2015 ORS 105.138¹
Compelling arbitration
  • procedure

(1) Notwithstanding ORS 105.137 (Effect of failure of party to appear) (6), if a party to an action to which ORS 90.505 (Definition for ORS 90.505 to 90.850) to 90.850 (Owner affidavit certifying compliance with requirements for sale of park) apply moves for an order compelling arbitration and abating the proceedings, the court shall summarily determine whether the controversy between the parties is subject to an arbitration agreement enforceable under ORS 90.610 (Informal dispute resolution) (2) and, if so, shall issue an order compelling the parties to submit to arbitration in accordance with the agreement and abating the action for not more than 30 days, unless the parties agree to an order of abatement for a longer period acceptable to the court.

(2) If the court issues an order compelling arbitration under subsection (1) of this section, the court may not order the payment of rent into court pending the arbitration unless the court finds such an order is necessary to protect the rights of the parties. [1989 c.918 §7; 1991 c.844 §20; 1995 c.559 §46; 2001 c.596 §49a; 2007 c.508 §15]

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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 105, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano105.­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.