2017 ORS 100.705¹
Sale prohibited prior to issuance of disclosure statement
  • • exception
  • • distribution
  • • use of disclosure statement

(1) Except as provided in ORS 100.665 (Exemption to certain disclosure and notice requirements), no developer or agent of a developer shall enter into a unit sales agreement prior to the issuance of the disclosure statement for the condominium.

(2) A copy of the disclosure statement for a condominium shall be given to the prospective purchaser of a unit in the condominium by the developer or an agent of the developer, not later than the date the unit sales agreement is fully executed by all parties. The developer shall take a receipt from the prospective purchaser upon delivery of a copy of the disclosure statement, and such receipts shall be kept on file within this state in the possession of the developer or the agent of the developer subject to inspection by the Real Estate Commissioner for a period of three years from the date the receipt is taken.

(3) The disclosure statement shall not be used for advertising purposes unless it is used in its entirety. No portion of the disclosure statement shall be underscored, highlighted, italicized or printed in larger or heavier type than the balance of the statement unless the true copy of the statement so emphasizes such portion.

(4) The commissioner may furnish at cost copies of the disclosure statement for the use of developers.

(5) Violations of this section shall be subject to the provisions of ORS 336.184 (Oregon Student Information Protection Act) and 646.605 (Definitions for ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652) to 646.656 (Remedies supplementary to existing statutory or common law remedies), in addition to other sanctions provided by law. [Formerly 94.384]

§§ 100.005 (Definitions) to 100.910 (Use of fees)

(formerly 94.004 to 94.480)

See also annota­tions under ORS 91.505 to 91.675 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Even if declara­tions filed for purpose of bringing develop­ment within condominium law were defective for failure to conform to statutory require­ments, develop­ment was not vitiated but deficiencies would constitute mis­take in transac­tion thus making instru­ment eligible for reforma­tion in equity. Dickey v. Barnes, Mossberg, 268 Or 226, 519 P2d 1252 (1974)

Developers of planned unit develop­ments which are not organized as condominiums cannot claim the tax advantages of the Unit Ownership Law. Brooks Resources v. Dept. of Rev., 276 Or 1177, 558 P2d 312 (1976)

Purchasers of condominium units are automatically members of the unit owners associa­tion and subject to its declara­tion and bylaws; where those declara­tions and bylaws provide discre­tion to the Board of Directors to assess for fees necessary to create a “unified plan for the develop­ment and opera­tion” of the condominium, and the purchaser has alleged no abuse of discre­tion, the judg­ment of the Board of Directors is upheld. Assn. of Unit Owners of the Inn of the Seventh Mountain v. Gruenfeld, 277 Or 259, 560 P2d 641 (1977)

Acquisi­tion of prop­erty by condominium associa­tion is not limited to prop­erty subject to annexa­tion require­ments. Gier’s Liquor v. Associa­tion of Unit Owners, 124 Or App 365, 862 P2d 560 (1993)

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 253 (1979)

Chapter 100

Notes of Decisions

This chapter does not authorize regula­tion by the Real Estate Division of sales of “right to use” time share interests in condominiums. Royal Aloha Partners v. Real Estate Division, 59 Or App 564, 651 P2d 1350 (1982)

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 95 (1982)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 100—Condominiums, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors100.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 100, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano100.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.