2017 ORS 105.580¹
Order of abatement
  • cancellation

(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, if the existence of the nuisance is established in the action, an order of abatement shall be entered as part of the general judgment in the case.

(2) The order of abatement may direct the effectual closing of the premises, building or place against its use for any purpose, and so keeping it closed for a period of one year, unless sooner released. The court shall not include provisions for the closing of the premises under the provisions of this subsection unless that relief is specifically requested in the complaint.

(3) The court, if satisfied of an owner’s good faith, shall enter no order of abatement as to that owner if the court finds that the owner:

(a) Had no knowledge of the existence of the nuisance or has been making reasonable efforts to abate the nuisance;

(b) Has not been guilty of any contempt of court in the proceedings; and

(c) Will make best efforts to immediately abate any nuisance that may exist and prevent it from being a nuisance for a period of one year thereafter.

(4) Except for an order of abatement entered based on the manufacture of a controlled substance, if an order of abatement has been entered and an owner subsequently meets the requirements of this section, the order of abatement shall be canceled as to that owner.

(5) If the court enters an order under this section on the basis that the property was used for the manufacture of a controlled substance, the court shall send a copy of the order to the Director of the Oregon Health Authority. The director or the director’s designee shall declare the property to be an illegal drug manufacturing site for purposes of ORS 453.855 (Purpose) to 453.912 (Governmental immunity from liability). An order of the court under this section shall not be canceled until the director or the director’s designee determines the property to be fit for use. Upon determining the property to be fit for use, the director or designee shall notify the court, which shall cancel the abatement order. [1989 c.846 §7; 1997 c.769 §1; 1999 c.168 §3; 2003 c.576 §238; 2009 c.595 §65]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes (Ors 465.110 to 465.180)

As the state has valid interest in prohibiting illegal uses of prop­erty and proper safeguards exist, abate­ment pro­ceed­ings do not amount to an unconstitu­tional taking of prop­erty. State ex rel Haas v. Club Recrea­tion, 41 Or App 557, 599 P2d 1194 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

In General

Exemp­tion of nuisance laws from constitu­tional require­ment for pay­ments based on govern­ment regula­tions restricting use of prop­erty, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

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.