2015 ORS 100.770¹
Fraud and deceit prohibited

No developer or agent of a developer shall, in connection with the sale of a condominium unit, directly or indirectly:

(1) Employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud;

(2) Make any untrue statement of a material fact or fail to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading;

(3) Engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deception upon any person;

(4) Issue, circulate or publish any prospectus, circular, advertisement, printed matter, document, pamphlet, leaflet or other literature, including a public report issued pursuant to ORS 100.700 (Inspection of condominium), which contains an untrue statement of a material fact or fails to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading;

(5) Issue, circulate or publish any advertising matter or make any written representation, including a public report issued pursuant to ORS 100.700 (Inspection of condominium), unless the name of the person issuing, circulating or publishing the matter or making the representation is clearly indicated; or

(6) Make any statement or representation, or issue, circulate or publish any advertising matter containing any statement to the effect that the condominium has been in any way approved or indorsed by the Real Estate Commissioner. [Formerly 94.448]

(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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 100, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano100.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.