Search

Occupancy By Whose Standard - Part 2 of 2

MHCO

If the son is on parole, you may want to try to contact his parole officer. I fully suspect that there may be conditions of his parole that may apply to keep him out of the park.

At the risk of sounding harsh, it is a fact that "sexual predators" are not a protected class under the state and federal constitution. In short, you can have rules forbidding them to be in the park due to the proximity of children.

If you don't have such rules, you may want to enact some. But even though you don', I believe you did the right thing to require that he not occupy the home. You can and should do the same thing with regards to forbidding him to come into the park at all. If his family wants to see him, they can go to where he currently lives. The person(s) who has/have hired him to do odd jobs should be told that he cannot come into the park for ANY reason.

If you wonder whether this can be done without some specific rules, my response is that I would prefer rules to be in place. But even though you presumably have nothing on point, it would not stop me from banning him from the park. If he legally objects and wins, then it was a court that said he could come in - not you. Your main duty is to the park residents and their children. Better to try to remove him and fail than not to try at all.

Lastly, for your information, ORS 90.630(1)(c) permits a landlord to terminate a tenant if it is determined that they are "a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587." From your question, I could not tell whether the adult son was on the rental agreement, but if so, he is a "tenant." The statute is not clear whether it can be applied to only a single tenant, without terminating the tenancy of the remaining occupants. Of course, the statute doesn'taddress the larger issue of whether you may prohibit him from coming into the park, but I believe you are fully within your rights, as discussed above. However, you should first clear any such action with the park ownership, and they should secure legal advice on how to proceed.

Phil Querin Q&A: Holding Rent Checks Without Depositing or Returning

Phil Querin

Answer: Oregon case law says that holding a check an "unreasonable period of time" is deemed to be acceptance. What is a "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable" period of time? The answer is based on the facts of each case, prior conduct of the parties, and a host of other variables.

However, ORS 90.414 (Acts not constituting waiver of termination of tenancy; delivery of rent refund) gives us some idea what a court would conclude:

(1) If a notice of termination has been given by the landlord or the tenant, the following do not waive the right of the landlord to terminate on the notice and do not reinstate the tenancy:

(a) Except when the notice is a nonpayment of rent termination notice under ORS 90.394, the acceptance of rent if:

(A) The rent is prorated to the termination date specified in the notice; or

(B) The landlord refunds at least the unused balance of the rent prorated for the period beyond the termination date within 10 days after receiving the rent payment.

(b) Except if the termination is for cause under ORS 90.392, 90.398, 90.405, 90.630 or 90.632, the acceptance of rent for a rental period that extends beyond the termination date in the notice, if the landlord refunds at least the unused balance of the rent for the period beyond the termination date within 10 days after the end of the remedy or correction period described in the applicable notice. (Underscore mine.)


Accordingly, under the circumstances you describe, I would conclude that ten days would likely be the outside period for holding a check without either depositing or returning. Although your question doesn'texplain why the rent checks were held, rather than deposited, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Unless there is an ongoing dispute with the resident, say due to an unapproved pet or occupant, good management practice is to either deposit the rent check or return it with an explanation, as quickly as reasonable possible.

Submeter Your Community at Zero Out of Pocket Landlord Expense

By Troy Brost Owner SongBrook MHC, Eugene, Past President and Legislative Chair of Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon The title of this Community Update should have caught your attention. It is not a gimmick, I have done it myself. Adam Cook's MHCO Community Update article, "Can You Afford to Keep Utilities Included in Your Rent?" from last week is spot on! My answer is no, I cannot and no longer do". Both Landlords and Tenants agree of the importance of sub-metering; it is a win-win proposition. Enduring years of Landlord/Tenant Coalition, one of the most daunting tasks was demonstrating Landlords do not have safes' locked full of money. Financing options simply did not exist to fund mandatory sub-metering. Where were Landlords to find upwards of $750+ per homesite to install water sub-meters? Of course, Landlords proved their argument and negotiated the right to unilaterally amend rental agreements to permit community-wide sub-metering; creating provisions to recapture installation expenses by billing Tenants. Considering a new program now available, I believe every Landlord should sub-meter sooner than later! Now available is a sub-meter and installation program at zero expense to any Landlord wanting to install new or replace old sub-meter systems. No applications, no qualifications, and no money down gets you state of the art wireless monitored sub-meters (water, electric, and gas are all available). What's the catch? ... the Landlord signs a 10 year Billing Agreement with the provider, in which the Tenant pays. So, how does it work? First, the meters are purchased/installed/administered/maintained/repaired/monitored/insured/read/etc. by an Independent 3rd party. Just as all meter reading companies, this 3rd party charges a monthly fee for their service ... it is their cost of doing business. In Eugene, this 3rd party charges nearly 1/2 less of what EWEB (Eugene Water and Electric Board) charges it's customers. Second, per ORS 90, the 3rd party bills the Tenant the cost of the sub-meter and installation over a minimum of 60 months. The sub-metering process is complicated; no worries, this 3rd party is experienced, has been in business for nearly a decade, has all the systems and sample notices in place, and handles the entire process on behalf of the Landlord. The Bottom line: local government agencies and utility companies use Landlords to pass through their exorbitant "fees" and rate increases, in which Landlords are forced to carry until the next "rent" increase ... making the Landlord the greedy bad guy. Prior to sub-metering, utility expenses were 23% of my rent; my monthly invoices now line item sub-meter every utility possible. My rents are now very competitive within the market and I have direct control over costs. I see every reason why all Landlords should do the same. Indeed, it sounds too good to be true ... it is. Contact me at troybrost@gmail.com, 541-554-1499, or visit www.infrasystems.us to find out for yourself. I will provide you with the contact and information you need and assist you along the way. -- Troy Brost

Phil Querin Q&A: Can Community Owner Insist Resident Use Specific Sales Agent When Selling Home in the Community?

Phil Querin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90.525 [Unreasonable conditions of rental or occupancy prohibited.]

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

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

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

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

Phil Querin Q&A - Assistance Animal - First There Were Two, Now Two More and Counting ....

Phil Querin

Answer. Welcome to the Nanny State! I agree this is a frustrating situation for landlords. I believe rule No. 1 is to pick your shots. By that I mean, you want to look at this in the same way a judge or jury would. Does it pass the "smell test"? - pun intended.


To me it does not. This sounds like a case in which you've got a pretty good paper trail. But someone has to blink. If you fold on this, bad precedent is set. Here she's asking for two extra service animals. By this rationale, the two pet policy means nothing, and she could gather another six animals and make the same claim. I believe you should consult your attorney to find out what he/she recommends.


From where I sit, I think you could take at least one more step, without this going nuclear. You may want to consider issuing a 30-day notice to vacate, citing the rule and what she needs to remedy it, i.e. remove two of the pets.


At that time, the issue will come to a head. Will she go to some advocacy attorney group who says they will fight you for free? Will she fold? Will she try to compromise? There is a Roman saying that if you want peace, prepare for war. In other words, if you show her you mean business, she may take a more realistic look at her position. Until there is a show of force, she has the upper hand. If she backs off, there may be an opportunity to find a solution, e.g. and agreement to re-home the pets with a relative. Any solution that is reached should be in writing, and you should have your attorney prepare it.


If she pushes back, and has some legal group threatening a fight, you can then decide whether to hold 'em or fold em'. Remember, litigation doesn'thappen overnight. You will, at worst, get a threatening letter or two, before something happens. If you don't want the fight, then walk away. Good luck! By the way, during this dispute, if you intend to issue a 30-day letter, you

Phil Querin Article - New Rules for Non Payment Of Rent Evictions - SB278 - July 1st It's The Law (Updated July 13, 2021)

 

[Update: The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners has passed Ordinance 1296, which changed the 60-day window to 90-days for the Pause on Notices and Evictions, as described below. This Ordinance became effective on July 9, 2021 and only applies to tenants residing in Multnomah County. Timeframes are updated below.]

In mid-June, the Oregon Legislature passed another bill, SB 278 which accomplishes three things:

1) It provides a 60-day window in which a tenant seeking rental assistance may not be evicted for nonpayment of current (i.e., non-moratorium related) rents, charges and fees;

2) It provides a method for landlords impacted by the 60-day delay (discussed below) to recoup lost rents, charges and fees if the tenant does not qualify for rental assistance; and

3) It directs the Landlord Compensation Fund to pay the full 100% rent loss on applications to the program.

The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners recently passed Ordinance 1296. It made the following change to SB 278 for tenants residing in Multnomah County only: It extended the timeline following Landlord’s receipt of documentation of Tenant’s application for rent assistance from 60 to 90 days before which service of a 10-day Notice of Nonpayment of Rent or filing of an Eviction is permitted.

Notices and Evictions: 60-Day Pause (or 90 days if in Multnomah County)

Application. SB 278’s 60-day delay, and Ordinance 1296’s 90-day delay (for Multnomah County), for eviction proceedings only applies to notices of termination for nonpayment given on or after July 1, 2021.

My Definitions.

“Moratorium Debts” are any unpaid rents, charges, and fees that have accrued between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021. (This is my term; it is not in the bill. Many of the Legislature’s Bills refer to “nonpayment” but with different meanings.)

“Current Rent” includes any rents, charges and fees, described as a “Nonpayment” that come due on or after July 1, 2021. (This is also my term to avoid confusion. It is not in the bill.)

SB 278 Definitions.

“Nonpayment” refers to the nonpayment of sums due to the landlord, including payment of rent, late charges, utility or service charges or any other charge or fee described in the rental agreement, including the following statutory sums:

ORS 90.140 (Types of payments landlord may require or accept),
ORS
90.302 (Fees allowed for certain landlord expenses or tenant non-compliance), ORS 90.315 (utility or service payments),

PAGE - 1

ORS 90.392 (termination of tenancy for cause),
ORS
90.394 (termination of tenancy for failure to pay rent),
ORS
90.560 to 90.584 (provisions for various utilities and service charges); or ORS 90.630 (termination by landlord: manufactured dwelling or floating home).

“Documentation” includes electronic mail, a screenshot or other written or electronic Document- ation from a rent assistance provider.1 The definition of “documentation” above is straight from the Bill and relates to the procedure whereby the tenant applies for rental assistance and receives a receipt which is provided to the landlord.

60-Day Termination Pause (or 90 days if in Multnomah County). A tenant who is falling behind (or is in danger of falling behind) in paying their Current Rent may apply for rental assistance and provide the appropriate Documentation to their landlord. Tenant need only demonstrate that he/she applied for rental assistance in order to receive the 60-day pause (or 90 days if in Multnomah County). Upon receipt of the Documentation the landlord may not, for the next 60 days (or 90 days if in Multnomah County):

Deliver a termination notice for nonpayment, or
Initiate or continue an action for possession (i.e., an FED) based upon a termination

notice for nonpayment.

Eviction Protection Notice. This is a new statutory notice regarding eviction protection that is required to be delivered with:

Any notice of termination for nonpayment of rent; and
Any summons for a complaint seeking possession based on nonpayment of any sums

due to the landlord which are classified under the term “nonpayment” as defined above.

The court system will translate the notice into Spanish, Korean, Russian, Vietnamese and Chinese. The translated notices will be available on their main webpage www.courts.oregon.gov. The court clerk is also required to mail these notices with any summons and complaint mailed to a tenant from the Court.

Tenant Delivery of Documentation. The tenant may deliver the Documentation (including but not limited to, copies, photographs, screen shots, etc.) by email, text message, or any other “method reasonably calculated to achieve receipt by the landlord.”

Timing of Documentation.

  • If the tenant provides the appropriate Documentation prior to the Landlord issuing a

    notice of termination for nonpayment, the landlord must wait 60 days (or 90 days if in Multnomah County) after receipt of the Documentation to issue any notice of termination for nonpayment.

  • If the tenant provides the appropriate Documentation after the issuance of a notice of termination for nonpayment the landlord may not act upon that notice of termination or initiate an FED action based on the nonpayment. In order to terminate a tenancy after

    1 The Housing and Community Services Department is funneling federal, state, and local funds to many different “rent assistance providers,” including public bodies, local governments, and subgrantees (i.e., agencies and non-profits). They will provide a receipt to verify the submission of an application for rental assistance.

    PAGE - 2

expiration of the 60-day period (or 90 days if in Multnomah County), the landlord must issue a new notice of termination
o If 60 days (or 90 days if in Multnomah County) elapsed since the landlord received

Documentation, the landlord need not provide a new Eviction Protection Notice.

(TIP: If in doubt about whether the new Notice was included the first time, include

it after expiration of the 60 or 90-day pause; there is no risk in doing so.)2
If the Tenant provides Documentation to the landlord or the Court after the eviction proceedings have already begun, the court will stay the proceeding, and reschedule a first appearance for a date following the 60-day period (or 90-day period if in

Multnomah County). Trial may occur promptly thereafter.

Dismissal of Eviction for Nonpayment. The court shall dismiss an FED action based upon a notice of termination for nonpayment if:

The landlord failed to provide the new Eviction Protection Notice;
The landlord “substantially caused” the tenant’s nonpayment by refusing to

“reasonably participate with a rental assistance program”;
o Note: Landlord is not required to apply for the Landlord Compensation Fund, so

the failure to do so cannot be used to claim the landlord “caused” the tenant’s

nonpayment.
The landlord receives rental assistance covering the rent owed under the notice; or
The tenant had provided the Documentation before the FED (or action for

possession)was filed.

Penalties for Landlord Violation. A violation of SB 278 will result in the tenant being able to pursue injunctive relief to recover possession or address any other landlord violations and will give the tenant a defense in an action for possession.

Tenant Not Entitled to Costs, Attorney Fees, or Prevailing Party Fees. Actions dismissed under these rules will not result in a tenant recovering costs and fees if:

The landlord delivered all required notices (i.e., the new Eviction Protection Notice)
The landlord did not know, or have reason to know at the time of commencing the

action, that the tenant had already provided the required Documentation; and
The landlord promptly dismissed the action upon becoming aware of the

Documentation (Note: All three must occur.)

Dated Receipts of Application for Rental Assistance. SB 278 also directs that all programs providing rental assistance will promptly provide a dated receipt for the tenant’s application.

Repeal. These SB 278 and Ordinance 1296 rules will automatically be repealed on March 1, 2022.

2 Note: The Eviction Protection Notice is called “new” because the previous Bill, HB 4401, also required a Notice of Eviction Protection (along with the Declaration of Hardship). However, this is not the same form, although the caption of the form also says, “THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS TO PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTION FOR NONPAYMENT.” Essentially, SB 278 created a similar, but completely new form, that I have called the Eviction Protection Notice to avoid confusion.

PAGE - 3

Landlord Compensation

Funding for the 60-Day Pause. SB 278 directs the Housing and Community Services Department to make funds available to a third-party provider (yet to be determined) to compensate landlords for their potential 60-day loss of revenue. To receive the compensation a landlord must demonstrate that:

The tenant’s rental assistance application was denied; or
Sixty (60) days have elapsed since the tenant provided their Documentation to the

landlord, and that the landlord has not received assistance.

[Note: Though Ordinance 1296 changes the 60-day window to a 90-day window for notices of termination and evictions for nonpayment in Multnomah County only, it does not make any changes to the portion of SB 278 that addresses landlord funding for the 60-day pause. It is unclear at this time how, or whether, the state will address Multnomah County’s rule in awarding funding for landlords whose tenants have not received assistance.]

Repeal of 60-Day Delay Compensation. Funding for landlords experiencing losses during 60-day pause will be automatically repealed on March 1, 2023.

Landlord Compensation Fund for Moratorium Debts. Originally HB 4401 provided that landlords could receive compensation for 80% of their tenant’s outstanding Moratorium Debts (rents, charges, and fees incurred between April 1, 2020, and the date of a landlord’s application to the fund – or June 30, 2021, at the latest). The last date to apply to the Landlord Compensation Fund (the “Fund”) was June 23, 2021.

To receive consideration for funding under HB 4401, the landlord had to agree to forgive 20% of the tenant’s debt. SB 278 now directs the Fund to pay 100% of the past-due rent due from qualified tenants that the landlord has not collected after April 1, 2020, and on or before the earlier of June 30, 2021, or the date of the application.

  • Under SB 278 landlords are no longer required to agree to forgive 20% of their tenant’s Moratorium Debts.

  • Landlords must still repay the Fund for any repayment of Moratorium Debts they receive from, or on behalf of, a qualifying tenant.

    Retroactive Application of 100% Coverage. The new rule requiring the Fund to pay 100% of past due Moratorium Debt applies to all applications approved on, before, or after the effective date of SB 278, which as an “emergency bill”, became effective on June 25, 2021, the date of the Governor’s signature.

    Furthermore, it directs the Fund to pay the remaining 20% of any applications for compensation already made under HB 4401 that were already approved prior to the passage of SB 278, without the need for an additional application.

PAGE - 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] The Housing and Community Services Department is funneling federal, state, and local funds to many different “rent assistance providers,” including public bodies, local governments, and subgrantees (i.e., agencies and non-profits). They will provide a receipt to verify the submission of an application for rental assistance.

[2] Note: The Eviction Protection Notice is called “new” because the previous Bill, HB 4401, also required a Notice of Eviction Protection (along with the Declaration of Hardship). However, this is not the same form, although the caption of the form also says, “THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS TO PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTION FOR NONPAYMENT.” Essentially, SB 278 created a similar, but completely new form, that I have called the Eviction Protection Notice to avoid confusion.

 

Phil Querin Q&A - Sex Offender Leaves and Then Returns

Phil Querin

Answer: Your question raises several issues worthy of discussion. First, the fact that the son is in the park and you didn'tknow he was a convicted sex offender, tells me that the park should beef up its rules to require all persons 18 years and over undergo a criminal background check.

 

If the son is on parole, you may want to try to contact his parole officer. I fully suspect that there may be conditions of his parole that may apply to keep him out of the park.

 

 

At the risk of sounding harsh, it is a fact that "sexual predators" are not a protected class under the state and federal constitutions. In short, you can have rules forbidding them to be in the park due to the proximity of children.

 

 

If you don't have such rules, you may want to enact some. But even though you don't, I believe you did the right thing to require that he not occupy the home. You can and should do the same thing with regards to forbidding him to come into the park at all. If his family wants to see him, they can go to where he currently lives. The person(s) who has/have hired him to do odd jobs should be told that he cannot come into the park for ANY reason.

 

 

If you wonder whether this can be done without some specific rules, my response is that I would prefer rules to be in place. But even though you presumably have nothing on point, it would not stop me from banning him from the park. If he legally objects and wins, then it was a court that said he could come in - not you. Your main duty is to the park residents and their children. Better to try to remove him and fail than not to try at all.

 

 

Lastly, for your information, ORS 90.630(1)(c), permits a landlord to terminate a tenant if it is determined that they are "a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587." From your question, I could not tell whether the adult son was on the rental agreement, but if so, he is a "tenant." The statute is not clear whether it can be applied to only a single tenant, without terminating the tenancy of the remaining occupants. Of course, the statute doesn'taddress the larger issue of whether you may prohibit him from coming into the park, but I believe you are fully within your rights, as discussed above. However, you should first clear any such action with the park ownership, and they should secure legal advice on how to proceed

 

DO Enforce Rules Governing Common Areas - DON’T Unreasonably Limit Children’s Activities

Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon

It’s okay to enforce reasonable rules, especially in common areas, where the community has a legitimate interest in maintaining the property, ensuring safety, and protecting the right of all residents to peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

Just make sure that the rules don’t unfairly target families with children—or anyone else protected under fair housing law. You may have legitimate concerns about outdoor play activities that could disturb neighbors or damage your property, but avoid rules that specifically target children’s behavior. Rules banning children from playing in common areas—or placing unreasonable limits on what they can do outside—could lead to accusations that you are treating families with children less favorably than adult households living at the community.

Example: In January 2015, a court approved a $20,000 settlement in a fair housing case against a California community filed by a mother on behalf of her two young children. The complaint alleged that the children, ages 7 and 5, were repeatedly warned against riding their scooters in the common area of the complex. Allegedly, an employee said they couldn’t ride scooters, bikes, or skateboards and threatened to evict her if he caught them again. When he saw them the next day, the employee allegedly used his cell phone to record them and yelled at them. Some weeks later, the mother said the children were were riding their scooters when the manager ran up and screamed at her son, and then handed her a formal warning.

After receiving another warning, the mother sued the community for discrimination. The parties settled the case by signing a confidential agreement, which called for the court to approve $10,000 payments to each child to be held until they reached adulthood. The court ruled that the settlements were reasonable given the alleged wrongs and injuries described and were consistent with the range of settlements in similar cases [Milton v. Regency Park Apartments, January 2015].

Even if you adopt rules that govern all residents—not just children—you could still face a discrimination claim if you enforce the rule only against children. Singling out children for breaking the rules against noisy behavior in common areas while ignoring similar transgressions by adults could lead to a fair housing claim based on familial status.

Legislative Update - Week 5 - Anti Community Owner/Business Legislation Continues

We are now into the fifth week of the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session. 

Last week MHCO held a very successful Lobby Day on Wednesday, February 22nd. We have a great turnout - 93 attendees - who met with 76 Legislators. Thank you to everyone who made the effort to attend and visit with their Senator or State Representative. Attendees came from as far as Michigan! Face to face meetings with legislators are still important in the digital age - your efforts make a difference. Thank you to everyone who participated!

Here are some highlights of bills introduced last week or changed status since the last report: 

o HB 2008 - We mentioned this in the last report as LC 2997 It is a lengthy bill changing park sales, establishing an enforcement agency that can investigate landlord actions with up to $10,000 fines. It contains nearly every bad legislative idea that MHCO has fought against for the last 20 years. MHCO STRONGLY OPPOSES 

o HB 2009 - Advances sunset for subtraction for sale of manufactured dwelling park to certain entities. Creates personal income tax credit for sale of park. Provides that calculation of credit for taxes paid to other state allowed to nonresident taxpayer or allowed to estate treated as resident of another state occurs before allowance of credit for sale of park. MHCO is currently has no position - waiting to see what the Legislature wants in return. 

o HB 2990 - Increases time period during which tenants of manufactured dwelling park must identify or form tenants committee for purpose of purchasing park from 10 days to 60 days. Provides tenants committee with 15-day right of first refusal for offer or agreement to purchase park. MHCO Opposes. 

o HB 2165 -Requires building official to inspect small home for compliance with recreational vehicle program standards if home is not intended for use as residence or is not permanently sited. Requires building official to inspect small home intended as residence and permanently sited for compliance with Low-Rise Residential Dwelling Code. MHCO testified against and has been sent back to legislative counsel. 
 

Phil Querin Q&A: Additional Thoughts on Home Burns Down in Community

Phil Querin

ORS 90.675 is the abandonment law that applies generally to homes located in manufactured housing communities. Today it contains 23 separate subsections, a behemoth in size compared to most statutes. Buried 21 sections down in the subterranean recesses of the statute is that portion of the law dealing with health, safety and welfare issues, in which 45 day letters and 30 response periods could not possibly work. In such situations, time is of the essence. Accordingly, subsection 21 sets forth a fast-track protocol for declaring the abandonment of a home that poses certain risks to others (such as the abandoned shell of a home destroyed by fire). Below is a summary of what this subsection says:

If a governmental agency determines that the condition of the abandoned home constitutes an extreme health or safety hazard under state or local law and the agency determines that the hazard endangers others in the facility and requires quick removal of the property, the landlord may sell or dispose of it by taking the following steps[1]:


  • The date by which a tenant, lienholder, personal representative or designated person must contact a landlord to arrange for the disposition of the property shall not be less than 15 days after personal delivery or mailing of the abandonment letter required by ORS 90.675(3);
  • The date by which a tenant, lienholder, personal representative or designated person must remove the property must be not less than seven (7) days after the date the tenant, lienholder, personal representative or designated person issues the abandonment letter;
  • The contents of the abandonment letter must be in accordance with ORS 90.675(5), except that:
    • The dates and deadlines in the notice must be consistent with the fast-track protocol above;
    • The abandonment letter must state that a governmental agency has determined that the property constitutes an extreme health or safety hazard and must be removed quickly; and
    • The landlord must attach a copy of the agency's determination to the abandonment letter.
    • If the tenant, a lienholder or a personal representative or designated person does not remove the property within the time required under the abandonment letter, the landlord or a buyer at a sale conducted under ORS 90.675(11) must promptly remove the home from the facility.
    • Contrary to ORS 90.675(19), the landlord is not required to enter into a storage agreement with a lienholder, personal representative or designated person.

Thanks, John!

[1] Note: the following steps are exceptions to the rest of ORS 90.675. This means that if there is no exception in this list, the rest of the statute will apply.