2017 ORS 105.135¹
Service and return of summons
  • posting
  • contents
  • use of facsimile

(1) Except as provided in this section, the summons shall be served and returned as in other actions.

(2) The clerk shall enter the first appearance date on the summons. That date shall be seven days after the judicial day next following payment of filing fees unless no judge is available for first appearance at that time, in which case the clerk may extend the first appearance date for up to seven additional days. At the request of the plaintiff, the clerk may enter a date more than seven days after the judicial day next following payment of filing fees if a judge will be available.

(3) Notwithstanding ORCP 10, by the end of the judicial day next following the payment of filing fees:

(a) The clerk shall mail the summons and complaint by first class mail to the defendant at the premises.

(b) The process server shall serve the defendant with the summons and complaint at the premises by personal delivery to the defendant or, if the defendant is not available for service, by attaching the summons and complaint in a secure manner to the main entrance to that portion of the premises of which the defendant has possession.

(4) A sheriff may serve a facsimile of a summons and complaint that is transmitted to the sheriff by a trial court administrator or another sheriff by means of facsimile communication. A copy of the facsimile must be attached to the sheriff’s return of service. Before transmitting a summons and complaint to a sheriff under this subsection, the person sending the facsimile must receive confirmation by telephone from the sheriff’s office that a telephonic facsimile communication device is available and operating.

(5) The process server shall indicate the manner in which service was accomplished by promptly filing with the clerk a certificate of service as provided by ORCP 7 F(2)(a).

(6) In the case of premises to which ORS chapter 90 applies, the summons shall inform the defendant of the procedures, rights and responsibilities of the parties as specified in ORS 105.137 (Effect of failure of party to appear). [Amended by 1975 c.256 §11; 1977 c.327 §1; 1979 c.854 §2; 1981 c.753 §11; 1983 c.303 §6; 1983 c.581 §3; 1985 c.588 §14; 1995 c.559 §48; 1997 c.577 §33; 2007 c.255 §3; 2017 c.252 §27]

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protec­tion Clause of the United States Constitu­tion. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US 56, 92 S Ct 862, 31 L Ed 2d 36 (1972)

Where summons in forcible entry and detainer ac­tion was not served within time prescribed by this sec­tion because clerk mailed copy of summons to defendant only four days prior to day of trial, court did not obtain per­sonal jurisdic­tion over defendant. South State Inv. Co. v. Brigum, 289 Or 109, 611 P2d 305 (1980)

Failure to timely serve defendant with summons and complaint does not require dismissal of ac­tion, and service of amended summons and complaint may occur without leave of court. Balboa Apart­ments v. Patrick, 237 Or App 391, 241 P3d 317 (2010), aff’d351 Or 205, 263 P3d 1011 (2011)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Condi­tions under which an attorney may appear, (1976) Vol 38, p 184

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 271 (1979)

Notes of Decisions

Provisions for early trial, posting of security for accruing rent during continuance and restric­tion of triable issues do not violate Due Process or Equal Protec­tion clauses of federal constitu­tion. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US 56, 92 S Ct 862, 31 L Ed 36 (1972)

Proceedings under the Oregon forcible entry and detainer law, including pro­ceed­ings against nonresident defendants, are not subject to the general statutes relating to service of process. Lexton-Ancira, Inc. v. Kay, 269 Or 1, 522 P2d 875 (1974)

A forcible entry and detainer pro­ceed­ing is a “local ac­tion” for choice of law purposes. Fry v. D.H. Overmyer Co., 269 Or 281, 525 P2d 140 (1974)

the Defendant Did not State Good Affirmative Defenses By Alleging

a viola­tion of public policy forbidding a franchisor to refuse to renew a franchise except for good cause; A “retaliatory evic­tion” for a refusal to engage in improper business practices; and an implied agree­ment to renew based upon con­duct and prior dealings. William C. Cornitius, Inc., v. Wheeler, 276 Or 747, 556 P2d 666 (1976)

In forcible entry and detainer ac­tion to recover pos­ses­sion of commercial prop­erty, claim for attorney fees could not be litigated. Grove v. The Hindquarter Corp., 45 Or App 781, 609 P2d 840 (1980)

In forcible entry and detainer ac­tion for pos­ses­sion of commercial premises, landlords could not recover attorney fees. Owen J. Jones & Son, Inc. v. Gospodinovic, 46 Or App 101, 610 P2d 1238 (1980)

Equitable de­fense may be raised in FED pro­ceed­ing. Rose v. Webster, 51 Or App 293, 625 P2d 1329 (1981)

In FED ac­tion to recover commercial prop­erty, defendant cannot assert counterclaim unless counterclaim is authorized by statute. Class v. Carter, 293 Or 147, 645 P2d 536 (1982)

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 291 (1979)

Chapter 105

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Private process server in a forcible entry and detainer ac­tion, (1975) Vol 37, p 869

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 105—Property Rights, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors105.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 105, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano105.­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.