A HUGE thank you to EVERYONE who gave of your time and energy and contributed to group discussions and challenged us to think through various factors.
At the first-ever May 16th Marina Issues Subcommittee meeting, Floating Home Owners came out in force and outnumbered Marina Landlords representation and their attorneys! A clear indication that the work we are doing is valued and worth-while.
Following is a detailed summary of the meeting and what we accomplished on behalf of Floating Home Owners:
On May 16, 2018, a subcommittee of Oregon Floating Home Owners (Tenants who rent their slips) and Marina Owners (Landlords) came together for the first time to discuss issues which are important to them and to determine if there is common ground and a willingness to pursue possible changes to Oregon laws in order to help resolve their issues.
Introductions were made around the room. Approximately 30 moorage owners, tenants, attorneys and other stakeholders were in attendance.
Background Presentation____________________________
John VanLandingham, one of the Subcommittee facilitators, began the meeting by stating that due to the similarities of circumstances for floating homes in rental moorages and manufactured houses in parks (Landlord-Tenant residencies where the Tenant owns their own home but rents a slip/space from a marina/park Landlord) that 80% of the Oregon state laws for Floating Home Owner (FHO) Tenants are the same as those for Manufactured Housing (MH) Tenants. Because FHO Tenants and Landlords have largely been absent from the Manufactured Housing (MH) Coalition for the last 20 years, updates to the laws protecting FHO Tenants have not kept pace with the protections for MH Tenants. Therefore, a Marina Issues Subcommittee was created to give a voice to FHO Tenants and Landlord issues.
Park Vs. Marina Law Differences_________________________
VanLandingham presented an overview of the specific ways in which FHO Tenant protections are different than MH Tenant Protections.
FHO Tenants Presented their Most Important Issues______________
FHO Tenant delegates from 9 rental moorages presented their most important issues and concerns for the first time.
Following are the issues which FHO Tenants hope can be addressed via legislation.
- Bringing FHO Tenant Protections up to the Same Level as MH Park Tenant Protections
- Addressing the Three Factors which put FHO Tenants at greater risk than other Tenants:
- Fees – fees for moving in, moving out, selling, converting to full-time, etc.
- Evictions
- The ORS Definition of a Floating Home as “Abandoned Property” – allowing a Landlord to sell an evicted FHO Tenant’s property
- Notification of Laws and Rights – without the existence of our own state or local advocacy agency, nearly all FHO Tenants had no idea these laws existed which protect FHO Tenants, have had no idea their rights were being violated, etc. General contractors (painters, handymen, etc.) are required by ORS to provide home owners with documentation and notices informing home owners about liens and how to protect themselves. With so much at risk and no FHO Tenant advocate agency in existence, there should be a required notification from Landlords to Tenants that these laws exist for them, so that FHO Tenants have a chance of protecting themselves.
- Statute of Limitations. Statute of limitations for violations that occur under ORS 90 should be increased from 1 year to a timeframe which coincides more closely with a metric for how long Park and Marina residents actually remain in a park. Some of our FHO Tenants represented have been at their marina for 20 years.
This concluded the presentation of the FHO Tenant issues to consider.
Marina Owners Presented their Most Important Issues______________
An attorney on behalf of the Marina Owner Landlords then further discussed the 3 issues that were originally introduced at the April 17th MH Coalition meeting of Landlords and Tenants.
1. 30-Day Notice to Permanently or Temporarily Relocate Floating Home to a Different Slip within the Marina
2. Bypassing Local Zoning and Ordinances by Creating a State Law that makes it Easier for Landlords to Rent Slips to Liveaboards
3. Bypassing Local Zoning and Ordinances by Creating a State Law that makes it easier for Landlords to Convert their Protected Uplands to RV Parks.
The facilitators felt that the RV Park proposal was a little too controversial to tackle as legislation (local governmental land use agencies don’t like being side-stepped), but they felt as though there might some validity in discussing the Liveaboard topic.
From the Liveaboard discussion, several key themes came out that were important to FHO Tenants.
• We are generally in support of liveaboards at marinas where there are not floating houses already.
• We are generally concerned about the idea of adding liveaboards to moorages where floating home residents already reside. The mixed use residencies (permanent floating home owners and temporary boat owners who can leave the marina any time they want) created some discomfort. Serious consideration should be given when discussing adding temporary residents to a community of permanent residents and what that does to the quality of life for all the FHO Tenants who have a vested stake in the marina because they cannot simply sail or motor away.
• Proximity (closeness of boats to homes and decreased privacy), increased burdens on marina resources, increased risk of fires, and parking scarcity were all discussed.
• There was a lot of concern again (also at the April 19th meeting) about how to regulate the pump out requirements for liveaboards. More research must be done on this topic and more input gathered from all stakeholders.
However, the liveaboard issue will be a topic that will be discussed at the next meeting, as will the 30-day Notice to relocate FHO Tenants.
On the Topic of Changing Laws____________________________
Changing laws is a process that takes some time. We will continue to meet and work together in order to find common ground between Landlords and Tenants.
Compromises will be made by both sides in order to create laws that work well for both groups. The work we are doing now is the first step in the process where we will take an issue, find collective agreement, draft the language of the bill, and submit it for consideration for a legislative vote in early 2019.
Preliminary Agreement between Marina Landlords and Tenants_________
Preliminary agreement was reached between all parties on the topics below.
Agreement during this meeting does not guarantee that it will become law, but it does promise that we, as a group, will work toward drafting language to consider including in a bill to be presented to the Oregon legislature. Taking an issue to this agreement point is the highest level of success achievable for this part of the process!
• ORS 90.675 – Extend the time allowed before an evicted FHO Tenant’s property is defined as “Abandoned Property”: Due to the fact that most floating homes have significant value and that they take longer to sell than houses on land, language should be added to Oregon law which allows a FHO Tenant who was evicted because of conduct (rule violations, etc.) to leave the Floating Home in it’s slip for up to 12 months so that the evicted tenant can FHO sell it, as long as the evicted FHO moves out of the house by the date of the eviction and they continue to pay rent until the house sells. This is SIGNIFICANT because, currently, under Oregon law, if a FHO Tenant is evicted, they have approximately 30-60 days to either (1) move the house out of the marina or (2) complete the sale of the house, or else the Landlord takes possession of the home and has authority to sell it without any commitment to the evicted FHO Tenant to sell it for a fair market price. The current law can create a situation in which a FHO Tenant could lose their life’s savings (value of the home) depending on the decisions that the Landlords makes regarding the sale of the evicted floating home.
• ORS 446.515 – 446.547, and 90.600(5)(b) – Tenant Rights Education and Mediation Resource: Currently no FHO Tenant organization exists to help with rights and education, as well as mediation between FHO Tenants and their Landlords. Oregon law created the MCRC which serves this purpose for MH Tenants, but we as FHO Tenants do not have access to it because we don’t pay the $10 per year assessment (which pays for the cost of providing this service). FHO Tenants overwhelmingly voted in support of paying the $10 yearly assessment (tax) in order to gain access to the valuable benefits provided by the MCRC. This resource serves as a tool to improve Landlord Tenant relations and provides a way to resolve disputes without litigation. Studies over the last 7 years of its existence prove that the MCRC works – typically, the MCRC sees 100-200 dispute cases per year for MH Tenants/Landlords, and they typically successfully resolve 85-92%, it improved communication between Landlord/Tenants in 86-92% of the cases, 96-99% of the users of the service would use it again, and 97-100% would recommend it to someone in need. Given those statistics, the value of this tool is clear. If you have ever found yourself in a situation with your Landlord and just aren’t sure what your rights are, a call to the MCRC could point you in the right direction if this law changes to allow us access by paying the $10 assessment.
• ORS 90.732, 90.734 – Landlord Continuing Education: MH Park Landlords are required to register and take continuing education classes to help them understand the laws, tenant rights and how to improve their management skills. Many FHO Tenants have complained that their rights are being violated and that new owners of the marinas are coming in and have no idea that specific laws apply to Floating Home Marinas. Requiring Landlords to take classes to keep up on current laws and marina management, water issues, etc. can help alleviate some issues that could arise as a result of unfamiliar with these topics.
Discussion about Laws to Help Tenants Purchase their Marinas___________
One issue generated some discussion and it is one that is very important to all – Oregon law has created some laws around helping MH Tenants to purchase their own Parks. We as FHO Tenants would like the same opportunities granted by that law. When we own our slips and our marinas, our residency becomes more stable because it is typically pretty difficult to get yourself evicted, when you own your slip. You must answer to the HOA, but the marina decisions which HOAs make are typically for the benefit of the entire HOA residents, not just to benefit the Landlord’s ability to generate revenue. The added stability of slip ownership adds to the value of your home. Floating houses in owned slips sell for more than what the house would sell for in a rented slip, and typically your rents are about half of what they are in rented slips.
So, the Marina Purchase Opportunities topic was discussed as a viable issue to consider and something that FHO Tenants want, but it was not yet awarded preliminary agreement status until more input can be solicited from marinas owners.
• ORS 90.840 to 90.850 – Purchase Opportunities: Marinas operate under the pre-2014 law 90.805 to 90.830. The key difference is that MH Park Owner MUST notify their Tenants if they are considering selling the marina, or receive an unsolicited offer from someone to purchase the park. The Owner must give the Tenants a chance to compete to purchase and must make available key financial documentation so that Tenants can make informed decisions. There are also some capital gains incentives for MH Landlords to sell to their MH Tenants. Marina Owners do not currently have to notify their FHO Tenants at all when they are considering selling or have sold the property – completely cutting out the FHO Tenants’ opportunity to purchase the marina – unless the Tenant group proactively requests notification. And, even then, Owners only have to notify tenants after the Marina is listed for sale and they are not required by law to give the Tenants financial information they can use to compete for the purchase.
FHO Tenant Topics Introduced but Not Yet Discussed________________
For this remaining set of issues, continued research and discussion is needed before we come to an agreement to pursue the following topics (in no particular order). These were introduced but not debated at the May 16th meeting.
I. ORS 90.643: Protections for tenants whose parks are converted to subdivisions: If tenants can purchase their marina, and Seattle floating home communities have largely been condominiumized already, then why can’t floating home marinas be converted into a cooperative? What is the difference between these laws for parks and tenant park purchase?
- Further understanding of this issue is needed.
II. ORS 90.645 to 90.660 Park Closure Provisions: Marinas operate under the pre-2007 law ORS 90.671. Park closure provisions, including required landlord payments to displaced tenants and state tax credit. Currently a marina owner can switch the marina to a different use, and evict tenants in 180 days by paying them $3,500. While this law may provide protections for Park Tenants, in this scenario, FHO Tenants lose their homes for scrap.
- We want this problem created by 90.671 to be addressed.
III. ORS 90.727: Hazard Tree Provisions: A landlord must maintain a hazardous tree in the tenant space if the landlord know it is a hazard. Clearly we do not have trees in our slips, but we do have natural hazards that could damage our property that may require a landlord to come into our rented space and remove the hazard.
- Yes, this applies in concept and is needed, but not for trees.
IV. ORS 90.730 (3)(g): Landlord Habitability Duty to Maintain the Surface of the Space under the Home. There was a lot of discussion about this topic which resulted in the following ways we would like Landlords to maintain habitably standards for not just the space, but the common areas…there are nearly infinite paths to a home in a park, but only 1 path to our homes in a marina – the safety of that path is critical and could be a matter of life and death for FHO Tenants.
- Yes, this applies and is needed. The following are ways in which Landlords should actively assist in protecting FHO Tenants’ property:
1. Dredging.
2. Snow and ice removal on docks and access roads.
3. Frost and moss buildup on docks.
4. Fire safety equipment, pump testing, fire evacuation plans, fire safety training, etc.
5. Mandatory no smoking on docks and signage – butts and dry docks = fire.
6. Dock maintenance.
7. Wake Plans
8. ORS 90.730 (3)(c) and (e) require water and gas/propane connections. How are some marinas operating without providing water and fuel? And for those of us that have water from a private well, how do we know that our drinking water is safe?
V. Correction to 90.632 (8) (a) – Termination of Tenancy Due to Physical Condition of Manufactured Dwelling or Floating Home: We would like to increase the additional extended time it takes to allow a floating home tenant to complete the necessary repairs from 60 days to 1 year since there are only 4 float contractors licensed in Oregon and the typical wait time for a full float replacement is at least 6 months. Full float replacements cost anywhere from $50,000 – 110,000, and financing is not available. A full float replacement takes 6-10 weeks to complete.
- We want this problem created by 90.632 (8) (a) addressed.
MARINA FEES DISUCSSION_________________________________
During the FHO Tenant presentation, 3 conditions were identified which serve to keep FHO Tenants in a vulnerable position: Fees (keep FHO Tenants from being able to move their homes anywhere else), Evictions for Minor Rule Infractions (serves to keep FHO Tenants Afraid), and the ORS Definition of “Abandoned Property” (allows a Landlord to sell an evicted FHO Tenant’s floating home which could result in a Tenant loosing their life’s savings).
The FHO representative had heard previously from 2 Manufactured Housing Landlord-Tenant attorneys that the fees which Marina Landlords were charging FHO Tenants (Move-in, Move-out, Facilities Use, Membership, Full-time Resident, etc.) are prohibited under Oregon State Law. However, each bit of legal advice came with the caveat that a FHO Tenant would need to hire an attorney and likely fight it out in court – Landlords will not give up this revenue stream easily.
During the discussion of fees and their effect on FHO Tenants, the facilitators (who are both attorneys who have spent decades studying and writing Landlord Tenant laws) confirmed that the fees are not permissible by law. One facilitator stated that they had no idea how Marinas are charging these fees since, by law, they aren’t allowed to do so.
Obviously, this revelation, (if this interpretation is correct) may have a huge impact on Landlords and Tenants. If you would like to read the law for yourself to see if you have been charged a fee that does not appear to be allowable under the law, perform an online search for “ORS 90.302”. If your rights under this law have been violated and you can prove it in a court of law, you are entitled to receive from the Landlord twice the amount of the fee that you were charged, plus reasonable attorneys fees. If you feel that you fall into this category, I would strongly suggest that you talk with an attorney (experienced in Floating Home Tenant or Manufactured Housing Tenant Law) to determine if your rights have been violated and what legal recourse may be available to you. Be prepared for your Landlord to fight back.
Keep in mind several things about litigating over marina fees:
- Litigating against a Marina Landlord is difficult. With these sorts of devastating business losses on the line for them, they will retain the very best legal defense teams available. Your judge – should the case make it to trial – will most likely be completely unfamiliar with the laws for Floating Home Tenancies. There will need to be a significant effort spent to educate the judge on the law. Finding an experienced trail attorney who knows Marina or Manufactured Housing Law (VERY different from apartment Landlord-Tenant laws) will be critical to your case. Apartment Landlord-Tenant laws nearly always favor Landlords (when judges hear “landlord” they tend to automatically assume you are talking about a situation in which the Landlord owns the house you live in and has far more rights than you do as a Tenant). Judges will likely go into the hearing with the assumption that your Landlord has more protections than you do as a Tenant. So, PLEASE, find an attorney who is experienced in this area. There are not many who represent Tenants because the money to be made is by representing the Landlord side of things.
- When you interview an attorney for the first time, BEFORE discussing anything with you, make sure that you ask to ensure there are no conflicts of interests…Make sure that no one at the firm represents or has represented your Landlord. It is known that Bill Miner and Charlie Greeff represent Marina Landlords and I am sure there are more.
- If you choose to litigate, consider a class action suit if possible to share legal resources and costs.
- The Statute of Limitations to litigate under a violation of ORS Chapter 90 (Landlord Tenant law) is one year. That may or may not rule out the possibility of starting the clock from the moment you found out that your rights were violated – your experienced attorney will be able to answer this question for you.
- While landlords cannot raise rents in retaliation, they can most certainly raise rents to pay for their attorneys fees, business expenses, returned fees, etc.
- The outcomes of all of the fees being reversed and double damages paid, will be an increase in rents for all tenants at the moorage – some of your neighbors may not be be able to afford a substantive increase and may have to sell their homes. Your efforts may not be well-received by other Tenants at your Moorage when they find out that they can’t afford their rents anymore.
- Lastly, when a Landlord is faced with a class action suit against them and realizes they may need to pay out tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to Tenants, plus legal fees, it may bankrupt them…Consider suggesting that your Landlord settle with you outside of court for favorable terms which allow all Tenants (who are interested and have the means) to enter into a Marina Purchase Agreement with your Landlord. They may find the offer to forgo attorneys fees in place of discounting their marina purchase price appealing. Giving all tenants at your marina a shot at owning their slips may be a better outcome for you and all of your neighbors in the end. Litigation will mean that rents increase, while slip ownership will likely mean that rents decrease substantially for all Tenants.
Conclusion_________________________________________
Our voices were heard. And some of the laws which placed us at a disadvantage were simply oversights during legislation drafting since we did not have representation in the group. Stay informed. Participate in our events. Stay tuned for more information on upcoming meetings.
NOTE: This information is being furnished to you as technical assistance. This information is not legal advice. We do not provide legal counseling. You may wish to contact an attorney that specializes in Oregon landlord/tenant law for legal assistance based upon your specific situation.
