2015 ORS 105.149¹
Hearing on compliance with order

(1) Upon receipt of a timely filed request for hearing described in ORS 105.148 (Contesting plaintiff's affidavit or declaration of noncompliance), the clerk of the court:

(a) Shall schedule a hearing on the defendant’s request as soon as practicable;

(b) Shall notify both parties of the hearing date;

(c) Shall mail or send by facsimile a copy of the defendant’s request to the plaintiff; and

(d) May not issue a writ of execution of judgment of restitution pending the hearing.

(2)(a) At the hearing, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the court may consider only the following issues:

(A) Whether the defendant complied with the order.

(B) Whether the plaintiff complied with any requirement of the order that is a predicate to compliance by the defendant.

(C) Whether the parties agreed to modify the order and complied with the modified order.

(D) Whether one party unfairly prevented compliance by the other party.

(b) If ORS chapter 90 applies to a dwelling unit, in addition to the issues described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the court may consider the following issues:

(A) Whether the stipulated agreement was entered into in good faith as required by ORS 90.130 (Obligation of good faith) or is unconscionable as described in ORS 90.135 (Unconscionability).

(B) Whether, for a defendant whose noncompliance concerns performance or conduct, the noncompliance constitutes good cause for purposes of an applicable law or contract that requires the plaintiff to have good cause for terminating the tenancy.

(C) Whether, for a defendant whose noncompliance concerns a failure to pay rent due for future rental periods pursuant to ORS 105.146 (Failure of defendant to perform as ordered) (2)(c), the defendant has claims against the plaintiff for moneys that offset the rent. The defendant’s claims must be pursuant to ORS chapter 90 or the rental agreement and must have arisen after the entry of the order.

(c) The defendant may not raise defenses or claims involving issues other than issues described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.

(3) If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff after the hearing, the clerk may issue a writ of execution of judgment of restitution. If the defendant did not appear at the hearing, the clerk may issue the writ immediately. If the defendant did appear, the clerk may issue the writ no earlier than 24 hours after the court’s ruling. Further notice to the defendant is not required.

(4) If the court finds in favor of the defendant after the hearing, the court shall set aside the judgment. The court may reinstate the order, terminate the order and enter a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action in favor of the defendant, enter a new order or schedule a trial on the plaintiff’s action as soon as practicable. [2001 c.596 §12 (105.146 (Failure of defendant to perform as ordered), 105.148 (Contesting plaintiff's affidavit or declaration of noncompliance) and 105.149 (Hearing on compliance with order) enacted in lieu of 105.147); 2003 c.378 §25; 2005 c.391 §36]

Note: See note under 105.146 (Failure of defendant to perform as ordered).

Notes of Decisions

Court may consider listed de­fenses at hearing whether or not de­fense is alleged in hearing request. Johnson Mobile Estates v. Oliver, 249 Or App 383, 277 P3d 598 (2012)

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.