What Oregon Law Says About Rules and Rule Changes in Manufactured Home Parks and Floating Home Marinas
Rules in manufactured home parks and floating home marinas can have a major impact on daily life for tenants. Questions often arise when management introduces new rules, changes existing rules, or increases enforcement within a community.
One tenant recently wrote in after management announced new exterior paint approval requirements for homes in the community. The tenant wanted to know whether management could create new approval requirements through email announcements even though those restrictions were not included in the tenant’s lease or existing park rules.
Rules Must Be Part of the Rental Agreement or Existing Rules
In manufactured home parks and floating home marinas, landlords may only enforce rules that comply with Oregon law.
In many cases, restrictions related to the exterior appearance of a home, landscaping, structures, parking, or similar issues must already exist within the tenant’s rental agreement or the community rules provided to the tenant.
If a restriction does not exist in the rental agreement or park rules, a landlord generally cannot create new enforceable obligations simply by sending emails, notices, or announcements to tenants.
This becomes especially important when management attempts to add new layers of requirements that were never previously agreed upon by residents.
Limitations on Rules – Oregon Law Establishes Standards for Enforceable Rules
Oregon law specifically addresses what makes a park or marina rule enforceable.
Under ORS 90.510(6), a rule is enforceable only if it meets specific legal standards, including requirements that the rule:
- Promotes the convenience, safety, or welfare of tenants
- Preserves the landlord’s property from abusive use
- Creates a fair distribution of services or facilities
- Is reasonably related to its stated purpose
- Is reasonably applied
- Clearly informs tenants what is or is not allowed
Residents who want to review the full statute can read ORS 90.510 here: ORS 90.510
Vague or Expanding Rules Can Create Problems – and are Prohibited by Law
Questions often arise when management attempts to expand rules beyond what was originally written.
For example, a written rule requiring that paint be maintained so siding is not exposed may be very different from later demands requiring tenants to use only certain “approved” paint colors if those color restrictions were never included in the original rules.
Similarly, a rule stating that homes must be “well maintained” does not automatically authorize management to impose entirely new aesthetic standards that were never part of the original agreement.
ORS 90.510(6)(b) requires that written and agreed-upon rules be “sufficiently explicit” so tenants can clearly understand what conduct is required or prohibited.
Proposed Rule Changes Should Be Taken Seriously – Vote To Reject Proposed New Rules
Under Oregon law, landlords may propose new park or marina rules through a formal process outlined in ORS 90.610.
Residents who want to better understand that process can review the statute here: ORS 90.610
OSTA’s position is that tenants should take proposed rule changes extremely seriously because every new rule creates an additional legal pathway that a landlord may later use against tenants in enforcement actions, terminations, or evictions.
Even rules that initially sound reasonable or harmless may later be interpreted, expanded, or selectively enforced in ways tenants did not anticipate. Park and marina tenants already operate under extensive landlord control, and many residents do not wish to create additional opportunities for management to pursue violations against themselves or their neighbors.
Another important issue tenants should understand is that proposed rule changes are typically voted on as a complete package. In many situations, tenants are not given the option to approve some reasonable-sounding proposed rules while rejecting others. Instead, tenants are not allowed to pick and choose which rules to accept and which to rules reject. The entire set of proposed changes is voted on as one bundle.
Residents should also carefully review how voting procedures operate under ORS 90.610. Under the language of the statute, choosing not to participate in the vote is not treated as a “no” vote or a neutral abstention. Rather, failing to vote becomes a YES vote on the adoption of the proposed rules.
For this reason, many tenant advocates encourage residents to carefully review all proposed rule changes, understand the legal implications, and actively participate in the voting process.
