Search

Fair Housing ‘Dos & Don'ts’ for Dealing with Residents Who Break the Rules

MHCO

First in a series of articles dealing fair housing issues when addressing residents who break the rules. 

Fair housing problems can arise when dealing with residents who break the rules. The specifics will vary, but all residents have to abide by some basic rules: They must pay rent, avoid damage to the unit (subject to reasonable wear and tear), and refrain from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of other residents.

But what happens when residents break the rules? They may fail to pay their rent, ignore community policies, damage the property, or disturb their neighbors. Whatever the problem, you have the right to enforce the lease and community rules, subject to applicable landlord/tenant laws. It doesn’t have to be a fair housing problem, but it can quickly become one if you’re not careful.

Over the next couple weeks we will cover eight rules —the essential ‘dos and don’ts’—for dealing with residents who break the rules and keep the housing provider from violating fair housing laws.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. Fair housing law bans communities from denying housing to anyone—or discriminating against them in the terms, conditions, or privileges of residency—based on any of these protected characteristics.

The law doesn’t stop you from holding residents accountable for their own bad behavior, but they may accuse you of discrimination when taken to task for breaking the rules. They may claim that you’re falsely accusing them of breaking the rules—or treating them more harshly than other residents for similar infractions—because they’re members of a protected class.

Sometimes the rules themselves come under attack. Communities may enforce rules to ensure safety, prevent property damage, and protect the quiet enjoyment of the property by other residents, but it’s unlawful to do so in a way that unreasonably interferes with the right of families with children to use and enjoy the community’s common areas and amenities.

Moreover, fair housing law may exempt some residents from following the rules under certain circumstances. As part of the law’s ban on disability discrimination, it’s unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. Because a community’s policies may have a different effect on people with disabilities than on others, HUD says that treating residents with disabilities exactly the same as others will sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the premises. So you may be required to make exceptions to your rules—such as no-pet policies or parking restrictions—as a reasonable accommodation for a resident with a disability.

Fair housing law doesn’t require communities to approve all accommodation requests. For example, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable—that is, if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the community or result in a fundamental alteration of its operations. In such cases, federal guidelines say that communities should engage in an “interactive process” with the person making the request to discuss whether there’s an alternative accommodation that would effectively address his disability-related needs.

8 DOS & DON’TS FOR DEALING WITH RESIDENTS WHO BREAK THE RULES

RULE #1: 

DO Hold Residents Accountable for Rules Violations 

DON’T Be Afraid to Take Action When Necessary

You may expect all residents to abide by the lease and community rules, and you may take action against anyone who fails to do so. Fair housing law bans discrimination against members of protected classes, but it doesn’t excuse residents from following the rules, regardless of their race or any other protected characteristic.

Don’t let your fear of a fair housing claim prevent you from applying your policies fairly and consistently. If action is required, don’t fail to act because you’re afraid the resident will file a fair housing complaint against you. Just talk to your attorney first to make sure that all of your community’s actions are documented and justified.

Example: In 2013, a Washington public housing community fought off a fair housing complaint filed by a resident who was threatened with eviction for feeding pigeons and allowing them to nest on his deck. The community’s rules prohibited the feeding of stray animals and wildlife, so he received several warnings that he’d be evicted if he didn’t stop. He eventually complied and no further action was taken against him, but the resident sued the community for discriminating against him because of his race. He failed to prove that he was being falsely accused since he admitted that he allowed the pigeons to nest on his deck. And the court rejected his claim that nonminority residents fed the pigeons and were not disciplined, noting that other residents viewed the pigeons as a nuisance and were trying to get rid of them in various ways, including poison [Bahati v. Seattle Housing Authority, September 2013].

To ward off fair housing trouble, it’s a good idea to have a written policy detailing your standards of conduct so all prospects, residents, and staff members understand what behaviors constitute lease violations. Putting it down on paper heads off claims that the resident didn’t know about the rules or understand the consequences of breaking them.

Make sure that your rules conform to state and local requirements by asking your attorney for help in drafting a policy that defines what conduct is considered a lease violation. Make the rules as specific as possible—for example, by quantifying how many times an act must be committed before it’s considered a lease violation, how much time you’ll give a resident to correct his behavior, and so on. Your policy should also detail the procedures for investigating, resolving, and documenting complaints against residents for violating the lease and community rules.

Over the next couple weeks, MHCO will be posting articles that go into detail on the remaining 7 rules for dealing with residents who break the rules.

RULE #2: 

DO Apply Community Rules Fairly and Consistently

DON’T Make Exceptions for Residents Simply Because You Like Them

RULE #3:

DO Be Prepared for Reasonable Accommodation Requests

DON’T Ignore Disability-Related Requests for Exceptions to the Rules

RULE #4:

DO Consider Accommodation Requests for Assistance Animals

DON’T Refuse to Make Any Exception to Pet Policies

RULE #5: 

DO Enforce Rules to Prevent Harassment, Maintain Safety 

DON’T Ignore Accommodation Requests Related to Disruptive Conduct 

RULE #6: 

DO Enforce Rules Governing Common Areas

DON’T Unreasonably Limit Children’s Activities

RULE #7:

DO Be Prepared for Potential Retaliation Claims

DON’T Crack Down Because of a Prior Fair Housing Complaint 

RULE #8: 

DO Keep Good Records to Counter Discrimination, Retaliation Claims 

DON’T Neglect Your Paperwork 

Bill Miner Q&A: Mandatory Mediation Contained in SB 586 (Part 1 of 2)

Bill Miner

 

Introduction and Background

SB 586 was developed by the Manufactured Housing Landlord/Tenant Coalition during 19 meetings (each of approximately 3 hours) from September 2017 through February, 2019. There are several pieces to SB 586; however, this Q&A focuses on the limited mandatory mediation policy together with the $100,000 annual grant the Legislature has authorized be allocated to the Oregon Law Center to assist manufactured and floating home tenants with understanding and enforcing the Oregon Residential and Landlord Tenant Act.

As was reported by Chuck Carpenter during the Legislative session, the goal from MHCO’s perspective, was to use the coalition to get the best possible result considering the political landscape in the Legislature. Bluntly, some of the original ideas proposed by the tenants in the coalition were quite onerous. The end result, however, is a true compromise that is favorable to MHCO landlords, all things considered.

If you would like to learn more about these issues and/or you have particular questions, please join me for my presentation at the 2019 Annual Conference in October. In the meantime here are 17 questions (10 uploaded today and the remaining 7 to be uploaded next week) and answers that will get you started.

 

  1. What does mediation mean? Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is different from going to court and having a judge (or jury) pick a winner and loser by determining the facts and applying the law to the facts. Mediation is also different from arbitration. At an arbitration, the parties typically pick a person (usually an attorney) to act like a judge and determine the facts and apply law. At an arbitration there is also a winner and a loser.

 

In mediation, the parties typically pick a third party neutral who will meet with the parties to help them find a solution to resolve a dispute. Because mediation requires the agreement of the parties to come to a resolution, it is not always successful. Mediation does not limit a party’s ability to file a lawsuit or arbitration.

 

In my experience, the cases that resolve at mediation are where both parties come with an open mind, are willing to listen and can consider compromise in order to avoid the cost and hassle of litigation.

 

In my experience, the cases that don’t resolve are usually because one of the parties has unrealistic expectations or opinion of their case, or that the matter should move forward based on “principle.”

 

 

2.   When is mediation required? Mediation is required for any non-exempt issues (see question 3) involving compliance with the rental agreement or non-exempt conduct of a landlord or a tenant within the facility. Please note that a facility is a manufactured home park or a floating home marina. Mediation can be initiated regarding a non-exempt dispute between a landlord and a tenant or between two or more tenants. Note that if the dispute is between two or more tenants, mediation must be initiated by the landlord.

 

3.   What types of disputes are exempt (i.e. not subject to mediation)? The following disputes are not subject to mediation:

 

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

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

(c) Rent payments or amounts owed, including increases in rent consistent with ORS 90.600;

(d) Termination of tenancy pursuant to ORS 90.394 (failure to pay rent), 90.396 (24 hour notices), or 90.630(8) (three strike provision);

(e) A dispute brought by a tenant who is alleged to be a perpetrator of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking under ORS 90.445 when the dispute involves either the allegation or the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking;

(g) A dispute involving a person not authorized to possess a dwelling unit as described in ORS 90.403; or

(h) A dispute raised by the landlord or tenant after the tenancy has terminated and possession has been returned to the landlord (including ORS 90.675 (abandonments).

 

4.   How is mediation initiated? Mediation may be initiated by a tenant or a landlord. If a tenant or landlord initiates the mediation process, then the parties are required to participate (but see questions 7 and 8 below). If there is a dispute between or among tenants, a landlord must initiate mediation. 

 

5.   What if mediation is not currently included in my rental agreement? A landlord and/or tenant is required to mediate regardless of whether a rental agreement currently provides for mediation. If a rental agreement does not currently have such a process, SB 586 requires a landlord to unilaterally amend the rental agreement to include mediation. Specifically, ORS 90.510 (5) (what is required to be included in rental agreements) is amended to include in a rental agreement a section for mandatory mediation of disputes that states: “that the tenant or the landlord may request mandatory mediation of a dispute that may arise concerning the rental agreement or the application of this chapter, and the process by which a party may request mediation, including a link to the web site for the Manufactured and Marina Communities Resource Center with additional information about mandatory mediation of disputes.”

 

 6.  Who facilitates a mediation? Mediation may be requested through either: (1) Manufactured and Marina Communities Resource Center (“MMCRC”); or (2) a local Community Dispute Resolution Center (“CDRC”); or (3) a mutually agreed-upon and qualified mediator. Each party must cooperate with the CDRC or designated mediator in scheduling a mediation session at a mutually agreeable day and time, within 30 days of the initiation of mediation. Each party must attend at least one mediation session.

 

7.   Who has to participate in the mediation (i.e. does it have to be the owner)?  A landlord can designate a representative to participate in the mediation on the Landlord’s behalf (including a non attorney). The representative, however, must have the authority to resolve the dispute in the mediation.  Note that a tenant can also designate a representative.

 

8.   Do I have to reach an agreement in the mediation?  No. Neither party is required to reach an agreement in a mediation. Each party must attempt to mediate the dispute in “good faith.”  The law specifically says that the parties are not required to: (1) reach an agreement on all or any issues in the mediation; (2) participate in more than one mediation session; (3) participate for an unreasonable length of time in a mediation session; or (4) participate if the other party is using the mediation to harass the party or is otherwise abusing the duty to meditate.

 

9.   What would happen if a party failed to meditate in good faith? If a party fails to meditate in good faith by abusing the right to require mediation or uses mediation to harass the other party, the aggrieved party may recover an amount equal to one month’s rent from the violating party. Please note that this is a two way street. In addition, the other party has a defense to any claim brought by the violating party over the dispute involved in the mediation request, and may have the claim dismissed.

 

10. Can I use an admission in mediation at a subsequent trial? Conversely, can something I say be used against me? No. Mediation, and what is said during mediation, is confidential. Any statement made in a mediation is inadmissible. The purpose is to have an honest dialogue in order to encourage a settlement. Additionally, a mediator cannot be called as a witness.

Q&A on New Mediation Law

Bill Miner

 

Introduction and Background

SB 586 was developed by the Manufactured Housing Landlord/Tenant Coalition during 19 meetings (each of approximately 3 hours) from September 2017 through February, 2019. There are several pieces to SB 586; however, this Q&A focuses on the limited mandatory mediation policy together with the $100,000 annual grant the Legislature has authorized be allocated to the Oregon Law Center to assist manufactured and floating home tenants with understanding and enforcing the Oregon Residential and Landlord Tenant Act.

As was reported by Chuck Carpenter during the Legislative session, the goal from MHCO’s perspective, was to use the coalition to get the best possible result considering the political landscape in the Legislature. Bluntly, some of the original ideas proposed by the tenants in the coalition were quite onerous. The end result, however, is a true compromise that is favorable to MHCO landlords, all things considered.

If you would like to learn more about these issues and/or you have particular questions, please join me for my presentation at the 2019 Annual Conference in October. In the meantime here are 16 questions and answers that will get you started.

1. What does mediation mean? Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is different from going to court and having a judge (or jury) pick a winner and loser by determining the facts and applying the law to the facts. Mediation is also different from arbitration. At an arbitration, the parties typically pick a person (usually an attorney) to act like a judge and determine the facts and apply law. At an arbitration there is also a winner and a loser. 

 

In mediation, the parties typically pick a third party neutral who will meet with the parties to help them find a solution to resolve a dispute. Because mediation requires the agreement of the parties to come to a resolution, it is not always successful. Mediation does not limit a party’s ability to file a lawsuit or arbitration.

 

In my experience, the cases that resolve at mediation are where bothparties come with an open mind, are willing to listen and can consider compromise in order to avoid the cost and hassle of litigation. 

 

In my experience, the cases that don’t resolve are usually because one of the parties has unrealistic expectations or opinion of their case, or that the matter should move forward based on “principle.” 

 

 

2.   When is mediation required? Mediation is required for any non-exempt issues (see question 3) involving compliance with the rental agreement or non-exempt conduct of a landlord or a tenant within the facility. Please note that a facility is a manufactured home park or a floating home marina. Mediation can be initiated regarding a non-exempt dispute between a landlord and a tenant or between two or more tenants. Note that if the dispute is between two or more tenants, mediation must be initiated by the landlord. 

 

3.   What types of disputes are exempt (i.e. not subject to mediation)? The following disputes are not subject to mediation:

 

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

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

(c) Rent payments or amounts owed, including increases in rent consistent with ORS 90.600;

(d) Termination of tenancy pursuant to ORS 90.394 (failure to pay rent), 90.396 (24 hour notices), or 90.630(8) (three strike provision); 

(e) A dispute brought by a tenant who is alleged to be a perpetrator of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking under ORS 90.445 when the dispute involves either the allegation or the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking; 

(g) A dispute involving a person not authorized to possess a dwelling unit as described in ORS 90.403; or 

(h) A dispute raised by the landlord or tenant after the tenancy has terminated and possession has been returned to the landlord (including ORS 90.675 (abandonments). 

 

4.   How is mediation initiated? Mediation maybe initiated by a tenant or a landlord. If a tenant or landlord initiates the mediation process, then the parties are required to participate (but see questions 7 and 8 below). If there is a dispute between or among tenants, a landlord mustinitiate mediation.  

 

5.   What if mediation is not currently included in my rental agreement? A landlord and/or tenant is required to mediate regardless of whether a rental agreement currently provides for mediation. If a rental agreement does not currently have such a process, SB 586 requires a landlord to unilaterally amend the rental agreement to include mediation. Specifically, ORS 90.510 (5) (what is required to be included in rental agreements) is amended to include in a rental agreement a section for mandatory mediation of disputes that states: “that the tenant or the landlord may request mandatory mediation of a dispute that may arise concerning the rental agreement or the application of this chapter, and the process by which a party may request mediation, including a link to the web site for the Manufactured and Marina Communities Resource Center with additional information about mandatory mediation of disputes.”

 

 6.  Who facilitates a mediation? Mediation may be requested through either: (1) Manufactured and Marina Communities Resource Center (“MMCRC”); or (2) a local Community Dispute Resolution Center (“CDRC”); or (3) a mutually agreed-upon and qualified mediator. Each party must cooperate with the CDRC or designated mediator in scheduling a mediation session at a mutually agreeable day and time, within 30 days of the initiation of mediation. Each party must attend at least one mediation session. 

 

7.   Who has to participate in the mediation (i.e. does it have to be the owner)?  A landlord can designate a representative to participate in the mediation on the Landlord’s behalf (including a non attorney). The representative, however, must have the authority to resolve the dispute in the mediation.  Note that a tenant can also designate a representative.

 

8.   Do I have to reach an agreement in the mediation?  No.Neither party is required to reach an agreement in a mediation. Each party must attempt to mediate the dispute in “good faith.”  The law specifically says that the parties are not required to: (1) reach an agreement on all or any issues in the mediation; (2) participate in more than one mediation session; (3) participate for an unreasonable length of time in a mediation session; or (4) participate if the other party is using the mediation to harass the party or is otherwise abusing the duty to meditate.

 

9.   What would happen if a party failed to meditate in good faith? If a party fails to meditate in good faith by abusing the right to require mediation or uses mediation to harass the other party, the aggrieved party may recover an amount equal to one month’s rent from the violating party. Please note that this is a two way street. In addition, the other party has a defense to any claim brought by the violating party over the dispute involved in the mediation request, and may have the claim dismissed.

 

10.Can I use an admission in mediation at a subsequent trial? Conversely, can something I say be used against me? No. Mediation, and what is said during mediation, is confidential. Any statement made in a mediation is inadmissible. The purpose is to have an honest dialogue in order to encourage a settlement. Additionally, a mediator cannot be called as a witness.

 

11.Can a tenant request a mediation after I send them a termination of tenancy notice?

Mediation can be requested after a notice terminating tenancy has been sent to a tenant, but only if the request is made to MMCRC or a designated mediator and a written confirmation of that request is delivered to you (the landlord) beforethe landlord files an action for possession under ORS 105.110. If the tenant delivers a notice requesting mediation before a landlord files an eviction action, the landlord may not file such action until after the mediation process concludes. If a landlord delivers a notice requesting mediation before a tenant files an action regarding a dispute, the tenant may not file such action until after the mediation process ends

 

12. Can I still accept rent during the mediation process?  YesNotwithstanding ORS 90.412, acceptance of rent or performance by a landlord after either party requests mediation and during the mediation process does not constitute waiver of the landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy following the mediation. Acceptance of rent or performance after the mediation process ends may constitute waiver. Additionally, all statutes of limitations are suspended during the mediation process. 

 

13.What happens after the mediation? If a mediation is successful, the parties should come to an agreement that resolves the dispute. The question is how enforceable is the agreement. Enforceability will depend upon the issues involved, the terms and how the agreement is drafted. I would encourage you to discuss with your legal counsel strategies on how to make the most of a mediation.For example, if an eviction action has already commenced, you may want to attempt to make the agreement a part of the ORS 105.148 mediation/agreement process. Another example is setting up an enforcement mechanism within the agreement itself.  

 

The CDRC or the designated mediator shall notify MMCRC of the successful or unsuccessful outcome of the mediation. The parties and the CDRC or mediator are not required to give a copy of any mediation agreement to MMCRC.

 

If a mediation is not successful, the parties may continue on the path they were on before the mediation. 

 

14.This sounds expensive, who is paying for it?Mediations will be performed by the existing network of CDRC mediators, funded by the existing annual assessment already paid by tenants ($10, collected with property tax assessments).  If the parties choose a private mediator, then the parties will have to determine how that mediator is paid. Additionally, the current annual fee paid by park landlords ($25 for parks of 20 spaces or fewer, $50 for larger parks) is doubled.

 

15. Very interesting (as always), Bill, but what’s this about $100,000 annual grant to the Oregon Law Center?As you may be aware, some states have allocated substantial funding to their state’s Justice Department or to create a team of private attorneys general to assist with enforcement of tenant rights. Similar systems were originally proposed by the tenants during coalition meetings and were strongly opposed by the landlord group. The ultimate compromise was a limited $100,000 per year grant to be given to the Oregon Law Centerto employ oneattorney to provide direct legal services to statewide park and marina residents on matters arising under the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

 

16.Is mandatory mediation and the $100,000 per year in perpetuity? No. Both elements have a four-year sunset. An advisory committee has been created to monitor both elements, consisting of equal numbers of landlord and tenant representatives to present a report on the status of both elements to the 2021 and 2023 Legislatures to determine whether they should be renewed.

 

17. When does all of this go into effect? The effective date of SB 586 is January 1, 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

Changing 55 and Older Status and Community Rules

Question: A landlord changed the status of the community from "Family" to "55&Older" in June. Management did not change the rules and regulations. However, they did advertise the community as "55&Older -"; identified that status in the community's Application Criteria; and have met the requirements of the "80/20 Rule". Now the community owner is changing the rules. One of the many rule change includes altering the status of the community from "Family" to "55 & Older". It is likely that the residents will have enough votes in the petition to vote down the rule changes. Where does this leave the community's "55 & Older Status"? Does that status actually need to be in the rules?Answer: I believe the rule change is essential. The reason is that it is the primary document (along with the rental agreement) that defines how the park is to operate under a 55+ regime. Here is a brief summary of how these conversions should occur:Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1989 ("FHAA -") and the Housing for Older Persons Act ("HIPA -") of 1999, a community must comply with the following requirements: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 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 may impose a more restrictive minimum age requirement than 55. 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 the 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, it always hold itself out 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. Today, if the community can 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 for those communities that exceed the minimum 80% floor (i.e. at least one occupant age 55 or over): Implement a rules change to conform with the 55+ laws, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the community's 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, this risk can 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.

Fair Housing Alert: Hidden Flaws in ChatGPT, Bard, Bing, and Other Generative AI Products - Potentially Discriminatory

MHCO

Like other real estate businesses, you may be using ChatGPT, Bard, Bing, and other generative AI products, a.k.a. chatbots, for marketing purposes, such as developing advertising strategies, analyzing housing markets, and generating property listings, ads, social media posts, and other marketing content. Just recognize that for all their potential benefits, chatbots contain flaws that make them risky to use for marketing and advertising.

 

 

Among these flaws is the possibility of hidden bias. Explanation: Data and algorithms built into chatbots may incorporate the subtle prejudices of the humans who create them. They can also learn prejudice from the way they’re deployed. For example, in 2018, Amazon stopped using an AI-based recruitment program after discovering that its algorithm skewed against women. The model was programmed to vet candidates by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over 10 years. Most of the candidates in the training set were men. As a result, the AI taught itself to prefer male over female candidates.

 

Discriminatory content. Be aware of the risks and don’t use the content that chatbots generate for advertising and marketing unless and until somebody at your company with knowledge of fair housing laws carefully vets it to ensure it contains no hidden prejudices or biases.

 

Discriminatory placement. Beware of relying on chatbots in deciding where to advertise. Explanation: Historically, landlords have perpetuated segregation by deliberately advertising only in certain publications or outlets that minorities targeted for exclusion are known not to use. This is a critical compliance issue because HUD and the courts interpret discriminatory advertising as including the selection of media or locations for advertising that deny particular segments of the housing market information about housing opportunities based on a protected characteristic. Examples include strategically placing billboard ads in predominately white neighborhoods and running newspaper ads in local publications read mostly by a white audience. Use of chatbots with sophisticated algorithms targeting highly specific audiences significantly increases the risks of inadvertently exclusionary ad placement strategies.

 

Bottom line: Make a deliberate decision about whether you want your employees to use ChatGPT and other chatbots and for what applications. Then set out a written policy that clearly explains the banned and permitted uses and any applicable safeguards for the latter. Also include language addressing algorithm discrimination in your property’s fair housing and nondiscrimination policies. Ask your attorney about adapting this model language for your policy:

 

Model Language 

Use of Chatbots for Marketing Purposes. Employees must be aware that Chatbot data and algorithms may contain hidden prejudices or biases or be based on stereotypes about people of certain races, sexes, age, religions, or other protected classes under discrimination laws. Accordingly, employees may not use Chatbots for purposes of recruiting, marketing, advertising, promoting, or tenant selection unless and until ABC Landlord’s legal counsel vets and verifies that those applications and tools relying on Chatbot data are fully compliant with applicable federal and state antidiscrimination laws and will not have the indirect effect of discriminating against groups or individuals that those laws are designed to protect.

 

Using ChatGPT for marketing is just one of several common practices that may constitute indirect and unintentional discrimination.

Beyond The SAFE ACT with Blackhawk Capital Group

Kris Monte

The SAFE Act has received a lot of attention lately by park owners, but did you know that it’s really only one law of many state and federal lending regulations you are required to comply with when selling homes on contract?

The SAFE Act requires you, the park owner, to either use a licensed Mortgage Loan Originator such as Blackhawk Capital Group or obtain your own origination licensing in order to sell your park homes on installment contracts. However, the greater issue is that obtaining those licenses for most companies is really a small step towards being fully compliant when acting as a creditor. Below are just a few of the other regulations that you need to follow as a creditor.

1) The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA) established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as an independent entity housed within the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). The newly created CFPB is the primary regulator for non-depository lenders with the broad authority to write rules to protect consumers, a.k.a. “borrowers”, from unfair or deceptive financial products, acts or practices. The CFPB will be collecting, investigating and responding to borrower complaints which can be easily submitted from the comfort of a resident’s home via the CFPB’s website.

The CFPB will be in charge of the major consumer protection laws including RESPA, TILA, HOEPA, HMDA, SAFE, Fair Credit, Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act; Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act; Inspector General Act; Privacy Act; Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA); Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA); Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA); Expedited Funds Availability Act; Fair Credit Billing Act; Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA); Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act; Federal Trade Commission Act; Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLB) and more.

This would naturally imply that if you’re investigated because of a consumer’s complaint stemming from a denial of credit or foreclosure, the CFPB could easily extend the investigation to include an examination of all your lending practices.

2) The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act (MDIA) requires creditors to wait 7 business days after the delivery of the initial Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement before you can close the loan. In addition, if the APR changes by more than a specified tolerance from initial disclosure you’ll need to allow the borrower 3 additional business days. However, waiting periods can be shortened or waived if the extension of credit is necessary to meet a personal financial emergency. To shorten the waiver period, borrowers must prepare a signed and dated written statement, signed by all borrowers involved, detailing the specific emergency and requesting a waiver of the waiting period.

3) The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) places disclosure obligations on users of consumer reports and to ensure fair, timely, and accurate reporting of credit information. This means that you are required to notify the borrower when an adverse action is taken on the basis of such reports, such as if you deny someone a loan or offer them a smaller loan than what they applied for. In addition, you must identify the company that provided the report, so that the accuracy and completeness of the report may be verified or contested by the borrower. We recommend that you provide separate notices to each borrower to protect yourself from violating their privacy. There are additional criteria for those of you that furnish information to credit agencies that will land on a borrower’s credit report.

4) The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) applies to each individual or business that offers or extends credit more than 5 times for transactions secured by a dwelling in the preceding calendar year. There are many applicable areas within TILA depending on how your loans are structured so we’ll discuss the act in a few general areas only.

• TILA limits the amount of fees that can be charged on certain transactions without additional requirements and it limits when those fees can be charged for all transactions.

• TILA mandates early disclosure of a creditor’s identity, amount financed, itemization of amount financed, APR, finance charges, total of payments, payment schedule, prepayment penalties and late payment fees.

• Creditors are liable for violation of the disclosure requirements, regardless of whether the borrower was harmed by the nondisclosure.

5) Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits discrimination of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or receipt of public assistance. Park owners may consider a borrower’s immigration status in order to ensure the borrower will be in the country long enough to repay the loan. You may not ask borrowers if they receive child support or alimony payments unless you notify them that they need only to provide this information if it will be used in determining their ability to repay. We encourage park owners to create written loan guidelines with clear underwriting standards to avoid violating fair credit laws. If you make an exception to your loan guidelines, be sure to properly document the reason for the exception and add it to the borrower’s file.

6) The Red Flags Rule requires creditors to implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program to detect the warning signs of identity theft. There are four major components necessary to be compliant with the Red Flags Rule.

• First - be able to identify patterns, practices, and activity that signal identity theft.

• Second - incorporate business practices that will detect identity theft, “Red Flags”. Park owners using our loan processing service can rest assured knowing all borrowers are run through a red flag checklist which is provided after the completion of our underwriting process.

• Third - detailed response for any red flags detected by red flags.

• Fourth - your program must be updated periodically to reflect any changes or additional information you’ve discovered that will help reduce identity theft.

As you may have heard, Blackhawk Capital Group has developed a comprehensive, customizable loan processing solution to meet the needs of manufactured housing community professionals selling homes on retail installment contracts. Our goal is to provide you with a full compliance solution so that you can continue doing what you do best without having to learn all of the lending laws. You continue to be the lender and after the loan closes, you also continue to service your own notes. We simply facilitate the part of the transaction that requires a licensed mortgage loan originator. We facilitate the delivery of every form and disclosure that you will need to ensure you are compliant with the lending laws in your state. Currently, we are providing loan processing services in 11 states including Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Colorado, Maryland and New Mexico.

Our standard fee per loan is $895; however, we are proud to offer MHCO member communities a discounted rate of $800. To take advantage of this discount please email kmonte@bhcapitalgroup.com and be sure to include in your email that you’re a member of MHCO.

Follow These 10 Rules To Avoid Fair Housing Trouble

MHCO

In celebration of Fair Housing Month, 2021, MHCO is highlighting 10 essential rules to help you to comply with fair housing law.

 

Housing discrimination has been outlawed for more than 50 years, but all too often communities still find themselves on the wrong side of the law and are forced to pay out thousands—and in some cases millions—in settlements or court awards, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees to get themselves out of fair housing trouble.

 

FOLLOW THESE 10 RULES TO AVOID FAIR HOUSING TROUBLE

 

Rule #1: Don’t Discriminate Based on Race or Color

The FHA bans discrimination based on both race and color, two separate but closely related characteristics. In general, race refers to a person’s physical appearance and color refers to a characteristic of a person’s race, so discrimination claims based on color are often coupled with claims based on race.

 

Rule #2: Don’t Discriminate Based on National Origin

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on national origin, which means the geographic area in which a person was born or from which his or her ancestors came. National origin discrimination means treating people differently because they or their family are from outside the United States, or because they have physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of persons from a foreign geographic area.

 

Rule #3: Don’t Discriminate Based on Religion

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on religion, so it’s unlawful to refuse to rent to people, or to treat them differently, because of their religion. For example, it’s unlawful to show favoritism toward applicants who share your religious beliefs—or bias against—those of other religious faiths.

 

Rule #4: Don’t Discriminate Against Families with Children

Fair housing law prohibits discrimination because of familial status, which the FHA defines to mean households with one or more children who are under 18 years of age, where the child is living with: a parent: a person who has legal custody (such as a guardian); or a person who has the written permission of the parent or legal custodian to care for the child.

 

Rule #5: Don’t Discriminate Based on Sex

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against applicants based on their sex. Making decisions about whether to accept or reject applicants based on their sex can lead to costly fair housing litigation, particularly when combined with allegations of discrimination based on familial status or other protected characteristics. 

 

Rule #6: Don’t Discriminate Based on Disability

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on disability. Under fair housing law, disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The list of impairments broadly includes a wide range of physical and mental conditions, including visual and hearing impairments, heart disease and diabetes, HIV infection, and emotional illnesses.

 

Rule #7: Carefully Consider Reasonable Accommodation and Modification Requests

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, practices, or services if necessary for an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the housing. In general, communities are required to make an exception to the rules, when requested, if it’s both reasonable and necessary to allow an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community. 

 

Rule #8: Abide by Rules Banning Discriminatory Advertising

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. Liability for making discriminatory statements doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent. Instead, the focus is on whether the statement would suggest a preference to an "ordinary reader or listener." The rules apply not only to verbal and written statements, but also to all advertising media, including newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and the Internet.

 

Rule #9: Watch Out for Potential Retaliation Claims

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to "coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with" anyone who has exercised a fair housing right—or anyone who assisted others in exercising that right. Because discrimination and retaliation are separate violations under fair housing law, you could face liability for retaliation if you take adverse action against a resident solely because he filed a discrimination complaint against you—even if the discrimination claim is ultimately dismissed.

 

Rule #10: Abide by Applicable State and Local Fair Housing Laws

To avoid fair housing trouble, it’s important to comply with not only the FHA, but also applicable state or local fair housing laws. Often, these state and local laws extend fair housing protections beyond federal requirements to ban discrimination based on: Marital status; Age; Sexual orientation and gender identity; Source of income; Military status; or Other protected classes.

Mark Busch Q&A: RVs: Can I Rent to RVers

Mark L. Busch

The SAFE Act has received a lot of attention lately by park owners, but did you know that it's really only one law of many state and federal lending regulations you are required to comply with when selling homes on contract?

The SAFE Act requires you, the park owner, to either use a licensed Mortgage Loan Originator such as Blackhawk Capital Group or obtain your own origination licensing in order to sell your park homes on installment contracts. However, the greater issue is that obtaining those licenses for most companies is really a small step towards being fully compliant when acting as a creditor. Below are just a few of the other regulations that you need to follow as a creditor.

1) The Dodd - Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA) established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as an independent entity housed within the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). The newly created CFPB is the primary regulator for non-depository lenders with the broad authority to write rules to protect consumers, a.k.a. "borrowers", from unfair or deceptive financial products, acts or practices. The CFPB will be collecting, investigating and responding to borrower complaints which can be easily submitted from the comfort of a resident's home via the CFPB's website.

The CFPB will be in charge of the major consumer protection laws including RESPA, TILA, HOEPA, HMDA, SAFE, Fair Credit, Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act; Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act; Inspector General Act; Privacy Act; Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA); Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA); Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA); Expedited Funds Availability Act; Fair Credit Billing Act; Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA); Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act; Federal Trade Commission Act; Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLB) and more.

This would naturally imply that if you're investigated because of a consumer's complaint stemming from a denial of credit or foreclosure, the CFPB could easily extend the investigation to include an examination of all your lending practices.

2) The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act (MDIA) requires creditors to wait 7 business days after the delivery of the initial Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement before you can close the loan. In addition, if the APR changes by more than a specified tolerance from initial disclosure you'll need to allow the borrower 3 additional business days. However, waiting periods can be shortened or waived if the extension of credit is necessary to meet a personal financial emergency. To shorten the waiver period, borrowers must prepare a signed and dated written statement, signed by all borrowers involved, detailing the specific emergency and requesting a waiver of the waiting period.

3) The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) places disclosure obligations on users of consumer reports and to ensure fair, timely, and accurate reporting of credit information. This means that you are required to notify the borrower when an adverse action is taken on the basis of such reports, such as if you deny someone a loan or offer them a smaller loan than what they applied for. In addition, you must identify the company that provided the report, so that the accuracy and completeness of the report may be verified or contested by the borrower. We recommend that you provide separate notices to each borrower to protect yourself from violating their privacy. There are additional criteria for those of you that furnish information to credit agencies that will land on a borrower's credit report.

4) The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) applies to each individual or business that offers or extends credit more than 5 times for transactions secured by a dwelling in the preceding calendar year. There are many applicable areas within TILA depending on how your loans are structured so we'll discuss the act in a few general areas only.

- TILA limits the amount of fees that can be charged on certain transactions without additional requirements and it limits when those fees can be charged for all transactions.

- TILA mandates early disclosure of a creditor's identity, amount financed, itemization of amount financed, APR, finance charges, total of payments, payment schedule, prepayment penalties and late payment fees.

- Creditors are liable for violation of the disclosure requirements, regardless of whether the borrower was harmed by the nondisclosure.

5) Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits discrimination of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or receipt of public assistance. Park owners may consider a borrower's immigration status in order to ensure the borrower will be in the country long enough to repay the loan. You may not ask borrowers if they receive child support or alimony payments unless you notify them that they need only to provide this information if it will be used in determining their ability to repay. We encourage park owners to create written loan guidelines with clear underwriting standards to avoid violating fair credit laws. If you make an exception to your loan guidelines, be sure to properly document the reason for the exception and add it to the borrower's file.

6) The Red Flags Rule requires creditors to implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program to detect the warning signs of identity theft. There are four major components necessary to be compliant with the Red Flags Rule.

- First - be able to identify patterns, practices, and activity that signal identity theft.

- Second - incorporate business practices that will detect identity theft, "Red Flags". Park owners using our loan processing service can rest assured knowing all borrowers are run through a red flag checklist which is provided after the completion of our underwriting process.

- Third - detailed response for any red flags detected by red flags.

- Fourth - your program must be updated periodically to reflect any changes or additional information you've discovered that will help reduce identity theft.

As you may have heard, Blackhawk Capital Group has developed a comprehensive, customizable loan processing solution to meet the needs of manufactured housing community professionals selling homes on retail installment contracts. Our goal is to provide you with a full compliance solution so that you can continue doing what you do best without having to learn all of the lending laws. You continue to be the lender and after the loan closes, you also continue to service your own notes. We simply facilitate the part of the transaction that requires a licensed mortgage loan originator. We facilitate the delivery of every form and disclosure that you will need to ensure you are compliant with the lending laws in your state. Currently, we are providing loan processing services in 11 states including Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Colorado, Maryland and New Mexico.

Our standard fee per loan is $895; however, we are proud to offer MHCO member communities a discounted rate of $800. To take advantage of this discount please email kmonte@bhcapitalgroup.com and be sure to include in your email that you're a member of MHCO.

Behind the Headlines: Lessons Learned from four Fair Housing Settlements - First of Four Articles

Behind the Headlines: Lessons Learned from the Latest Fair Housing News

This is the first of four articles that MHCO spotlights settlements reached in fair housing cases. The amounts reportedly paid are sometimes staggering—which is news in and of itself—and show just how much it can cost to resolve fair housing complaints. But the real news is in the backstory, the events that led to a complaint against the community. It’s there that you can learn what, if any- thing, the community could have done to avoid the problem in the first place, or once the problem arose, to prevent it from escalating into a formal fair housing complaint.   Over the next four weeks MHCO will run four stories on Fair Housing settlements along with the backstory and lessons learned.  
 

In this lesson, we’re highlighting the news about four fair housing settlements. We’ll start with the headlines and then give you the backstory—the allegations in the complaint—so you can get a feel for how and why the situation led to a formal fair housing complaint. Then we’ll review the lessons learned from each scenario to help you avoid similar fair housing trouble at your community. 

Editor’s Note: Since we’re looking at settlements, we get to hear only one side of the story—the allegations of the resident, the government, or the fair housing advocacy group filing the complaint. It may not be what really happened: All the owners, managers, and communities denied the allegations, so we don’t get to hear their side of the story, which may very well have gotten the whole thing thrown out of court. As a practical matter, however, it’s often better to settle to put an end to the matter, rather than face the prospect of lengthy and expensive legal proceedings. Just remember: The fact that the case was settled doesn’t mean that anyone did anything wrong. 

First Headline:  Landlords Pay $19,500 for Allegedly Denying Housing to Mother of Twins 

HUD announced that a group of landlords have agreed to pay $19,500 to resolve complaints alleging discrimination against families with children. According to the complaint, the owners and their on-site property manager allegedly refused to rent a two-bedroom apartment to a single mother and her twin boys. 

The Backstory:This case started when a mother said she contacted a property manager about renting a two-bedroom unit for herself and her twin 4-year-old boys. She alleged that, after learning she had two sons, the property manager told her that there would be some clean-up involved and that he would get back to her—but he never did. Two weeks later, she said her mother called the property manager on her behalf. When the grandmother reminded him about the two children, the manager allegedly said that he would need to consult with his wife, who wouldn’t be back in town for two weeks. 

Suspecting discrimination, the mother asked her cousin to call about the unit. Allegedly, the property manager asked who would be living there and when the cousin said the apartment would be for her and her husband, he offered to show her the unit the next day.

The mother filed a HUD complaint, alleging that the community denied her the opportunity to rent a two-bedroom unit because she has children. Though the owners and manager denied the allegations, the parties reached a settlement. Without admitting liability, the community agreed to pay the mother $19,500 and to modify its website and advertising policy to clearly state that families with children are welcome. 

“When a property owner refuses to show an available unit to a family because they have children, they’re not only denying them a housing opportunity, they’re violating the law,” Gustavo Velasquez, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Hous- ing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “No one should have to hide who they are or who their family is while looking for a place to live. This agreement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to ensuring that housing providers treat all applicants the same, regardless of gender, race or family status.” 

Lessons Learned: 

1. It’s NOT Okay to Turn Away Families with Children:  Though it’s been unlawful for 25 years, communities continue to run afoul of fair housing provisions banning discrimination based on familial status. These rules bar communities from denying housing to applicants because they have one or more children under 18 living with them. Unless the community qualifies as senior housing, it’s unlawful to screen out or deny housing to families with children. 

2. Dot Your I’s and Cross Your T’s to Qualify as Senior Housing: Don’t get lulled into a false sense of security because fair housing law recognizes an exception to the rules banning familial status for senior housing communities. It’s a limited exception, which applies only to “housing for older persons,” and there are lots of hurdles to jump before a community may qualify for the exception. Unless your community meets those specific technical requirements, you can’t simply decide that you’d prefer to rent to adults instead of people who have one or more children in their household. 

3. Testers Are on the Lookout for Discrimination Against Families: 

It’s common for prospects to ask friends or family members to check out suspicions that they’re getting the runaround because they have kids,
but increasingly it’s testers who are contacting communities to check for discrimination based on familial status. To avoid even the hint of discriminatory intent, treat every contact as if he was a fair housing tester—he very well may turn out to be one. 

EDITOR’S NOTE: This settlement is among a string of settlements and court filings in housing discrimination complaints based on familial status. A Wisconsin community agreed to a $100,000 settlement to resolve allegations that it unlawfully excluded families with children from significant portions of its 230-lot mobile home park. 

Phil Querin: Eight Q&As on Covid-19, Rent Concession, Forms 13A & 13B, Utilities ....

Phil Querin

Question. There is a lot of misinformation floating around about the Multnomah County/City of Portland Moratorium regarding COVID-related loss of income by residents. What is the straight story?

 

    Answer. The Multnomah County Moratorium does not declare a “rent-holiday” or anything close. Rent is still due and payable. The only exception is that if there is a timely request for partial payments, and the tenant has an objectively verifiable proof of loss of cash-flow related to COVID, you and the tenant are encouraged to enter into an agreement for partial payments for a period of time. Keep in mind that the state courts are not hearing FED evictions for nonpayment of rent, so your options are limited. Reaching a repayment program ahead of time is better that not getting any rent money and not being able to do anything about it.

     

    MHCO has issued a recently developed two forms for members to use when entering into a partial rent payment program. See, Nos. 13A (Multnomah County)  and 13B (Rest of Oregon).

     

    Question.Regarding Form 13-A (Mult. Co.), what if the resident decides they cannot pay anything?  Is that acceptable? Is that what I put in the agreement?

     

    Answer.  The Multnomah Count Moratorium does not declare that rent is forgiven, or is not otherwise due on time. It merely imposes a hold on eviction proceedings where the nonpayment results from a verifiable and documented loss of income due to COVID-19. 

     

    In order to qualify, the resident needs to demonstrate a “substantial loss of income”, through documentation or other objectively verifiable means, resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Note, this includes loss of income related to County, State, and Federal restrictions imposed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

     

    So what is your resident providing to establish the substantial loss of income? Presumably, if the resident is no longer employed, he/she can no longer pay the rent. If so, documentation or other information must be provided to establish this. If that is not the case, i.e. if there is no job loss, or it’s not related to COVID, or there is not a substantial loss of income, etc. they don’t qualify.

     

    Keep in mind that if both residents are working and one loses their job for COVID-related reasons, this, of itself, does not automatically qualify them for partial rent payments. If the remaining resident is still working and generating income, you will want to explore how much rent can still be paid. Paying nothing should not be an option where the household is still generating some income, and the resident can pay a portion of the rent, but chooses not to.

     

    Remember, whatever is deferred will have to be repaid within 6 months after the Governor’s Declaration of Emergency expires, so if the tenant is just trying to get out of paying anyrent, there is no real advantage to entering into the agreement today if it results in six months of rent abate, only to have to file an eviction the. The bottom line is that before you enter into the partial rent agreement, you should thoroughly vet the resident’s COVID-related issues and ability to pay at least something. However, as noted above, no Oregon courts are hearing nonpayment of rent evictions, so you alternatives are limited. 

     

    Question.  Regarding having to demonstrate they have substantial loss of income due to the virus, can we:

    • Ask to see their final pay stub and current bank statement so we can help figure out what they can pay us?  
    •  Can we ask for a letter from their employer stating that they were laid off?  How are they supposed to prove they can't pay in full?

     

    Answer.  Good questions. the Declaration of Emergency is not specific, except only to say that the proof has to be “through documentation or other objectively verifiable means.”

    Here are the elements of proof as I see them:

    • Is it COVID-related?
    • Is there a substantialloss of income? 
    • Does it prevent the resident from paying some or all of the space rent?

    What you decide to accept as “evidence” is between you and the resident. But other than requiring that he/she provide sensitive, confidential, personally identifiable information (e.g. social security number) I submit that pay stubs, account information is OK, so long as the protected information is redacted, i.e. blacked out. An employer statement is probably unnecessary in most cases, as there would likely be some form of written or emailed announcement.

     

    Question. The  Multnomah County Order says near the bottom that for landlords of communities within Multnomah County they should inform their tenants about the Moratorium. How should I do that?

     

    Answer.I believe reliable information is your best approach so residents trust you as a source. MHCO has distributed material on the Multnomah County Moratorium, and developed two forms which are self-explanatory and follow the law. 

     

    You want residents to know what the law is ahead of time. It is important to convey that the law does not “forgive” any deferred rent; there is no “rent holiday”; and any rent abatement must be supported by verifiable documentation or information showing a substantial loss of cash flow. Without such information, a tenant does not technically qualify for partial payments. 

     

    Unless a tenant has lost their entire source of income, e.g. job loss and is unable to qualify for unemployment, most situations would seem to result in a possible wage reduction, rather than a total loss of income.

     

    Question.Does the Moratorium apply to utilities?

     

    Answer. As for utilities, here is the rule: (a) Residents are still required to pay those utilities and other charges and fees if they pay them directly to third-party providers, e.g. electricity, cable, garbage, etc. (b) But utilities and other charges and fees payable to the landlordare defined in Forms 13-A and 13-B as “rent” that may be deferred (but not forgiven). 

     

    Question.  If residents do not get hold of me by the 1stof the month, are we still under the obligation to enter into these agreements? 

     

    Answer.  Only the Multnomah County form, 13-A requires the request to be made before the first of the month, since that is what the ordinance says. We developed Form 13-B (for areas outside of Multnomah County/City of Portland) and followed generally, Form 13-A. We did so because we believed it was a good approach. However, the Oregon Legislature has not developed a comparable law for areas outside Multnomah County/City of Portland – although we expect one shortly.

     

    Accordingly, there are some differences between the two forms, one of which is that Form 13-B does not expressly require that the request must be made before the first of the month.

     

    Nevertheless, assuming your community is inside the Portland/Multnomah County area, and rent has not yet been paid, say for April, and the resident requests to make partial payments, I suggest that a certain amount of latitude is important during these tough times. In other words, if the resident is a legitimate candidate for partial payments, you should consider having them sign Form 13-A. 

     

    Question. Do we fill out either Form 13A or 13B each month?

     

    Answer.  No. Form 13-A (Portland/Multnomah County) lasts for the duration of the Moratorium because that is what the law says; Form 13B last for the duration of the “Concession Period” which is the amount of time both landlord and resident agree rent shall be abated. 

     

    However, directly above the resident’s signature in both forms, the following provisoappears in bold print:

     

    By signing below, Resident certifies that the documentation or other objectively verifiable information supporting a substantial wage loss is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. In the event that through other income or employment, Resident’s wage loss is reduced or eliminated, Landlord will be promptly notified, and this Agreement shall either be terminated or modified accordingly.

     

    Question. I've had my first call regarding nonpayment of rent.  The daughter called me to say her mother had been laid off.  She said the Governor said they have six months to pay rent.  I cautioned her that we needed some proof of wage loss, and if so, the parents would need to enter into an agreement for partial payments.  She said we can't evict them. I said not now, but eventually if rent isn't paid an eviction would occur.  
     

    I don't think this conversation went very well.  A script of what we should be asking for or saying would help - even just bullet points so I know I am doing it correctly?

    Answer. We cannot develop a script for many reasons, the first of which all circumstances can vary. However, I believe the following information distills exactly what landlords and residents can and cannot do: - but you should not treat tenant requests with a one-size-fits-all approach.
     

    • The Multnomah County Moratorium does not declare a “rent-holiday”;
    • Rent is still due and payable. 
    • Deferred rent is not forgiven;
    • The only exception to payment of full rent is a timely request for partial payments, in which case the tenant must establish with reasonable evidence:
      • An objectively verifiable proof of substantial loss of cash-flow;
      • It must be related to COVID;
      • MHCO has recently developed two forms for members to use when entering into a partial rent payment program. See, Nos. 13A (Multnomah County)  and 13B (Rest of Oregon);
      • Deferred rent must be repaid with 6-months after the Moratorium ceases in Form No. 13A (Multnomah County)  and an agreed-upon period of time in No. 13B (Rest of Oregon);
    • Oregon courts are not hearing FED evictions for nonpayment of rent for the time being – we don’t know how long that will last;
      • If the resident engages in some activity that endangers the health, safety and welfare of the residents, management, or visitors/guests, you should check with your county court to see if a proceeding would be timely heard if you filed for eviction.
    • For utilities: (a) Residents are still required to pay those utilities and other charges and fees if they pay them directly to third-party providers, e.g. electricity, cable, garbage, etc. (b) But utilities and other charges and fees payable to the landlordare defined in Forms 13-A and 13-B as “rent” that may be deferred (but not forgiven). 
    • The above rules are fluid, and we do not yet know what the Oregon Legislature might do. Once that occurs, we anticipate having to make adjustments in the current rules upon which the above information is based.