2017 ORS 105.165¹
Alternative method of removing, storing and disposing of tenant’s personal property
  • • requirements
  • • landlord liability

(1) If ORS chapter 90 applies to a dwelling unit, following restitution of the premises to the plaintiff by the sheriff pursuant to ORS 105.161 (Service and enforcement of writ of execution and eviction trespass notice), the plaintiff shall remove, store and dispose of any personal property left by the defendant on the premises as provided in ORS 90.425 (Disposition of personal property abandoned by tenant) or 90.675 (Disposition of manufactured dwelling or floating home left in facility).

(2) If ORS chapter 90 does not apply to a premises, the plaintiff or landlord shall remove, store and dispose of any personal property left by the defendant or tenant upon the premises following recovery of possession of the premises by the plaintiff or landlord:

(a) Pursuant to any landlord’s lien available under ORS 87.162 (Landlord’s lien);

(b) As provided by any rental agreement between the plaintiff or landlord and the defendant or tenant; or

(c) At the plaintiff or landlord’s discretion, by following the process described in ORS 90.425 (Disposition of personal property abandoned by tenant) (2), (3) and (5) to (11) and (13) to (16) except that:

(A) The plaintiff or landlord may require payment of any amount owed by the defendant or tenant to the plaintiff or landlord prior to allowing the defendant or tenant to remove or recover the personal property if the payment requirement is stated in the written notice; and

(B) ORS 90.425 (Disposition of personal property abandoned by tenant) may be applied to address only the rights and obligations of the plaintiff or landlord and defendant or tenant in the personal property and not the rights of other parties.

(3) Any cost incurred by the plaintiff for execution pursuant to ORS 105.151 (Enforcement of judgment of restitution) or 105.158 (Service of notice of restitution) to 105.161 (Service and enforcement of writ of execution and eviction trespass notice) or for removal, storage or sale of the defendant’s property under this section and not recovered pursuant to ORS 90.425 (Disposition of personal property abandoned by tenant) (13) or 90.675 (Disposition of manufactured dwelling or floating home left in facility) (13) shall be added to the judgment.

(4) If the plaintiff fails to permit the defendant to recover possession of the defendant’s personal property under subsection (1) of this section, the defendant may recover from the plaintiff, in addition to any other amount provided by law, twice the actual damages or twice the monthly rent, whichever is greater. [1981 c.753 §9; 1989 c.506 §23; 1989 c.910 §5; 1993 c.369 §18; 1995 c.559 §51; 1997 c.577 §39; 2001 c.596 §48; 2003 c.378 §32; 2003 c.658 §10]

Notes of Decisions

Notice stating landlord would provide access for removal of prop­erty did not satisfy require­ment of notifying tenant that prop­erty was available for removal without pay­ment of storage charge. Taylor v. Hayden Island Mobile Home Park, 123 Or App 318, 859 P2d 1173 (1993)

§§ 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.