2017 ORS 105.585¹
Costs of securing or decontaminating property as lien
  • priority of lien
  • filing notice of pendency

(1) Any costs associated with securing the property under ORS 105.550 (Definitions for ORS 105.550 to 105.600) to 105.600 (ORS 105.550 to 105.600 not to limit authority of cities or counties to further restrict activities) shall constitute a lien against the property declared to be a nuisance from the time a notice specifying the costs is filed of record.

(2) Any costs incurred by the county or local government to secure a property that is a nuisance described in ORS 105.555 (Places declared nuisances subject to abatement) (1)(c) and have the property decontaminated and certified as fit for use under ORS 453.885 (Decontamination of property) shall constitute a lien against the property declared to be a nuisance from the time a notice specifying the costs is filed of record. Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, the priority of a lien created under this subsection is governed by ORS 453.886 (Notice by county or local government required before incurring costs) (4).

(3) A lien created by ORS 105.550 (Definitions for ORS 105.550 to 105.600) to 105.600 (ORS 105.550 to 105.600 not to limit authority of cities or counties to further restrict activities) is prior and superior to all other liens, mortgages and encumbrances against the property upon which the lien is imposed that attached to the property after any lien imposed by ORS 105.550 (Definitions for ORS 105.550 to 105.600) to 105.600 (ORS 105.550 to 105.600 not to limit authority of cities or counties to further restrict activities).

(4) A notice of pendency of an action may be filed pursuant to ORS 93.740 (Notice of lis pendens) with respect to any action filed under ORS 105.550 (Definitions for ORS 105.550 to 105.600) to 105.600 (ORS 105.550 to 105.600 not to limit authority of cities or counties to further restrict activities). [1989 c.846 §8; 1999 c.168 §4; 2007 c.673 §2]

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.