ORS 90.568¹
Pro rata billing
  • apportionment methods

(1) If allowed by a written rental agreement, a landlord using pro rata billing may require a tenant to pay to the landlord a utility or service charge that was billed by a utility or service provider to the landlord for a utility or service provided directly to the tenant’s space or to a common area available to the tenant as part of the tenancy. A landlord may include in pro rata billing a public service charge under ORS 90.570 (Public service charge pro rata apportionment).

(2)(a) As used in this subsection, “occupied” means that a tenant resides in the dwelling or home during each month for which the utility or service is billed.

(b) A pro rata billing charge to tenants for the tenants’ spaces under this section must be allocated among the tenants by a method that reasonably apportions the cost among the affected tenants and that is described in the rental agreement.

(c) Methods that reasonably apportion the cost among the tenants include, but are not limited to, methods that divide the cost based on:

(A) The number of occupied spaces in the facility;

(B) The number of tenants or occupants in the dwelling or home compared with the number of tenants or occupants in the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service; or

(C) The square footage in each dwelling, home or space compared with the total square footage of occupied dwellings or homes in the facility or the square footage of the facility, if there is a correlation with consumption of the utility or service.

(3) A utility or service charge to be assessed to a tenant for a common area must be described in the written rental agreement separately and distinctly from the utility or service charge for the tenant’s space.

(4) A landlord may not:

(a) Bill or collect more money from tenants for utilities or services than the utility or service provider charges the landlord.

(b) Increase the utility or service charge to the tenant by adding any costs of the landlord, such as a handling or administrative charge. [Formerly 90.534]

Chapter 90

Notes of Decisions

The prevailing party in an ac­tion brought under this Act is entitled to attorney fees. Executive Manage­ment v. Juckett, 274 Or 515, 547 P2d 603 (1976)

Damages for mental distress are not recoverable under this Act. Ficker v. Diefenbach, 34 Or App 241, 578 P2d 467 (1978), as modified by 35 Or App 829, 578 P2d 467 (1978)

Where tenant terminates residential tenancy but then holds over wrongfully, landlord need not give any notice to tenant as prerequisite to maintaining ac­tion for pos­ses­sion. Skourtes v. Schaer, 36 Or App 659, 585 P2d 703 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Landlord may waive statutory right to 30 days’ written notice from tenant. Skourtes v. Schaer, 36 Or App 659, 585 P2d 703 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

This act does not provide for recovery of punitive damages. Brewer v. Erwin, 287 Or 435, 600 P2d 398 (1979)

As this act is not penal, it is not subject to attack for vagueness. Marquam Invest­ment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Distinc­tion in this act between residential and nonresidential tenancies is not irra­tional, arbitrary or unreasonable under United States or Oregon Constitu­tion. Marquam Invest­ment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Residential Landlord and Tenant Act does not supersede common law in all aspects of per­sonal injury liability. Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or 630, 762 P2d 997 (1988)

Where jury returned general verdict for defendant and court refused to award defendant attorney fees, defendant has right, absent “unusual circumstances,” to receive attorney fees for damages for prevailing on per­sonal injury claim. Steininger v. Tosch, 96 Or App 493, 773 P2d 15 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where tenants counterclaim for injunctive relief and damages after landlord sent 30-day, no-cause evic­tion notice, before awarding attorney fees, district court must determine whether landlord or tenants have right to pos­ses­sion of house and whether tenants’ right to assert counterclaim is provided by statute. Edwards v. Fenn, 308 Or 129, 775 P2d 1375 (1989)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Private process server in a forcible entry and detainer ac­tion, (1975) Vol 37, p 869; ap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty to university housing and properties, (1976) Vol 37, p 1297

Law Review Cita­tions

56 OLR 655 (1977); 16 WLR 275 (1979); 16 WLR 835 (1980)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 90—Residential Landlord and Tenant, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors090.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 90, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano090.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information