DO Tell Prospects About All Units that Fit Their Needs

DON’T Engage in Unlawful Steering Based on Familial Status

Limiting a prospect’s housing choices because they have children under 18 in the household is a fair housing violation, commonly known as “steering.” In general, steering means guiding, directing, or encouraging prospects to live—or not live—at the community or in certain areas within a community based on familial status or other characteristics protected under fair housing law. Among other things, you may not restrict where families may live by making certain units, floors, or buildings off-limits to families with children.

When discussing vacancies with prospects, tell them about all available units that meet their stated requirements. Even if you believe it might be better for the children, you could trigger a discrimination complaint if you don’t tell families with children about available units on upper floors or near water features, such as a pond or pool.

Example: In December 2017, the owners and operators of a New Hampshire community agreed to pay $25,000 to settle fair housing case for discrimination based on familial status. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that a mother of an infant child visited the community to inquire about two-bedroom apartments but was told that the community had a policy of placing families with children under the age of 10 in first-floor units only, and that no first-floor units were available.

Rule #7

DO Adopt Child-Neutral Community Rules

DON’T Allow Rules to Unfairly Target Children

Rules governing residents’ behavior in common areas, such as hallways, parking lots, and outside spaces serve a legitimate purpose: to protect property and ensure safety. But you could trigger a discrimination claim if your rules unreasonably target children or limit their behavior.

As much as possible, avoid adopting rules that specifically target children’s behavior. Rules banning children from playing outside, unduly restricting their access to amenities, or requiring adult supervision of all children under 18 could lead to accusations that you’re treating families with children less favorably than adult households living at the community.

Example: In April 2018, the owner of a 44-unit California community agreed to a $25,000 settlement to resolve claims that the owner’s “house rules” discriminated against families with children. In a complaint filed with state officials, a family alleged that the owner had a number of rules discriminating against children who lived in the complex. According to the family, children were forbidden from using the swimming pool after 6 p.m., even though adults were free to use the pool until 9 p.m. The family also alleged that the rules prohibited children from riding bicycles, using skateboards, or playing with Hot Wheels, wagons, or balls in common areas—rules that were not applied to adults. Allegedly, the family eventually moved out of their unit due to the restrictions on where their child could play.

“DFEH is committed to ensuring that families with children are not discriminated against in housing,” Kevin Kish, Director of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said in a statement. “Discriminatory restrictions on children’s use of common areas are not only against the law, but make it difficult for families with children to find and stay in suitable housing.”

Coach’s Tip: Even if your community’s rules apply to all residents—not just children—you could still face a discrimination claim if you enforce the rule only against children. For example, singling out children for breaking the rules against noisy behavior in common areas—but ignoring similar transgressions by adults—could lead to a fair housing claim based on familial status.

Rule #8

DO Focus Advertising on Property, Not People

DON’T Suggest that Children Aren’t Welcome at Your Community

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to “make, print, or publish…any notice, statement, or advertisement,” that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on familial status and other protected characteristics. This rule applies to not only discriminatory advertising, but also all kinds of statements, including:

• What you say to prospects, applicants, or residents in person or over the phone;
• What you write in notes, text messages, emails, and perhaps even social media, as well as community rules and policies;
• What you put in your advertising and marketing materials—including words and graphics—in print, online, and other media.

Unlike other prohibited practices, liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. The test is whether an “ordinary reader or listener” would interpret the statement as indicating a preference for—or against—families with children. According to HUD guidelines, advertisements may not contain limitations on the number or ages of children, or state a preference for adults, couples, or singles.

Example: In April 2019, the owner of a Maine rental property and its rental agent agreed to pay $18,000 to settle allegations that they denied housing to families with children. A fair housing advocacy group filed the HUD complaint, alleging that the community refused to negotiate with fair housing testers posing as families with children, posted discriminatory advertisements indicating that children weren’t allowed, and made discriminatory statements to fair housing testers.

“It’s hard enough for families to find places to live that meet their needs without being denied suitable housing because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD is committed to working to ensure that housing providers comply with their Fair Housing Act obligation to treat all applicants the same, including families with children.”

Coach’s Tip: To avoid accusations of discriminatory advertising, focus on descriptions of the property available for rent, not the kind of people who may want to live there.

Rule #9

DO Abide by Legal Obligations Involving Lead-Based Paint

DON’T Deny Housing to Families with Children Due to the Presence of Lead Paint

Although lead-based paint was banned for residential use in 1978, HUD estimates that about 24 million older homes still have significant lead-based paint hazards. Lead-contaminated dust is the primary cause of lead exposure and can lead to a variety of health problems in young children; at higher levels, lead can damage a child’s kidneys and central nervous system and can even be deadly, according to HUD.

While an affected community may be tempted to avoid renting to those most at risk—young children—that practice is banned under fair housing law. Regardless of the presence of lead-based paint, you may neither exclude nor discourage families with young children from living there.

Example: In January 2019, a federal appeals court upheld a $43,500 jury verdict against a Massachusetts community. In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that the owner of a four-unit rental property violated federal fair housing law when he refused to rent a unit to a family because they had children under 6 years old and the units had no lead certificate. According to the Justice Department, the jury found that the owner made an apartment unavailable to the family based in substantial part on their familial status and that the owner retaliated against them after they filed their HUD complaint.

Rule #10

DO Review Student Housing Policies Affecting Students with Children

DON’T Risk Fair Housing Trouble in Student Housing Based on Familial Status

Fair housing experts warn that student housing providers are risking fair housing trouble when it comes to housing decisions affecting students with minor children. If you rent to anyone, including students, it’s a violation of fair housing law to refuse to rent to a student with a young child on the same terms and conditions as you would to other applicants.

Example: In March 2020, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced a settlement agreement with the largest third-party property management company in the nation for campus living. NFHA reports that the agreement will open up access to 140,000 beds across 40 states and 77 cities to families with children.

The settlement resolves NFHA’s lawsuit alleging that the company violated fair housing law by discriminating against families with children. The complaint alleged that the company, although marketing itself as student housing, knowingly rented to non-students while enforcing policies that discouraged families with children, even when the parents were students.

NFHA also alleged that the company, which owns or manages hundreds of apartment buildings throughout the country, had a policy that no more than one person could reside in each bedroom. According to the complaint, the policy wouldn’t permit a mother and her 2-year-old child to live in a large one-bedroom apartment under one lease, so the student and her daughter had to sign two leases and pay double the rent.

Example: In September 2019, the Justice Department sued the owners and managers of residential rental housing in Hawaii, alleging that they violated fair housing law by refusing to rent to families with children. The lawsuit claimed that the three properties were operated as student housing for post-secondary students.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the communities discriminated against families with children by: (1) refusing to rent or to negotiate for the rental of the three properties on the basis of familial status; (2) steering prospective renters with children who inquired about housing away from the properties to a separate property management company; and (3) making discouraging and other discriminatory statements to potential renters with children who inquired about housing, including that the housing wasn’t “suitable” or the right “fit” for families with children. The complaint contains allegations of unlawful conduct; the allegations must be proven in federal court.

“Owners and managers of rental housing must ensure their housing is open to families with children,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Fair Housing Act requires it, and the Justice Department will continue both to enforce the Act vigorously and to seek relief for families victimized by unlawful discrimination.”

• ·       Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.

30-day and 60 Repair Periods. If the disrepair or deterioration to the exterior of the home or related structures creates a risk of imminent and serious harm to dwellings, homes, or persons in the Community (e.g. dangerously unstable steps, decking or handrails), there is a 30-day period to repair.

For all other (i.e. non-dangerous) conditions, the minimum period to cure is now 60 days. As before, the new Form 55 provides a place for landlords and managers to specifically describe the item(s) in need of repair.

Trap: If there is imminent risk of harm, and the landlord/manager intends to give the tenant 30 days rather than 60 days, SB 277A requires that they not only describe the item(s) in disrepair, but also describe the potential risk of harm. There is little question but that the failure to do so would invalidate the notice. The new Form 55 prompts users to describe both the violation and the potential risk of harm.

Tip: The new Form 55 contains a prompt at several places to attach additional pages, documents or photos, if doing so would be helpful in identifying the disrepair or deterioration, and the necessary repair. Remember, you cannot expect the tenant to be a mind reader - just because you know the nature of the problem and the appropriate repair, does not mean the tenant is on the same page. If there is any ambiguity in the notice, a court would likely rule in favor of the tenant. Why? Because the landlord/manager filled out the Notice and had the ability at that time to draft it with sufficient clarity.

Service of the Notice. Most landlords and managers are familiar with the various methods of effecting service of notices. However, if in doubt, check the statutes. They are contained at ORS 90.155 (Service or delivery of written notice) and ORS 90.160 (Calculation of notice periods). You can never be too careful; a notice giving a single day less than legally required, can result in the case being thrown out.

Statutory Definitions. The new ORS 90.632 defines "disrepair" and "deterioration", and for the most part, they are quoted in MHCO's new Form No. 55:

• Additional 60 days. If the necessary repairs involve exterior painting, roof repair, concrete pouring or similar work, and the weather prevents that work during a substantial portion of the existing 60-day period to cure;
• Additional 60 days. If the nature or extent of the correction work is such that it cannot reasonably be completed within the 60-day cure period due to the type and complexity of the work and the availability of necessary repair persons;
• Additional 180 Days (Six Months). If the disrepair or deterioration existed for more than the preceding 12 months with the landlord's or manager's knowledge, or rent had been accepted over that time.

Tip: The law requires the tenant to make a written request for an extension of time if it is sought in a reasonable amount of time prior to the last day of the 60-day compliance period. There are two issues, however: (a) How long an extension is the tenant asking for - 30 days, 40, 50, or 60? (b) Obtaining an extension also extends the deadline for compliance. An oral extension does not nail down the additional time in writing and may not identify the new deadline. Accordingly, landlords and managers should insist on a written request from their tenants and should consider putting in writing: (a) The amount of time granted; and, (b) The new deadline. That way there can be no confusion about the length of the extension and the outside date that compliance must be completed.

Issue: Does SB277A contemplate that following the request for a 60-day extension, management may agree to less? Possibly, since new law provides that the need for the extra time must be due to certain conditions that prevent that work from occurring during a substantial portion of the existing 60-day period. If confronted with this situation, management should consult with legal counsel.

Notice of Correction. If the tenant performs the necessary repairs before the end of the compliance date, or extended compliance date, they have the right to give the landlord/manager a written notice that the issues have been corrected. There is no fixed time for management's response as to whether the repairs have been satisfactorily and timely performed; it is sufficient if it is within a reasonable time following the tenant's written notice. However, if a tenant gives this notice to management at least 14 days prior to the end of the completion deadline, or extended deadline, their failure to promptly respond is a defense to a landlord's termination of tenancy.

Sale of Home; Prospective Purchasers. Prior to enactment of SB 277A, Oregon law permitted a tenant to sell their home while the disrepair/deterioration notice was outstanding, permitting the landlord/manager to give a copy of it to the new perspective purchaser, and providing that the sale would not automatically extend the compliance period. Essentially, the new tenant stepped into the shoes of their seller, and became subject to the same notice and time periods.

The practical result of this protocol was that as between the tenant and the prospective purchaser, they could negotiate any price reductions for the necessary work, and the new rental agreement would contain a provision requiring that it be completed within the time prescribed in the original notice, or a permitted extension. That is no longer the case under the new law.

SB 277A now provides that at the time of giving a prospective purchaser the application and other park documents, the landlord/manager must also give them the following:

• Copies of any outstanding notices of repair or deterioration issued under ORS 90.632;
• A list of any disrepair or deterioration of the home;
• A list of any failures to maintain the Space or to comply with any other provisions of the Rental/Lease Agreement, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements; and
• A statement that the landlord/manager may require a prospective purchaser to complete the repairs, maintenance and improvements described in the notices and lists provided.

Tip: Note that the new law combines not only ORS 90.632 notices relating to damage and deterioration of the home or structures, but also a list of failures to maintain the space and other defaults, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements. This may or may not include 30-day curable notices under ORS 90.630 for failure to maintain the space. But in both cases (i.e. defaults relating to structures, and those relating to the space), the new tenant appears to get the six-month period to comply.

This represents and interesting shift in Oregon law, and possibly for the better. Many parks historically gave "resale compliance notices" to tenants who were placing their homes up for sale. However, until now, there was some question whether a landlord could "require" as a condition of resale, that the existing tenant make certain repairs - absent having first sent a 30-day notice.[1] Now, under the new version of ORS 90.632, it appears landlords may make that list, and let the tenant/seller know that unless the work is completed before sale, it will be given to the tenant's purchaser upon application for tenancy.

So, if the landlord/manager accepts a prospective purchaser as a new tenant, and notwithstanding any prior landlord waivers of the same issue(s), the new tenant will be required to complete the repairs, maintenance and improvements described in the notices and lists.

Under Section (10) of the revised statute, if the new tenant fails to complete the repairs described in the notices within six months from commencement of the tenancy, the landlord "may terminate the tenancy by giving the new tenant the notice required under ORS 90.630 or ORS 90.632." This appears to say that a new tenant who fails to complete the items addressed in the notices and lists within the first six months, will thereafter be subject to issuance of a curable 30-day or 60-day notice to complete the required repairs. Accordingly, this is how the new MHCO Form 55 will read.

What if the landlord had already given the seller a written notice under one of these two statutes, but the compliance period had not yet run at the time of sale? The new statute does not carry over the unused time to the new tenant/purchaser, since under the new law, they will have received essentially the same information upon application, and will now have six months to complete.

Tip: Nonetheless, it is still a good idea to give a detailed 90.632 notice to a tenant before sale. That way, the very same repair issues will be in front of the landlord, existing tenant and prospective purchaser at the same time. It will now become a matter of negotiation between tenant/seller and tenant/buyer as to who will perform the repairs, and when.

Repeat Violations. If one or more of the items that caused issuance of a 30-day or 60-day notice under ORS 90.630 or 90.632 recurs within 12 months after the date of issuance of that notice, the tenancy may be terminated upon at least 30 days' written notice specifying the violation(s) and the date of termination of tenancy. In such case, correction of the disrepair or deterioration will not prevent a termination of the tenancy.

• As under the prior law, a copy of the disrepair and deterioration notice may be given by the landlord/manager to any lienholder of the tenant's home.

And darestillrequiredtopayrentuptothe

• : If the rent tendered by the tenant covers days that extend beyond the deadline for compliance, or any permitted extension thereof, it should be returned to them within ten (10) days after receipt, pursuant to ORS 90.412(3). This will avoid a waiver of termination of the tenancy described in the notice, should the tenant fail to timely perform the required work.

Conclusion. Members will see that due to the added complexities of ORS 90.632 (e.g. risk of harm vs. non-risk of harm violations, added detail for explanations, prospective tenant disclosures with application, etc.) the new Form 55 is longer than before. However, despite the added length, we believe it remains user-friendly.

[1] This is because ORS 90.510(5)(i) provides that the rental or lease agreement for new tenants must disclose "(a)ny conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser of a manufactured dwelling or floating home as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home. Those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal law and may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to pets, number of occupants and screening or admission criteria;

In this article, MHCO tackles a challenging problem: resident hoarding. In multifamily housing communities, extreme cases of hoarding can pose serious health and safety hazards—not only to anyone living in the affected unit, but also to neighbors who may share walls, ceilings, floors, hallways, and even HVAC systems. Potential problems include fire hazards, mold and other environmental dangers, pests and vermin, foul odors, and even structural damage. 

Unfortunately, it’s often difficult to detect because people with a hoarding problem rarely seek help on their own. Conditions inside the unit may not come to light until an emergency crops up—or conditions inside seep out into neighboring units or common areas. By the time it’s discovered, the problem may be so out of hand that your first impulse is to order the resident to clean up immediately or move out.

But that approach could land you in fair housing trouble. Hoarding disorder is a recognized mental health impairment, so the resident would probably qualify as an individual with a disability under fair housing law, triggering your responsibility to try to work out a reasonable accommodation to allow him to continue to live there. There are limits to your obligations toward the resident, but you’ll have to tread carefully—and document your efforts to work out a resolution—to prevent or defend a potential fair housing complaint.

In this lesson, we’ll explain how fair housing law may protect residents engaged in hoarding behavior, as well as the limits to those protections. Then, we’ll offer seven rules to help you comply with fair housing laws when dealing with a hoarding problem. 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The FHA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The law applies to individuals who have a disability, as well as those who are “regarded as” or have a “record of” having a disability—even though they may not in fact have a qualifying disability under fair housing law.

Hoarding is more than simply having too much clutter. It’s a recognized mental health disorder, characterized by saving things that others may view as worthless, and persistent difficulty in getting rid of or parting with possessions, which leads to clutter that disrupts an individual’s ability to use their living space, according to the American Psychiatric Association (APA). At some point, it’s likely that you’ll be confronted with a hoarding problem, which may affect 2 to 6 percent of the U.S. adult population, according to the APA.

TIME OUT!

What Is Hoarding Disorder?

In 2013, the APA recognized hoarding disorder as an official psychiatric diagnosis in its Diagnostic Statistical Manual V (DSM-V). Specific symptoms for a hoarding diagnosis include:

• Lasting problems with throwing out or giving away possessions, regardless of their actual value.
• The problems are due to a perceived need to save the items and distress linked to parting with them.
• Items fill, block, and clutter active living spaces so they cannot be used, or use is hampered by the large number of items (if living spaces are clear it is due to help from others).

Hoarding causes major distress or problems in social, work, or other important areas of functioning (including maintaining a safe environment for self and others). Many people with hoarding disorder also experience other mental disorders, including depression, anxiety disorders, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or alcohol use disorder.

Source: APA

The inclusion of hoarding as an official psychiatric disorder in the DSM-V confirms that hoarding is a mental disability, says fair housing attorney Lynn Dover. Federal and state fair housing laws protect people with mental disabilities from discrimination and require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations when necessary to afford a resident with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her housing, she says.

In hoarding cases, for example, the community may be asked to hold off on eviction proceedings to allow enough time for the resident to remedy the health and safety issues. Assuming it’s safe to do so, the community may have to grant the request—made by or on behalf of the resident—because there’s an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the resident’s disability.

Nevertheless, there are limits to your obligations to grant reasonable accommodations even if a resident qualifies under the disability provisions. For one thing, the FHA doesn’t protect an individual with a disability whose tenancy poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others or substantial physical damage to the property of others, unless the threat may be eliminated or significantly reduced by a reasonable accommodation.

Furthermore, the law doesn’t require you to grant an accommodation request if it’s unreasonable—that is, it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the community or result in a fundamental alteration of its operations. But tread carefully: Even if the resident’s request is unreasonable, communities are required to engage in an “interactive process” with the resident to try to work out an alternative accommodation that would meet his disability-related needs without posing an undue burden on the community or require a fundamental alteration of its operations.

7 RULES FOR RESPONDING TO A HOARDING PROBLEM

Rule #1: Watch for Signs of Hoarding

Train your staff to be vigilant for any signs of hoarding behavior by your residents. Residents engaged in hoarding behavior rarely come forward on their own, so you may not be aware of a hoarding problem until its effects seep outside the resident’s unit and into hallways or neighboring units.

The observations of staff members are crucial to detect hoarding problems. During their routine duties, your leasing, maintenance, housekeeping, or security staff may notice excess clutter or noxious odors in hallways and common areas that seem be emanating from a particular unit. Train staff to report such problems immediately, so that you’ll be able to address the issue at the earliest stage possible.

For the same reason, pay attention to similar complaints from neighbors, particularly when the source of the problem seems to be next door or on the floors above and below a particular unit. Hoarding isn’t limited to common possessions, such as clothing, newspapers, or plastic bags; some people hoard garbage and rotting food—even animals or human waste products. Any and all can lead to serious health and safety problems involving fire hazards, impaired air quality, mold growth, pest infestation, and structural damage, which can spread rapidly and lead to serious injury or disease without prompt attention. 

Rule #2: Investigate Potential Hoarding Problems

As soon as potential hoarding problems come to your attention, inspect common areas and inside the units of residents who have lodged complaints. Make an effort to determine whether complaints all seem to be pointing to a particular unit.

The next step is to contact the resident whose unit appears to be the source of the problem. Your right to enter and inspect a resident’s unit depends on a variety of factors, including the seriousness of the reported problem, state and local sanitary codes and landlord-tenant laws, the provisions of the lease, and other legal requirements.

In general, communities may enter the units of residents only with reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, except in cases of emergency. Be sure to document that you have complied with applicable requirements, which will be particularly important if the resident in fact has a hoarding problem and denies you entry.

Once inside, document the conditions, particularly focusing on any violations of lease provisions and applicable health and safety codes. Make notes about the nature and cause of any noxious smells, pest infestations, and other problems that have spread outside the unit. Attempt to take photos since descriptions of hoarding conditions can go only so far to show the seriousness of a hoarding problem. However, if the resident is adamant about not having photos taken, it’s best not to push the issue since the goal is to gain the resident’s cooperation in remedying the unit’s condition.

Whatever you find inside the unit, be sure to treat the resident with dignity and respect. That may be challenging if confronted with the telltale signs of hoarding: an accumulation of large amounts of clothing, papers, bags, newspapers, blocked exits, rotting food, signs of rodent or pest infestation, large numbers of animals, or human or animal waste. Unless you maintain a neutral, nonjudgmental demeanor, you could inadvertently make matters worse by exacerbating the resident’s distrust and resistance to change.

Here’s what you shouldn’t do: Take matters into your own hands to clear away the resident’s possessions. You might believe that you’re helping the resident to conquer a problem that she’s been promising to rectify for years, but that approach can backfire unless the resident gives you the authority to do so, warns F. Willis Caruso, Esq., Clinical Professor Emeritus of the John Marshall Law School Fair Housing Legal Support Center and Clinic.

Rule #3: Listen for Reasonable Accommodation Requests

When resident hoarding comes to light, follow your standard policies and procedures for addressing safety and health problems. Comply with notice requirements dictated by the lease and applicable law if conditions inside the unit are bad enough to rise to the level of a direct threat that can’t be eliminated or sufficiently mitigated by a reasonable accommodation.

Before taking legal action against a resident with a hoarding problem, determine whether the resident qualifies as an individual with a disability under fair housing law. Obvious signs of unsafe and unsanitary hoarding are usually enough to suggest that the resident has hoarding disorder—a recognized mental impairment. As a result, fair housing law may require you to grant a reasonable accommodation that would give the resident time to clean out the unit to preserve her residency.

Dover says it’s rare for residents with hoarding issues to specifically ask the owner or management for an accommodation. Nevertheless, you should listen for reasonable accommodation requests, which may be framed as something the resident “needs” or “wants” because of a disability. In hoarding cases, it may be a request from the resident, a family member, or an advocate to delay legal action against the resident to give him more time to clean out the unit.

In most cases, that’s enough to qualify as a reasonable accommodation request since the FHA doesn’t require that the request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. According to federal guidelines, a resident or applicant makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever he makes it clear to the housing provider that he’s requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or rule because of a disability.

Caruso emphasizes the need to train staff on how to respond to reasonable accommodation requests. It’s a good idea to have a standard form for detailing requests for reasonable accommodations, but you could get into trouble if the staff isn’t trained on how to use it. Training should also cover what to do with the request, including when to go up the chain of command when dealing with hoarding and other challenging issues, he says.

Rule #4: Evaluate Reasonable Accommodations to Remedy Hoarding Problems

Follow your community’s policies and procedures if a resident or someone on his behalf requests a reasonable accommodation to address hoarding problems within a unit. Depending on the seriousness of the health and safety risks involved, you may not have to grant the request—but you do have to take it seriously by responding formally and promptly. Under HUD guidelines, an undue delay in responding to a request may be deemed a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Fair housing advocates take the position that before trying to evict a resident whose mental disability is causing him to violate the terms of his lease or community rules, good faith efforts must be made to accommodate his disability even if he hasn’t specifically asked for an accommodation, according to Dover. This generally requires the resident be given opportunities to come into compliance so he can retain the residency.

Dover offers these examples of potential accommodations:

• Meeting with the resident to identify health and safety issues that need to be addressed in the unit;
• Establishing goals and timelines with the resident to address the health and safety issues;
• Setting periodic dates for follow-up visits to the unit to monitor compliance;
• Memorializing the goals, timelines, and re-inspections in a written agreement that the resident signs;
• Providing the resident with a list of community resources that can assist persons with hoarding issues;
• Working with a fair housing and/or mental health advocacy group or attorney assisting the resident to develop a plan to bring the unit into compliance;
• Extending time for compliance with a legal notice that has been served or entering into a stipulation in an eviction that gives the resident a final opportunity to address the health and safety issues and retain the tenancy.

When dealing with a hoarding situation, the focus should only be on solving legitimate health and safety issues rather than on trying to achieve ideal housekeeping habits, says Dover. Even if the resident meets minimum health and safety standards, you should recognize that the unit may not meet your expectations of an “optimal condition.” It’s also important to realize that residents with hoarding issues may not recognize they have the problem (or the severity of the problem) or be equipped to resolve the hoarding problem on their own, she says.

If health and safety issues are initially resolved, you should be aware that, even with treatment, hoarding disorder has a high rate of recidivism, says Dover. This means that a resident with hoarding issues may “slip” and re-hoard again in the future. Therefore, any written agreement made with the resident should include language that provides for periodic unit “check-ins” to monitor ongoing compliance after the health and safety issues have been remedied and a specified time period for correction of any future health and safety issues.

Rule #5: Engage in an Interactive Process to Resolve Hoarding Problems

Even when a resident qualifies as an individual with a disability, a request for an extended period to clean the unit may be unreasonable if conditions inside pose immediate or serious health and safety risks.

Fair housing law doesn’t require communities to grant accommodation requests that are unreasonable. Dover says that accommodation may not be required, and termination of the tenancy may be possible, if:

• The person is a clear, direct, and immediate threat to the health and safety of other residents or the property and there’s no accommodation that will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate the health and safety issues;
• There are serious health and safety issues that can’t be mitigated through accommodation;
• The resident has caused serious monetary damage to the unit and won’t reimburse the landlord for the cost to repair the unit; or
• The resident won’t engage in the accommodation process or cooperate to bring the unit back into compliance.

Nevertheless, tread carefully before rejecting a requested accommodation on the grounds that it’s unreasonable. HUD says you should discuss with the resident whether there’s an alternative accommodation that would effectively address his disability-related needs without posing an undue burden on the community.

For example, you may work out a plan with time frames for resolving lease violations, but you may have to be flexible if the resident fails to remove enough belongings to remedy valid safety and health concerns. It may take multiple attempts, extended deadlines, or outside help to alleviate problems inside the unit. And you may have to be satisfied with less than “broom clean” conditions; if the resident remedies health and safety problems, it may be unreasonable to impose overly stringent standards.

To keep things on track, the plan should allow for periodic unit visits during the accommodation process—as often as once a month, if warranted. Hoarding is notoriously difficult to treat, and recurrences are common, so periodic unit visits to monitor compliance may help ward off future problems. But it’s important to make sure that the frequency of these visits isn’t overly intrusive. In most situations, the visits after the resident has remedied the unit shouldn’t be more frequent than quarterly at most. The agreement should also spell out consequences for failing to maintain the unit as agreed—for example, by giving you the right to serve a new legal notice or reinstate eviction proceedings if the resident doesn’t live up to her agreement to maintain the premises.

Rule #6: Proceed with Eviction if Interactive Process Fails

If the resident ignores warnings about lease violations or otherwise fails to address hoarding problems, you may initiate proceedings to recover possession of the unit. Be sure to document your compliance with notice provisions and other legal requirements imposed by state and local law. It’s also important to have documentation of the condition of the premises, including photos, if available; descriptions; and witness testimony.

Even after legal proceedings have commenced, however, you should be prepared for an 11th-hour request to delay eviction proceedings to allow the resident more time to clean up the premises. Because people with hoarding disorder are resistant to parting with their possessions, it often takes official legal proceedings that threaten their continued residency to prompt them to do something to remedy the problem.

Nevertheless, there are limits on your obligation to accommodate residents whose hoarding behavior poses ongoing safety and health hazards to other residents. Fair housing law doesn’t protect anyone, with or without a disability, who poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others or whose behavior would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, if the threat can’t be substantially reduced or eliminated with a reasonable accommodation.

To determine whether a resident with a hoarding problem poses a direct threat, the community must make an individualized assessment based on reliable, objective evidence, such as current conduct or recent history of overt acts. HUD says that the assessment must consider:

• The nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury;
• The probability that injury will occur; and
• Whether there are reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the direct threat.

Because of these and other requirements, Dover says it’s a good idea to seek legal advice before taking any action to terminate a tenancy if hoarding issues may be involved. No two hoarding situations are alike, so each situation involving a resident with hoarding issues requires analysis based on the facts of the particular case. If not handled appropriately, it could result in a fair housing complaint being filed against you, the property, and the company, she warns.

Rule #7: Recognize that Residents May Get Multiple Chances to Remedy Hoarding Problems

Even when you’ve proven that the resident’s hoarding justifies eviction, you should be prepared for further delays under certain circumstances. No matter how patient you’ve been with efforts to address hoarding problems, the courts may be willing to put an eviction on hold to allow more time to remedy the situation.

Example: In November 2019, a court ruled that a New York cooperative community proved that hoarding conditions in a resident’s unit justified her eviction but put the matter on hold to give her guardian more time to clean it up or move her to another residence.

The resident was an elderly woman who had lived at the community for 10 years. In 2017, the landlord issued a termination notice and later initiated eviction proceedings because conditions in her unit amounted to a nuisance. The landlord claimed that the resident violated the lease by keeping her unit in poor condition by amassing clutter in the form of garbage, books, and newspapers, resulting in infestation, unreasonable odors, and an increased risk of fire.

Nearly a year later, a court appointed a guardian with authority to access her unit, arrange for a heavy-duty cleaning, and if necessary, remove the resident from the premises to complete the cleaning. The court later expanded the guardian’s authority to defend the resident in housing court proceedings and arrange for heavy-duty cleanings and home care services.

After multiple attempts to resolve the matter, the case went to trial in 2019. An employee of the management company testified that strong odors of urine and garbage continued to emanate from the resident’s unit as recently as the day before the hearing. Although a cleaning had occurred in 2018, the employee said that it alleviated the odors for only a few weeks.

A maintenance worker also testified that he was in the resident’s unit twice that year to inspect her air conditioning units. He said he observed piles of garbage, clothing, papers, and other debris that made navigating the unit difficult and that there were extreme odors of urine and feces. He produced photos, which showed garbage and clutter strewn throughout her unit.

The resident’s next-door neighbor also testified about pungent odors emanating from the resident’s unit and that he was concerned that the smell could cause health problems or diminish the value of his apartment.

The court ruled that the landlord proved that the resident breached the lease by maintaining a nuisance, which interfered with other residents’ use and enjoyment of their homes. It was clear that the resident’s failure to keep her unit free from clutter and in a sanitary condition over the course of at least two years represented a continuity and recurrence of objectionable conduct.

Although the landlord was entitled to final judgment of possession and warrant of eviction, the court had broad discretion to determine whether a resident with a disability should be given an opportunity to cure the condition or be allowed additional time to relocate. In this case, the court said that the resident, an elderly woman who had lived in the current unit for 10 years, would be likely to suffer extreme hardship if a stay weren’t granted. Furthermore, the guardian was making good faith efforts to secure a safe, affordable dwelling for the resident and that it was reasonable to afford the guardian more time to do so. In the meantime, the resident had allowed the landlord to have access to her unit and had cooperated with the guardian’s efforts to keep the unit clean and free of clutter.

The court granted a stay of execution for 90 days to allow the guardian time to sell her unit and relocate her to a suitable environment, or in the alternative, to allow the guardian an opportunity to cure the nuisance condition, without prejudice to seek a further stay upon the showing of good cause [140 W. End Ave. Owners Corp. v. Dinah L., New York, November 2019].

• Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a federal law that prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability.

In general, fair housing law targets housing practices that exclude or otherwise discriminate against anyone because of his or her race or other protected class. Owners, managers, and individual employees all may be held liable for discriminatory housing practices, including:

• Refusing to rent or making housing unavailable;
• Falsely denying that housing is available for inspection or rental;
• Using different qualification criteria or applications, such as income standards, application requirements, application fees, credit analysis, or rental approval procedures;
• Setting different terms, conditions, or privileges for the rental of housing, such as different lease provisions related to rental charges, security deposits, and other lease terms;
• Discouraging prospects from renting a unit by exaggerating drawbacks or saying that the prospect would be uncomfortable with existing residents;
• Assigning residents to a particular section of a community or floor of a building;
• Providing different housing services or facilities, such as access to community facilities; and
• Failing to provide or delaying maintenance or repairs.

In addition, the FHA prohibits retaliation by making it unlawful to threaten, coerce, intimidate, or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right. It’s also unlawful to advertise or make statements that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

FROM THE COURTS

HARASSMENT: Community Accused of Ignoring Tenant-on-Tenant Racial Harassment

In December 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that a New York community could be liable under the FHA for failure to do anything to stop an alleged campaign of racial harassment against an African-American resident by his neighbor. Last year, the Coach highlighted a previous ruling in this case, but the opinion was later withdrawn without explanation.

ALLEGATIONS: In his complaint, the resident alleged that his next-door neighbor began a relentless campaign of racial harassment, abuse, and threats directed toward him several months after he moved to the community.

After the first incident, the resident said he feared for his safety and contacted the police. In response, officers in the hate crimes unit visited the site, interviewed witnesses, and warned the neighbor to stop threatening the resident with racial epithets. According to the resident, he filed a police report, and a police officer told the management about the neighbor’s conduct. Allegedly, the management did nothing.

A few months later, the resident said he called the police and filed another police report. This time, the resident said he provided written notice to management about his neighbor’s racial harassment and provided contact information for the police officers responsible for investigating the neighbor. Allegedly, the management still took no action.

Nevertheless, the neighbor’s conduct allegedly persisted to the point that the police arrested him for aggravated harassment. The resident said he again notified management of the continued racial slurs directed to him and the fact that the neighbor had been arrested for harassment.

A month later, the resident said he contacted the police and sent the management group a third letter complaining about his neighbor’s continued harassment. After receiving the letter, according to the complaint, the management group advised the site manager “not to get involved,” and the management group declined to respond or follow up.

Allegedly, the neighbor was allowed to stay in his unit until his lease expired. A few months later, the neighbor pleaded guilty to harassment and a court entered an order of protection prohibiting him from contacting the resident.

The resident sued, accusing the owner and manager of violating fair housing law by failing to take action to address a racially hostile housing environment created by his neighbor. A district court ruled against the resident and dismissed the case.

DECISION: Reversed; case sent back for further proceedings.

REASONING: The resident was entitled to pursue his claims under the FHA against the community for intentionally discriminating against a resident by failing to do anything to stop the neighbor from subjecting him to a racially hostile housing environment.

At this stage of the proceedings, the court was required to read the complaint in the light most favorable to the resident. If everything he said were true, the resident’s complaint adequately alleged that the owners and managers engaged in intentional racial discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the owners and managers discriminated against the resident by tolerating and/or facilitating a hostile environment, even though they had authority to “counsel, discipline, or evict [the neighbor] due to his continued harassment of [the resident],” and also had “intervened against other tenants at [the site] regarding non-race-related violations of their leases or of the law.”

In other words, the court said, the resident adequately alleged that the owners and managers were actually aware of the neighbor’s criminal racial harassment of the resident—harassment so severe that it resulted in police warnings and the arrest and eventual conviction of the neighbor—“and that management intentionally refused to address the harassment because it was based on race even though they had addressed non-race-related issues in the past, including, it was reasonable to infer, tenant-on-tenant harassment” [emphasis in original]. Accepting these allegations as true, the defendants subjected the resident to conduct that the FHA forbids.

In further proceedings, the defendants may be able to show that they tried and failed to address the resident’s complaints. Or it may unfold that the management also declined to address other, similar complaints unrelated to race, or that they were powerless to address the neighbor’s conduct. But the resident was entitled to further proceedings to resolve these issues [Francis v. King Park Manor, Inc., December 2019].

TREND TAKEAWAY: Federal fair housing law bans not only sexual harassment, but also harassment based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics. As a general rule, community owners may be liable for illegal harassment by managers or employees when they knew or should have known about it but failed to do enough to stop it.

You should take all necessary steps to prevent—and address—discrimination or harassment at the community. Aside from ensuring that your policies and procedures conform to fair housing law, you can reduce the likelihood of a complaint by properly training and supervising all employees—not only managers and leasing staff, but also maintenance workers and anyone else who interacts with the public. And be particularly careful when hiring and supervising outside contractors or anyone else who could be considered your agent.

You don’t have only your employees or other staff member to worry about—you could face liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment under certain circumstances. According to HUD regulations, communities may be liable under the FHA for failure to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party, where the community knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it. The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party depends upon the extent of your control or any other legal responsibility you may have with respect to the third party’s conduct.

Example: In November 2019, HUD announced that it reached an $80,000 settlement to resolve allegations that the owners and management agent of an apartment complex in Savannah, Ga., subjected African-American residents to repeated instances of racial harassment by white residents, which included verbal attacks and physical assaults.

The case came to HUD’s attention when three African-American residents filed complaints claiming that the owners of the property refused to investigate and address their claims that white residents had subjected them to racial harassment and verbal and physical assaults, including attacks by dogs. The residents also alleged that the property’s management ignored their maintenance requests and delayed the maintenance requests of other African-American residents. The housing provider denied discriminating against the residents but agreed to settle their complaints.

Under the terms of the agreement, the owner and management company agreed to pay $20,000 to each of the three residents who filed complaints and create a $20,000 fund to compensate other residents who may have been subjected to racial harassment. The owners also agreed to provide annual fair housing training for the staff and on-site management at the community.

“No one should ever have to face threats or be subjected to physical violence in the place they call home because of their race,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “The agreement we’re announcing today is a reminder to housing providers everywhere that HUD is committed to ensuring that they meet their obligation to comply with the nation’s fair housing laws” [Conciliation/Voluntary Compliance Agreement with Oglethorpe Square Apartments, LP, of Savannah, GA, and Gene B. Glick Company, Inc., of Indianapolis, IN].

DISABILITY: Is Community Required to Grant Reasonable Accommodation Request for Exception to Minimum Income Standards?

In September 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that a Florida housing provider may be required to accept other forms of income as a reasonable accommodation to allow an applicant with a disability to qualify for housing.

ALLEGATIONS: In his complaint, the applicant alleged that shortly after graduating from high school, he was in a wrestling accident that left him completely paralyzed. His housing was inadequate to accommodate his quadriplegia because it wasn’t wheelchair accessible. After seeing an ad about Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit that builds new homes for low-income individuals, he decided to apply.

When he met with a representative, he learned that Habitat imposed a minimum gross annual income requirement of $10,170, presumably to ensure that potential homeowners would be able to pay their mortgages. According to the applicant, his disability prevented him from working, so his main source of income was a Social Security Disability Insurance stipend of $778 per month, which equates to a gross annual income of $9,336. Given the fixed amount of his SSDI, he asked Habitat to consider one of two other sources of income toward its requirement—either the $194 per month in food stamps or the $100 per month he received from his father—either of which would be enough to get him over the minimal income threshold. After reviewing his application, Habitat allegedly said it couldn’t accept either of the two additional sources of income.

After efforts to negotiate a compromise were unsuccessful, the applicant sued Habitat for violating the FHA by denying his reasonable accommodation request to accept either his food stamps or familial support as income for purposes of qualifying for the housing.

After pretrial proceedings, both parties asked the court for judgment without a trial. Siding with Habitat, the court dismissed the case, ruling that the applicant’s accommodation request wasn’t necessary under the FHA because it was related solely to his financial condition, not his disability.

The applicant appealed.

DECISION: Reversed in part; sent back for further proceedings.

REASONING: The applicant was entitled to further proceedings on his claim that Habitat violated fair housing law by denying his reasonable accommodation request to consider supplemental forms of income for purposes of qualifying for housing.

To establish liability for failure to accommodate under the FHA, the applicant had to show that:

1.       He was disabled within the meaning of the FHA;

2.       He requested a reasonable accommodation;

3.       The requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and

4.       The housing provider refused to make the requested accommodation.

The first and fourth elements of the claim were undisputed—no one disputed that the applicant was disabled, or that Habitat refused to accommodate his request to consider his supplemental sources of income. At issue were the middle two: whether the accommodation he requested was “reasonable” and whether it was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In earlier proceedings, the lower court skipped the first question and decided the case solely on the basis of the second.

To determine whether his request was reasonable, the first step was to determine whether the applicant demonstrated that his requested accommodation was of a type likely to be reasonable in the run of cases. The court ruled that he did—he wasn’t asking Habitat to lower its minimum-income requirement or accept anything less than usual in terms of payment or interest. Instead, the applicant, who was unable to work, asked Habitat to accept proof that he brought in the same amount of money as any other Habitat homeowner, but in a different form.

That shifted the burden to Habitat to show that the applicant’s request was unreasonable by imposing an undue burden on Habitat or fundamentally altering Habitat’s program. Further proceedings were needed to resolve this issue.

The second question was whether the applicant’s requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. Under fair housing law, a “necessary” accommodation is one that alleviates the effects of the disability. An accommodation addressing an inability to demonstrate wages earned could in some cases be necessary—that is, could alleviate the effects of a disability. Consequently, the lower court should have considered whether the applicant’s inability to demonstrate the minimum required income through W-2 wages was an effect of his disability.

A separate, but related issue was whether the requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling. He wasn’t entitled to an accommodation that would put him in a better position than a member of the general public. The applicant said he wasn’t asking Habitat to lower its income requirements or pay anything less than other applicants—his accommodation request involved only the form of payment, not the amount. In contrast, Habitat said that he was seeking an advantage that wasn’t available to other applicants. Further proceedings were needed to determine whether the requested accommodation would provide the applicant with an opportunity to enjoy a dwelling that would otherwise—due to his disability—elude him [Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity of Citrus County, Inc., Florida, September 2019].

TREND TAKEAWAY: Carefully consider requests by individuals with disabilities for reasonable accommodations to your financial screening requirements. In general, you don’t have to excuse individuals with disabilities from meeting minimum income standards or verifying their income, but you may have to be flexible when it comes to how they satisfy those requirements.

Example: In June 2019, a court ruled that an Arkansas community had to pay damages for denying a reasonable accommodation request by a disabled woman and her mother who couldn’t produce the documentation required under the community income-verification policies. In lieu of the necessary paperwork, the woman submitted documentation from the Social Security Administration showing the mother’s retirement benefits and her disability benefits, along with income received from a rental property, but the community wouldn’t accept the alternative documentation to verify their income. The court ruled that the community violated fair housing law by denying an accommodation that was both reasonable and necessary for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling [Edwards v. Gene Salter Properties, Arkansas, June 2019].

SETTLEMENTS

CRIMINAL SCREENING POLICIES: Landmark $1.1M Settlement Reached in Fair Housing Case Challenging Alleged Criminal Record Ban

In November 2019, the owners and operators of a 900-unit apartment complex in Queens, N.Y., agreed to pay $1,187,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging that the community violated the FHA by refusing to rent to people with criminal records.

The lawsuit was filed by the Fortune Society, a New York not-for-profit organization that provided housing and other services to formerly incarcerated individuals. In its complaint filed in 2014, Fortune alleged that when it tried to rent apartments for its clients at the community in 2013 and 2014, the community refused because of its policy of prohibiting anyone with a criminal record from living there. Fortune alleged that the policy unlawfully discriminated because it disproportionately barred African Americans and Latinos from housing without considering each potential tenant’s individual history and circumstances.

The settlement follows a July 2019 court ruling denying the community’s request for judgment without a trial. The court rejected claims that Fortune itself wasn’t harmed by the policy and so didn’t have standing to pursue the case. The court ruled that further proceedings were needed to determine whether the community had a ban on applicants with criminal histories, and if so, what were the contours of that ban. Further proceedings were also needed to resolve conflicting expert testimony as to whether any criminal record ban, as applied at the community, had a discriminatory effect on any protected class, including people of color [Fortune Society v. Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund Corporation, New York, July 2019

The owners of the community at the time the lawsuit was filed have sold the building and don’t currently own or rent real estate.

According to a statement by Fortune’s attorneys, Relman, Dane & Colfax, the settlement sends a powerful message to other landlords that they must evaluate each applicant as an individual instead of automatically rejecting those with a criminal history. This is critical because obtaining affordable housing is central to successful reintegration for the hundreds of thousands of Americans–disproportionately people of color–released from confinement every year.

TREND TAKEAWAY: Familiarize yourself with the 2016 HUD guidelines on how federal fair housing law applies to the use of criminal records in both conventional and assisted housing communities. The guidelines spell out how HUD will evaluate fair housing complaints in cases where a community refuses to rent or renew a lease based on an individual’s criminal history. 

DISABILITY: Landlord Accused of Violating Resident’s Privacy by Telling Neighbors About Her Request for an Assistance Animal

In July 2019, the owner of a multifamily rental housing community in Santa Monica, Calif., agreed to pay $14,000 to resolve allegations that she violated fair housing law by disclosing confidential disability-related information about a resident’s request for an assistance animal to her neighbors.

In its complaint, the city claimed that a resident with a disability requested a reasonable accommodation to the community’s general policy against pets and included a letter from a medical professional with her request.

The landlord allegedly sent a group email to all the other residents in the building, in which she disclosed the resident’s request, indicated that a disability was involved, and claimed that the resident had a “psychological therapist” who had sent the landlord a letter. Allegedly, the landlord concluded by asking the other residents to report “anything annoying” about the assistance animal to her. The emails went to 10 people other than the disabled resident.

About six weeks later, the landlord emailed the resident to insist on coming into her home to inspect her bedrooms and meet the “comfort” animal. According to the complaint, none of the justifications for a landlord’s entry into a tenant’s home existed. Allegedly, the resident was in shock and distress over the landlord’s tactics.

After the resident filed a fair housing complaint with local authorities, the Public Rights Division of the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office sued the landlord, alleging disability discrimination and harassment under federal, state, and local law. Specifically, the city claimed that the landlord violated the fair housing rights of a resident with a disability by violating her privacy, making a discriminatory statement, attempting to turn other residents against her, and entering her unit without justification.

Without admitting liability, the owner agreed to a settlement. Under the stipulated judgment with permanent injunction, the court ordered the landlord to pay $14,000 to the city to satisfy all penalties, fees, and costs of investigation and prosecution. The court order also required the landlord to obtain fair housing training and barred her from disclosing any information about a resident’s disability to a third party [City of Santa Monica v. Honda, California, July 2019].

TREND TAKEAWAY: When a resident makes a disability-related reasonable accommodation request, be careful about what you say about it to the neighbors. It doesn’t matter whether it’s for an assistance animal, a reserved parking spot, or something else—you could stir up fair housing trouble if you disclose disability-related information about the resident to her neighbors. According to federal guidelines, information gathered to evaluate reasonable accommodation requests must be kept confidential and must not be shared with other persons unless they need the information to make or assess a decision to grant or deny a reasonable accommodation request or unless disclosure is required by law (such as a court-issued subpoena requiring disclosure).

ENFORCEMENT NEWS

HUD Calls for Investigation into Websites Selling Assistance Animal Documentation

In November 2019, HUD Secretary Ben Carson called for an investigation into certain websites selling assistance animal documentation. In a letter to Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Joseph J. Simmons and Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection Andrew Smith, Carson asked the FTC to investigate these websites for compliance with federal laws that protect consumers from unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

The letter stated: “Housing providers, fair housing groups, and disability rights groups have brought to HUD’s attention their concern that certain websites may be misleading consumers with disabilities into purchasing assistance animal documentation that is unreliable and unnecessary. According to these groups, the websites also may be selling assistance animal documentation to people who do not have disabilities substantially limiting a major life activity, enabling such people to claim that their pets are assistance animals in order to evade housing providers’ pet restrictions and pet fees. HUD shares these concerns” [emphasis in original].

The FHA requires housing providers to grant reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities that affect major life activities when it may be necessary for such individuals to have equal opportunity to enjoy and use a dwelling. One type of reasonable accommodation is an exception to a housing provider’s rules regarding animals to permit individuals with disabilities to keep assistance animals that do work, perform tasks, or assist individuals with disabilities. Documentation, such as a note from a healthcare professional, is helpful and appropriate when a disability is not obvious and not already known.

The FHA doesn’t require assistance animals to be “registered” or “certified,” nor, in HUD’s opinion, does certification or registration provide any benefit to the consumer with a disability who needs an assistance animal. “Certifications, registrations, and other documentation purchased over the internet through these websites are not necessary, may not contain reliable information, and, in HUD’s FHA enforcement process, are insufficient to establish an individual’s disability-related need for an assistance animal,” according to the letter.

In the letter, HUD offered to provide the FTC with examples of websites that sell the type of documentation described in the letter, “including at least one website that contains the seals of HUD and other federal agencies in an effort to imply that their products are endorsed by the federal government.”

“These certificates are not an acceptable substitute for authentic documentation provided by medical professionals when appropriate,” Carson said in a statement. “These websites that sell assistance animal certificates are often also misleading by implying that they are affiliated with the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their goal is to convince individuals with disabilities that they need to spend hundreds of dollars on worthless documentation to keep their assistance animal in their homes.”

HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Anna Maria Farías, explained, “Websites that sell verification for assistance animals take advantage of persons with disabilities who need a reasonable accommodation to keep their assistance animal in housing. This request for FTC action reflects HUD’s ongoing commitment to protecting the housing rights of persons with disabilities.”

“The Fair Housing Act provides for the use of assistance animals by individuals with disabilities. Under the law, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity or bodily function,” added HUD’s General Counsel Paul Compton. “These websites are using questionable business practices that exploit consumers, prejudice the legal rights of individuals with disabilities, dupe landlords, and generally interfere with good faith efforts to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.”

• Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.

How Age-Restrictive Rules Can Violate the Fair Housing Act: Lessons From the Plaza Mobile Estates Case

The Plaza Mobile Estates Case

United States of America v. Plaza Mobile Estates, et al., 273 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (C.D Cal. 2003) is a federal district court decision which is a cause for concern to all landlords, particularly owners of manufactured home communities. The United States and residents of several mobilehome parks sued the owners and managers, seeking a declaration that various park rules violated the FHA based on familial status, and sought injunctive relief to preclude any further publication or enforcement of the discriminatory rules. The court found that the rules at issue were discriminatory on their face because they treated children, and thus families with children, differently and less favorably than adults-only households.

The decision was reached by the district court, not the Court of Appeals, and therefore is not binding precedent on federal appellate courts, or state courts. However, it is a published decision which can be cited as authority in federal district court litigation, particularly within the central district of California.

Rules Found Discriminatory

The court invalidated the “preambles” to the rules of several of the defendant mobilehome parks which stated that the park was “designed and built as an adult facility” or “designed as an ADULT facility.” [Emphasis added]. The court found that these preambles were clear examples of illegal “steering.” The court recognized that while the preambles were not outright refusals to sell or rent to families with children, they clearly suggested a preference for adults only and discouraged families with children from applying for residency.

The specific age restrictive rules invalidated by the court fell into three categories: (1) absolute prohibitions; (2) adult supervision requirements; and (3) hours of access restrictions.

The absolute prohibitions included those rules that: (1) prohibited all children under 18 (or 21) years old from using the billiard room and from riding bicycles; (2) prohibited all children under 16 (or 18) years old from using the therapeutic pool; (3) prohibited all children under 14 (or 18) years old from using the sauna or jacuzzi; (4) required all children under 8 years old to be confined to rear fenced yard of family residence; and (5) prohibited all children from playing on park streets and any other common areas.

The court found that while the health and safety of the children and other residents of the park were legitimate concerns, these absolute prohibitions were not the least restrictive means to achieve such ends. It noted that any concerns that the community owners may have had were not necessarily linked to age, and any concerns about problem behavior could be addressed with the use of non-age related rules. The court held that requiring adult supervision rather than imposing an absolute ban was clearly a less restrictive means of achieving the park’s legitimate goals. However, the court also invalidated a number of adult supervision requirements.

Adult supervision requirements invalidated by the court included those rules that required adult supervision for: (1) children under 18 years old using recreational facilities (recreation building and/or clubhouse), swimming pool, sun deck, saunas and laundry room; (2) children under 14 years old using recreational facilities, swimming pool and tennis courts, and riding bicycles; (3) children under 10 years old using recreational facilities; and (4) all children walking around the park.

As with the absolute prohibitions, these adult supervision requirements were likewise found not the least restrictive means to achieve any health and safety objectives. The court commented that the park’s concerns could be addressed by the use of rules, and that bicycle and pool safety would be better served with a proficiency requirement.

The hours of access restrictions included those rules that prohibited use of the swimming pool and sundeck to children under 18 years old except during specified hours. The court summarily rejected defendants’ attempt to justify these swimming pool hours restrictions as “equitably accounting for the interest of tenants,” noting that this clearly was not a compelling interest. The court further noted that the interest or desire of the adult tenants to discriminate against children could never justify such discrimination.

Compelling Business Necessity Standard

Having found that the age-restrictive rules were discriminatory on their face, the court held that the burden passed to the community owners to justify the rules. The standard applied by the court was whether the owners had a legitimate justification for the discrimination rising to the level of a compelling business necessity as to which the least restrictive means to achieve such end was used. Both criteria, compelling business necessity and least restrictive means, must be satisfied to defeat the claim of unlawful discrimination. The court in Plaza Mobile Estates found that the owners had failed to make this showing.

HUD Approval: No Defense

What is particularly distressing about the Plaza Mobile Estates opinion is that the court invalidated rules which had been approved as part of a Conciliation Agreement entered into with the intervention and approval of HUD. The owners contended that HUD’s approval of the Conciliation Agreement required the conclusion that the rules approved thereunder did not violate the FHA. The court noted that it is the court, not HUD, that is the final arbiter in determining whether the rules are in compliance with the FHA. It therefore appears that a community owner cannot even rely upon the opinion of HUD or the state enforcement agency as a defense against a claim of discrimination.

How Community Owners Can Protect Themselves

In view of the Plaza Mobile Estates decision, landlords need to carefully review their rules and regulations and revise them to eliminate rules which appear to discriminate against families with children. Particularly suspect are rules which expressly refer to children, or persons under age 18. Other rules, which may not contain an express age restriction, are still subject to attack if they have a disparate impact on persons under age 18 or tend to “steer” toward an “adult only” preference.

For instance, community advertising and residency documents obviously must not contain discriminatory phrases and language, such as “adults only,” “retirement community,” or “community for active adults.” In “all-age” communities, there should not be any “adults only” restrictions on the use of common areas, recreational facilities or equipment (except where authorized by state law or regulations). Access to the community’s facilities should not be prohibited to children, and unreasonable supervision requirements must be avoided.

Also, review signs posted throughout the community (whether in the clubhouse or the laundry room, by the swimming pool, or along the streets) for discriminatory words or phrases.

For approval of new tenants, have written policies and guidelines and follow them consistently. Always offer an application to a potential resident, and keep those applications you reject (as well as those you accept).

In speaking to prospective residents, avoid words which might discourage a family with children; avoid “steering” someone to another community or to limited areas within your own community; do not ask about the ethnic, religious or national background of any applicant; do not discuss the problems which a disabled person may encounter in a manufactured home or in your community. Certain words should be avoided, such as: compatible (as in, “Your type is not compatible with our community”), prefer (as in, “We prefer married couples”), discourage (as in, “We discourage children because we have so many elderly residents”), or suitable (such as, “A mobilehome park is not suitable for small children”).

Even if you have adopted good policies and procedures and have trained your management team to be aware of fair housing principles, there is the chance that the policies are not followed. Make sure your staff does follow through!

The following are some additional suggestions:

--Always take an application from any interested person.

--Deal the same with all prospective residents: be pleasant, courteous and non-judgmental. Answer all questions.

--Keep a record of each inquiry and try to obtain as much information as possible about each person. Also, keep all tenancy and application records for at least two years.

What age-restrictive rules are still permissible? At least in California, it is probably still permissible to require children under the age of 14 to be supervised by an adult (but not specifically a parent) when using the swimming pool or spa pool. This is based upon section 65539 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), which provides that, where no lifeguard service is provided, a warning sign shall be placed in plain view which shall state, “Children Under the Age 14 Should Not Use Pool Without an Adult in Attendance.” Interestingly, even this code section only says “should,” not “shall.” Local counsel should be consulted regarding similar provisions in other states.

For years in California, the CCR language has been used by analogy to require adult supervision for the use of other recreational facilities. It is no longer safe to do this. The community may still be able to require adult supervision where needed to minimize risk of injury or death in situations in addition to the swimming pool and spa pool situation referenced in the CCR. Again, the adult supervision cannot be restricted to a parent; any responsible adult can perform the required supervision.

A park may be able to prohibit an activity which is more likely to be engaged in by children than by adults if there is an express ordinance in the municipality where the park is located prohibiting this activity. A primary example of this would be a municipal ordinance prohibiting skateboarding.

It must always be kept utmost in mine that the basic test is that any age-restrictive rule or regulation must satisfy both criteria stated by the Plaza Mobile Estates court: There must be a compelling business necessity for the policy, and the rule must be the least restrictive means to achieve that policy. This is a standard which is difficult to satisfy. Community owners should consult with legal counsel in reviewing and revising their rules to minimize the risk of liability under state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination against families with children.

Robert G. Williamson, Jr. and Linda J. Lester are attorneys with Hart, King & Coldren in Santa Ana, California. They specialize in manufactured housing issues.

Answer:  The answers to some of your questions can and should be found in the rules and regulations. For example, addressing whether attachments and outbuildings stay or are removed.[1] It is problematic to me to permit a resident to make such additions at the outset, without addressing what happens when the home is put up for sale.  If additions have been made for which consent was never obtained, or which do not conform to the applicable building codes, management should move quickly, since acceptance of rent with knowledge of the noncompliance could lead to waiver.

Assuming that the attachments and outbuildings are in a state of disrepair, SB 277 provides a remedy to management at any time, including the time of sale. However, without knowing the exact nature of these “improvements” it is hard to know whether insisting upon complete removal is appropriate or legal. 

Also, much depends upon other factors. How much will this cost the resident? How long will it take? Are the “improvements” not really beneficial to the space, and detract from the appearance of the whole area? Are they code-compliant, or can they be made so? As discussed below, SB 277 continued parts of the earlier disrepair/deterioration law found in ORS 90.632, but tightened up portions of it, due to resident complaints about abuses.[2] And interestingly, it now includes reference to “aesthetic” and “cosmetic” improvements, which may be helpful in your situation.

MHCO has significantly changed its current form No. 55 to address the changes in the new law. The major issue going forward is for managers and landlords to be able to recognize when to use Form No. 55 to address disrepair and deterioration conditions, versus Form No. 43C, which is appropriate for violations relating to maintenance and appearance of the space.

If the disrepair or deterioration to the exterior of the home or related structures creates a risk of imminent and serious harm to dwellings, homes, or persons in the Community (e.g. dangerously unstable steps, decking or handrails), there is a 30-day period to repair.

For all other (i.e. non-dangerous) conditions, the minimum period to cure is now 60 days.  As before, the new Form 55 provides a place for landlords and managers to specifically describe the item(s) in need of repair.

Trap: If there is imminent risk of harm, and the landlord/manager intends to give the tenant 30 days rather than 60 days, SB 277A requires that they not only describe the item(s) in disrepair, but also describe the potential risk of harm.  There is little question but that the failure to do so would invalidate the notice. The new Form 55 prompts users to describe both the violation and the potential risk of harm.

Tip: The new Form 55 contains a prompt at several places to attach additional pages, documents or photos, if doing so would be helpful in identifying the disrepair or deterioration, and the necessary repair. Remember, you cannot expect the tenant to be a mind reader – just because you know the nature of the problem and the appropriate repair, does not mean the tenant is on the same page. If there is any ambiguity in the notice, a court would likely rule in favor of the tenant. Why? Because the landlord/manager filled out the Notice and had the ability at that time to draft it with sufficient clarity. 

SB 277A now provides that at the time of giving a prospective purchaser the application and other park documents, the landlord/manager must also give them the following:

• Copies of any outstanding notices of repair or deterioration issued under ORS 90.632;
• A list of any disrepair or deterioration of the home;
• A list of any failures to maintain the Space or to comply with any other provisions of the Rental/Lease Agreement, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements; and
• A statement that the landlord/manager may require a prospective purchaser to complete the repairs, maintenance and improvements described in the notices and lists provided.

Tip: Note that the new law combines not only the original ORS 90.632 notices relating to damage and deterioration of the home or structures, but also a list of failures to maintain the space and other defaults, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements. This may or may not include 30-day curable notices under ORS 90.630 for failure to maintain the space. But in both cases (i.e. defaults relating to structures, and those relating to the space), the new tenant appears to get the six-month period to comply. It may be that if the “improvements” are aesthetically an eyesore, SB 277A may be of use in getting them either cleaned up or removed.

This represents and interesting shift in Oregon law, and possibly for the better. Many parks historically gave “resale compliance notices” to tenants who were placing their homes up for sale. However, until now, there was some question whether a landlord could “require” as a condition of resale, that the existing tenant make certain repairs – absent having first sent a 30-day notice.[3] Now, under the new version of ORS 90.632, it appears landlords may make that list, and let the tenant/seller know that unless the work is completed before sale, it will be given to the tenant’s purchaser upon application for tenancy.

So, if the landlord/manager accepts a prospective purchaser as a new tenant, and notwithstanding any prior landlord waivers of the same issue(s), the new tenant will be required to complete the repairs, maintenance and improvements described in the notices and lists.

Under Section (10) of SB 277A, if the new tenant fails to complete the repairs described in the notices within six months from commencement of the tenancy, the landlord “may terminate the tenancy by giving the new tenant the notice required under ORS 90.630 or ORS 90.632.”  This appears to say that a new tenant who fails to complete the items addressed in the notices and lists within the first six months, will thereafter be subject to issuance of a curable 30-day or 60-day notice to complete the required repairs. Accordingly, this is how the new MHCO Form 55 will read.

[1] Caution should be exercised in drafting, however.  If the rule says the “improvements stay” but they are an eyesore, management may be left with more than it bargained for. So whether it stays should be phrased as an option for management, if and when the time comes.

[2] Without commenting on the nature or cause of the complaints, suffice it to say that when the press gets ahold of a tenant/park dispute, the legislators are not far behind, and the end result is not usually helpful to landlords. The not-so-subliminal message here is that such disputes are better resolved quietly and quickly, lest they become a cause célèbre.

[3] This is because ORS 90.510(5)(i) provides that the rental or lease agreement for new tenants must disclose “(a)ny conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser of a manufactured dwelling or floating home as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home. Those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal law and may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to pets, number of occupants and screening or admission criteria;