2017 ORS 105.159¹
Computation of time before plaintiff may request writ of execution

(1) Notwithstanding ORCP 10, the four-day period specified in ORS 105.151 (Enforcement of judgment of restitution) (2) shall:

(a) Commence at 12:01 a.m. on the day after mailing and service of the notice of restitution pursuant to ORS 105.158 (Service of notice of restitution), including a Saturday or a Sunday or other legal holiday; and

(b) End at 11:59 p.m. on the fourth calendar day after the mailing and service except that if the fourth day is a Saturday or a Sunday or other legal holiday, the period shall end at 11:59 p.m. on the day preceding the next judicial day.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, at any time after the expiration of the period provided in the notice of restitution, the plaintiff may request that the clerk of the court issue a writ of execution of judgment of restitution directing the sheriff to enforce the judgment of restitution by returning possession of the premises to the plaintiff. After payment of any required fees, the clerk shall issue the writ in substantially the form provided by ORS 105.156 (Form of writ of execution for judgment of restitution).

(3) Unless the judgment otherwise provides, the clerk may not issue a notice of restitution or a writ of execution of judgment of restitution more than 60 days after the judgment is entered or after any date for possession as specified in the judgment, whichever is later. [2001 c.596 §20 (105.151 (Enforcement of judgment of restitution), 105.152 (Form of notice of restitution for judgment entered under ORS 105.146), 105.153 (Form of notice of restitution for judgment not entered under ORS 105.146), 105.156 (Form of writ of execution for judgment of restitution), 105.157 (Form of eviction trespass notice), 105.158 (Service of notice of restitution), 105.159 (Computation of time before plaintiff may request writ of execution) and 105.161 (Service and enforcement of writ of execution and eviction trespass notice) enacted in lieu of 105.154); 2015 c.388 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Filing of supersedeas undertaking on ap­peal pursuant to ORS 19.335 (Stay by filing of supersedeas undertaking) (2) tolls 60-day limit on issuance of process to enforce judg­ment for restitu­tion of premises under sec­tion. Pine Ridge Park v. Fugere, 252 Or App 456, 287 P3d 1268 (2012), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 105.125 to 105.160

Atty. Gen. Opinions

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

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 271 (1979)

§§ 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) to 105.165 (Alternative method of removing, storing and disposing of tenant’s personal property)

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.