Search

Senate Bill 599 sets out an entirely new section of the ORLTA allowing tenants to use their dwellings as “family child care homes.” A landlord may not prohibit the use provided that the tenant has obtained the proper certification under ORS 329A.280 or ORS 329A.330, and has provided notice to the landlord of the tenant’s intent to operate a child care home.

Modifications. A landlord is permitted to require the tenant to pay in advance for costs of modifications necessary or desirable for the tenant’s use, certification or registration of the dwelling as a family child care home, even if it is not required of the landlord under ORS 90.320 or the rental agreement.

Prohibitions. A landlord may prohibit use as a family child care home if it will violate zoning restrictions or an association’s governing documents. Likewise, a landlord may prohibit any use which is not allowed under the rules of the Early Learning Council, the regulating body for in-home child care facilities.

Liability Protection. Family child care homes are not required to carry liability insurance unless the landlord specifically requires it. The landlord may require that the tenant running the child care home provide protection for the landlord, property owner or the association in the following manner:

• If uninsured: Child care provider must require that parents sign a document acknowledging that the landlord, owner and/or association is not responsible for harm to children or guests connected to the family child care home. This document also must acknowledge that the family child care home does not carry liability insurance for losses to their children or guests.
• If insured: Landlord may require that the child care home carry a reasonable surety bond or liability policy (in addition to renters insurance under ORS 90.222) covering the children and guests. The policy must provide coverage for injuries sustained related to negligence of the tenant or tenant’s employees, and the policy must name the landlord, property owner, or association as an additional insured.

Housing for Older Persons. The tenant may not operate a family child care home if the dwelling in question qualifies as housing for older persons under ORS 659A.421.

Answer.  Senate Bill 608 applies to this situation. You have not indicated whether the resident’s period of occupancy exceeded one year.[1]For purposes of the answer below, I will assume it is. I will also assume the resident owns their own home, in not in violation of the rules or rental agreement, and is current on rent, i.e. you are not seeking to terminate the tenancy based upon nonpayment, which, as you know, has been prohibited pursuant to HB 4213 which was passed in the Special Session and became immediately effective on June 26, 2020. 

Based upon the above assumptions, here are the rules for what is to happen at the end of a lease term:

The fixed term lease becomes a month-to-month tenancy upon the expiration,unless: 

(a) You and the tenant agreetoanewfixedtermtenancy;

(b) The tenant gives you notice of terminationin writing not less than 30 days prior to the ending date of the lease (or the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later);or 

(c) You give written notice to the tenant under the Qualified Landlord rules.[2]

I suggest you try to find out what the tenant wants to do. Reach out and ask. It may be he or she is just being coy, knowing that the right of occupancy cannot terminate at the end of the lease term, i.e. under SB 608 it automatically becomes a month-to-month tenancy. 

Note that if the tenant remains in occupancy over one year, he or she automatically becomes a month-to-month tenant. If that is the case, you may not reject the tender of rent. However, with 90 days’ notice, you are entitled to increase the rent, so long as it is no greater than 7% plus the change in CPI.

If the tenant plans on withholding rent, that is another issue, since the Special Session rules have imposed limitations on a landlord’s ability to terminate a tenancy for non-payment of rent. This is why you need to contact your tenant to see what’s going on.  Oregon’s laws today do not give residential landlords many options - at least until some of these regulations disappear.[3]  

Answer: The answer lies squarely in ORS 90.394 (Termination of rental agreement for failure to pay rent.) In summary, the statute provides as follows:

• You deliver to the resident 72 hours' written notice of nonpayment. You would use MHCO Form 42.
• You serve or mail the notice no sooner than the eighth day of the month (assuming rent is due on the first of the month).
• The Notice would specify the amount of rent that must be paid, i.e. the six months' unpaid rent increase sum, which, at $20/month, equals $120.
• You would specify the date and time by which the resident must pay the rent to cure the nonpayment of rent default.
• Payment by a tenant who has received a notice under this section is timely if mailed to the landlord within the period of the Notice.
  • If the Notice is to be personally served on the resident, payment is timely if made within at least 72 consecutive clock hours immediately following service, as provided in ORS 90.155 (1)(a);
  • If the notice is sent by first class mail and attachment, payment is timely if made by 11:59 PM, 72 hours or 144 hours, as the case may be, after the time started to run at 11:59 on the date the Notice was both attached and mailed, as provided in ORS 90.155 (1)(c);
  • If the Notice is mailed via regular first class mail, payment is timely if made within by 11:59 PM on the sixth calendar day following the date of mailing the Notice (i.e. 72 hours plus three additional days for mailing) as provided by ORS 90.155 and ORS 90.160.
• If the resident does not pay the $120 after proper service of the 72-hour notice, your only alternative is to file for eviction under ORS 105.105 et seq. I imagine if it comes to that, the matter will be settled in the hallway at the first appearance when the resident comes to understand you mean business.

Answer: ORS 90.680 permits tenants to resell their homes to qualified prospective tenants. The refusal to permit or process new applications would appear, on its face, to be a clear violation of the statute.[1] The landlord certainly has the right to screen the new applicants, but not to refuse them outright. Moreover, it is highly likely that some or all of the existing tenants' rental agreements also mirror ORS 90.680, which gives them the contractual right to resell their home, on site, to qualified prospective purchasers. Thus, on two counts, the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Law, and the rental agreement, it would appear that the landlord's conduct would expose him/her to potential legal action. It is also possible that even the potential purchasers may have a potential cause of action against the landlord.

[1] The question does not indicate why the landlord has adopted this policy. While there may conceivably be some rationale explanation, I know of no legal justification for the policy in the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

Introduction.  As most MHCO members may remember, ORS 90.630 had a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tenant violations. There was a 30-day cure period for all violations of the law, rules or rental/lease agreement, and if not cured by the 30thday following delivery of the notice, the tenancy was terminated.

The problem with that approach was that some violations consisted of isolated single acts, such as speeding through the park in violation of the community rules. This raised the question, what to do about repeat violations withinthe 30-day period? As long as the conduct ceased before last day of the 30-day cure period, was a tenant in compliance with the termination notice? Without getting into the reasons why I believe such an approach was incorrect, the issue is now moot.

Revisions to ORS 90.630. Pursuant to the new Landlord-Tenant Coalition Bill, SB 586, ORS 90.630 has been amended to specifically deal with single, isolated violations that are notof a continuing nature (such as, for example, the failure to maintain the space, or exterior of the home).

Although MHCO has made the appropriate changes to its forms, members are encouraged to review them in advance of using them. The protocols are different and may take some getting used to. We now have two forms, (a) one for “continuing” violations, and (b) another for those that consist of a single, non-repetitive act. There are also some changes to the statute that apply to both types of violations. Here is a summary:

1. All violations for which a notice is issued must be “material”. Although this term is not defined in the legislation, suffice it to say, you (should) know it when you see it. An isolated failure to mow the front yard one week is not a “material” violation that should trigger a 30-day notice of termination. That is what clean-up notices are for. 

2. The 30-day notice now must separately designate a “termination date”. It is not sufficient to say that the tenancy will terminate if the violation continues past the last day of the 30-day cure period. The MHCO form has been appropriately revised.

3. Conduct is “ongoing” if:

1. 1. It is “constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing”; and
   2. The violation does not involve a pet or assistance animal;
   3. If it is ongoing, the same rules apply as previously, i.e. there is a 30-day cure period (however now a separate “termination date” must be identified, which can simply be the date following the last day of the cure period – as long as it is specifically identified).

4. A critical difference with the separate conduct 30-day notice is that there are now two time periods.

1. 1. The resident has a cure period of “…at least three days after delivery of the notice.” If not so cured within that time (e.g. tenant continues to speed through park) the tenancy will terminate on a date at least 30 days following delivery of the notice. 
   2. Note: it will be important for management to specifically identify the date three or more days hence. Otherwise, the cure period would end on the designated termination date not less than 30 after the delivery of the notice (or 33 if sent by regular mail).

5. Similar to the ongoing violation, for the separate conduct violation, at least one possible method for correction must be identified.

6. The six-month period for the repeat violation (which, if it occurs, entitles management to issue a 20-day non-curable notice) has been corrected. 

1. 1. Previously, the 6-month period commenced from the date of delivery of the violation notice, which was effectively only a 5-month period. 
   2. The new law, and the new MHCO violation form, now begin 6-month period from the termination date designated in the notice. 

7. There were no other material changes to ORS 90.630, including the 3-strikes law.

Conclusion. On its face, the changes appear to address the isolated violation issue with a shortened cure period, and automatically terminating the tenancy within 30-days if not so cured. 

Since I was not present during the discussion of these changes at the Coalition, I cannot comment on the rationale that resulted in this approach. But I cannot help but feel that a resident who fails to cure within the 3-day period – and now has 30 days hang around the park before vacating – has little incentive to be on his/her best behavior. What more can management do to protect the safety and welfare of the other residents while the terminated resident remains in the community?  Perhaps the 24-hour notice provisions of ORS 90.396could be amended to address this issue.

But when all is said and done, the one thing that takes most of the community manager's time is handling guideline violations. How do you, as an extremely busy person, do this with only a minimum amount of time invested? How do you handle residents as a fragile yet necessary part of your business and still get everything else done without making them feel that they are an imposition to you? How do you notify and discuss a guidelines violation with a resident without starting World War III? And, most importantly, how do you facilitate correction of outstanding violations in a timely manner.

Steps Toward Resolution

As with anything, there are no easy answers to these questions. Resolving problems must start before there is a problem. That means starting with the administrative side of your community. For a first step, look at the document you use for your community guidelines. Is it clearly written? Are the guidelines reasonable? Are they enforceable?

The second step is the orientation process. It is imperative that as a community manager, you take time to discuss certain items with residents after they have been approved. The lease, the terms of the rental agreement, and the specific requirements and provisions contained in the guidelines are high on the list of items to discuss. Is this a time-consuming process? Most definitely. And is there an alternative? None that are really acceptable. New residents will probably sign a statement that says they received the guidelines, have read them and agree to abide by them, even if they haven'tread them.

This is the start of a major problem for you as a community manager. They will most likely not go home and read the guidelines and, therefore, won't call you with any questions, because they can't possibly have any. This is the beginning of a major problem for you as a community manager. Your first realization that there is a problem should be when you see them in violation of one or more of the guidelines. When they receive a notice, a phone call, or a visit from you, one of their first comments is almost sure to be, "No one told me I couldn'tdo that," followed by an incredulous look of disbelief.

As a community manager, you are now in the position of not only enforcing your guidelines, but defending and explaining them as well. This is not an enviable position,

because rarely do such interactions end quickly or peacefully. Residents feel insulted, defensive and that they must somehow come out on top in a contest of wills. A community manager that comes on too strongly, that threatens eviction over the littlest thing, or that appears to be unreasonable will not gain cooperation from this resident, now or ever.

The Nightmare Begins

Now you've begun a nightmare of a resident relations problem, and it's sure to affect resident retention. The simple act of discussing guidelines during the orientation process can usually eliminate most of this grief. Hand-in-hand with the discussion, the resident needs to acknowledge his responsibilities and agree to abide by the terms explained in the guidelines.

The acknowledgement was for years obtained in the form of a separate statement that the new resident signed.

This statement went something like: "The undersigned agrees that he has read and understands all requirements as presented in the guidelines, and agrees to adhere to the terms contained therein during the time he is a resident of this community."

A copy of the guidelines was then given to the resident for future reference. In reality, community managers usually cut corners in the presentation and discussion of the lease and the guidelines. The resident usually makes it eminently clear that he is trying to move, is in a hurry, and doesn'thave time for a lot of paperwork. What a shame for everyone. This is a resident who is headed for misunderstandings and a community manager who is headed for problems.

When discussing guidelines with a new resident, take time to talk about each and every term and provision. Then, request that the resident, and all adult members of the family, either initial or sign each page of the guidelines.

Laid Out in Black & White

When a resident violates one of the guidelines and you have those initialed pages, you have the ability to turn a potentially contentious situation into a routine notification process. It happens because you now are able to simply send a basic form letter that saying "It appears that you may have decided to alter your lifestyle in such a way that it no longer is aligned with the guidelines for this community. At the time you joined us as a resident, we discussed the guidelines that set acceptable parameters of behavior and responsibility for resident and management alike who live in (community name). Please call the office so that we may discuss your decision to change your lifestyle with you." Then, staple a copy of the initialed page with the violated guideline(s) currently being violated.

What happens is the realization on the part of the resident that he is caught dead to rights. There is no wiggle room here. There is no need for him to try to defend his actions or to tell you that he didn'tknow he was violating a guideline. And, there is no need for him to feel like he is backed into a corner and has to become aggressive or belligerent. Your notice simply acknowledges that he has made a choice, and asks for him to take time to discuss it with you.

Remember, the best resident relations program can be compared to a round room: If you don't back a resident into a corner where he has to defend himself you can truly have a productive conversation, mutual respect, and a meeting of the minds. If you force him to lose face; if you turn this type of situation into a confrontation where the battle lines are drawn; or if you place a large amount of importance on the "winning" of every disagreement, you've lost the resident relations game before you even started.

Resolve those guideline violations that frequently happen by using peer pressure, rewards, public recognition, and, once in a while, fear. By using all

these techniques and more, you can truly enforce your guidelines and build your resident relations program to new heights.

Yours will be the community run by a manager with a reputation for being fair, honest, and consistent. The time and emotional energy you spend on guideline violations will be greatly reduced, and the time you do spend in the future will be much more pleasant.

Where The Problems Lie

Which of your community guide-lines are violated the most often? What problems do you need to eliminate in order to better meet the goals of your community owner or to have a more professionally operated community?

Among these are reducing receivables; out-of-compliance clotheslines; the building of decks that are required as part of the initial installation but are still not done 60 days later; installation of skirting that is supposed to be done by a third party and remains undone; residents who ride bicycles on the community streets without paying attention to motorists; and residents who "forget" the streets have a speed limit and are not part of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

By:  Dale Strom, Second Generation Oregon Community Owner and MHCO Board Member

This is the third of a multiple part series on a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR. In the first part of this series, the motivation of the owner is revealed on why he wanted to work with CASA of Oregon exclusively rather than offering this Community for sale to all interested private parties. In the second part, the owner met with the Deputy Director and the Real Estate and Cooperative Development Manager for CASA of Oregon. The framing, presentation and negotiation of the Agreement to Purchase" was discussed.

In this third part

Answer: Under the Fair Housing Act ("the Act") housing providers including landlords, are required to make reasonable accommodations to the rented facilities and common areas, if requested by a handicapped tenant or their legal occupant ('the requestor").

Landlords are entitled to obtain reasonable information from the requestor in order to assist in determining whether the requested accommodation is reasonably necessary because of the disability. If a person(s) disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the landlord, and if the need for the requested accommodation is readily apparent or known, then the landlord may not seek any additional information about the requestor's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation. This law also applies to the use of assistance animals.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a reasonable change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy practice or service that will enable a handicapped person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rented facilities and common areas. There must be an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the person's disability. Landlords are not required to make requested accommodations if doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon them or fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's operations. With respect to a person, a "handicap" means: (a) one with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) one with a record of such impairment; or (c) one who is regarded as having such an impairment. [Juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances and those with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to others, or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, are generally not protected under the Act.]

If a landlord refuses a requested accommodation, the requestor is encouraged to have a discussion with the landlord concerning an alternative accommodation. This is a summary only and not intended to constitute legal advice. For more information, landlords, tenants and legal occupants of tenants are encouraged to consult with their attorney or a Fair Housing expert if they have any questions regarding their rights and responsibilities.

My first reaction is that what the resident is requesting is not appropriate for several reasons [and not simply because other residents do not have computers and cannot access Facebook]. Here is a sampling:

• He is asking for information that goes to business/management issues that may not be appropriate for sharing with residents, either because it is not available, it is subject to change, it may not be known, etc. Even if it is appropriate for discussion at the general meetings, I can see this forum moving in the direction of demanding more and more information than management is willing to share. The test for content is, I suppose, whether it would be a topic of discussion at open meetings.
• There should be one time and place for these meetings, and if you are not going to give up open meetings at scheduled times, then the Facebook approach is not only duplicative, but risks creating two lines of communication, one at the public meetings and the other over the Internet. You should limit the meetings to the open forum.
• Anonymity is a dangerous format for questions, since he could simply begin making up his own questions, turning the Facebook forum into an opportunity for his own private inquisition.
• I don't think I would like to see my residents' questions spread across the Internet, for business reasons. Resident meetings are not open to the public, as far as I know. Why would you do so with an Internet forum?
• Clearly, what he wants is not what the other residents want - his request for the accommodation ignores their wishes and your needs as a manager. In other words, it is administratively impossible.
• I'm sure with time I could come up with a host of other objections.

You should, of course, take this request seriously. While you want to briefly explain why you are unwilling to participate in this process, you don't want this to get into a lengthy dialogue on the matter. For example, what if you gave three reasons for declining his request? Then he files a Fair Housing claim, and you then give five reasons? It appears that you just made up two new ones. Accordingly, anything you say should be couched in "Here are some - but not necessarily all - of the reasons I cannot grant your request. The shorter the better. No need to get into a lengthy letter writing campaign.

You should definitely make a counter-proposal for the kind of accommodation you can grant - e.g. have someone take minutes of the open meetings (not recordings). He and everyone else can have the minutes for review. If anyone wants to raise a question or comment about the minutes, they may do so at the following meeting. He can select a proxy - i.e. another resident - to relay his questions and concerns at the meetings he does not want to attend.

Lastly, it appears that the rest of the residents want you present - his demand seems to want to subordinate everyone's needs to his. That is not the concept behind a "reasonable accommodation." It comes from the landlord to the requestor - not from the residents. Granting him what he wants/needs by taking minutes and allowing the proxy, reaches a far better balance for everyone involved. The residents have open meetings and he has access through the minutes and his proxy.

Last week the Manufactured Housing Landlord Tenant Coalition held it's final meeting.  Some changes were made to the In Park Sales Conflict" issue but the other three issues remained substantially unchanged from our meeting in January. 

The MHCO Board of Directors has reviewed the proposed coalition bill and voted unanimously to support the proposed legislation.  Phil Querin is working on some last minute adjustments to the "In Park Sales" section of the proposal.  The coalition proposal will go to Legislative Counsel early this week to be drafted into a House Bill. 

MHCO has been working on bi-partisan support for the proposal.  There will be Democratic and Republican sponsors.   All this should make it easier to pass the proposal this spring.  In all likelihood the public hearing for this bill will be in March.

Here is a brief summary of the proposed legislation:

1. Unpaid Taxes on Abandoned Homes

This issue was MHCO's top legislative priority for the 2015 Legislative Session.  We are very happy with the agreement that we were able to reach which nearly eliminates all unpaid taxes on an abandoned home.

In general