2015 ORS 87.010¹
Construction liens
  • who is entitled to lien

(1) Any person performing labor upon, transporting or furnishing any material to be used in, or renting equipment used in the construction of any improvement shall have a lien upon the improvement for the labor, transportation or material furnished or equipment rented at the instance of the owner of the improvement or the construction agent of the owner.

(2) Any person who engages in or rents equipment for the preparation of a lot or parcel of land, or improves or rents equipment for the improvement of a street or road adjoining a lot or parcel of land at the request of the owner of the lot or parcel, shall have a lien upon the land for work done, materials furnished or equipment rented.

(3) A lien for rented equipment under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be limited to the reasonable rental value of the equipment notwithstanding the terms of the underlying rental agreement.

(4) Trustees of an employee benefit plan shall have a lien upon the improvement for the amount of contributions, due to labor performed on that improvement, required to be paid by agreement or otherwise into a fund of the employee benefit plan.

(5) An architect, landscape architect, land surveyor or registered engineer who, at the request of the owner or an agent of the owner, prepares plans, drawings or specifications that are intended for use in or to facilitate the construction of an improvement or who supervises the construction shall have a lien upon the land and structures necessary for the use of the plans, drawings or specifications so provided or supervision performed.

(6) A landscape architect, land surveyor or other person who prepares plans, drawings, surveys or specifications that are used for the landscaping or preparation of a lot or parcel of land or who supervises the landscaping or preparation shall have a lien upon the land for the plans, drawings, surveys or specifications used or supervision performed. [Amended by 1957 c.651 §2; 1973 c.671 §2; 1975 c.466 §3; 1977 c.596 §2; 1981 c.757 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Unpaid subcontractor ma­te­ri­alman could maintain ac­tion against insurer on contractor's bond, which promised to "pay all per­sons who performed work"; overruling to extent of inconsistency, Tait & Co. v. D. Diamond Corp., 228 Or 602, 365 P2d 883 (1961). Jacobs Associates v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 282 Or 551, 580 P2d 529 (1978)

Specific notice to ma­te­ri­alman that check is intended for pay­ment on particular project requires that pay­ment be credited toward lien on that project. Empire Building Supply, Inc. v. EKO Invest­ments, Inc., 40 Or App 739, 596 P2d 593 (1979)

Providing drop boxes and hauling them away when filled with debris was act of prepara­tion for improve­ment to land and gave rise to lien under this sec­tion. Abajian v. Hill, 42 Or App 695, 601 P2d 837 (1979)

Damages incurred as result of owner's breach of contract that do not relate to anything that became part of the improve­ment do not add any value to the improve­ment and thus, although recoverable under general contract principles, are not subject to statutory lien. Minter-Wilson Drilling Co. v. Richins, 60 Or App 702, 655 P2d 1060 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Excava­tion and grading of parking area come within defini­tion of "improve­ment" and are lienable. Robertson, Hay & Wallace v. Kunkle, 69 Or App 99, 686 P2d 399 (1984)

Claims relating to labor and ma­te­ri­als performed and supplied off premises are lienable where lease re­quired that work be done and improve­ments enhanced value of mortgagee's security interest. Robertson, Hay & Wallace v. Kunkle, 69 Or App 99, 686 P2d 399 (1984)

Material "to be used in" construc­tion need not become part and parcel of improve­ment for lien to attach. Rotarius v. Edwards, 147 Or App 484, 936 P2d 401 (1997)

Commingling of lienable and nonlienable charges does not invalidate lien if prop­erty owner has sufficient knowledge to ques­tion amount of lien or can readily obtain sufficient in­for­ma­­tion to separate lienable and nonlienable charges. A-C Construc­tion, Inc. v. Bakke Corp., 153 Or App 41, 956 P2d 219 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Lien in favor of trustees of construc­tion worker employee benefit plan is not preempted by Employee Retire­ment Income Security Act. Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters Na­tional Pension Fund v. Farmington Casualty Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Or. 1998)

Labor union, union benefit plan trustees and union collec­tion agent are ineligible to sue in representa­tional capacity on behalf of union member who is "per­son performing labor." Interna­tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 48 v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 168 Or App 101, 5 P3d 1122 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Provision allowing trustee of employee benefit plan

to File Lien to Collect Pay­ments Due Plan Is not Preempted By Employee Retire­ment Income Security Act. Interna­tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 48 V. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 168 or App 101, 5 P3d 1122 (2000), Sup Ct Review Denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Validity of mechanics lien in home solicita­tion sale where notice of cancella­tion not given, (1974) Vol 37, p 316

Law Review Cita­tions

41 WLR 95 (2005)

Notes of Decisions

In absence of express waiver by contractor of right to file construc­tion lien, agree­ment to arbitrate disputes did not prevent filing of lien and thereafter foreclosing to recover unpaid amounts and costs and attorney fees incurred in prepara­tion, filing and foreclosure of lien claim. Harris v. Dyer, 50 Or App 223, 623 P2d 662 (1981), as modified by 292 Or 233, 637 P2d 918 (1981)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 87—Statutory Liens, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors087.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 87, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano087.­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.