2015 ORS 92.495¹
Cease and desist order
  • injunction

(1) Whenever the Real Estate Commissioner finds that any owner, subdivider, series partitioner, developer or other person is violating any of the provisions of ORS 92.305 (Definitions for ORS 92.305 to 92.495) to 92.495 (Cease and desist order) or of the alternative requirements of the commissioner prescribed pursuant to ORS 92.425 (Conditions prerequisite to sale) (3), the commissioner may order the persons to desist and refrain from violating the provisions or requirements, or from the further sale or lease of lots, parcels or interests within the subdivision or series partition.

(2) Whenever the commissioner finds that any subdivider, series partitioner, developer or other person is violating, or has violated or is about to violate, any of the provisions of ORS 92.305 (Definitions for ORS 92.305 to 92.495) to 92.495 (Cease and desist order) or the alternative requirements of the commissioner prescribed pursuant to ORS 92.425 (Conditions prerequisite to sale) (3) the commissioner may bring proceedings in the circuit court within the county in which the violation or threatened violation has occurred or is about to occur, or in the county where the person, firm or corporation resides or carries on business, in the name of and on behalf of the people of the State of Oregon against the person, firm or corporation, and any other person or persons concerned in or in any way participating or about to participate in the violation, to enjoin the person, firm or corporation or any other person from continuing the violation or engaging in the violation or doing any act or acts in furtherance of the violation, and to apply for the appointment of a receiver or conservator of the assets of the defendant where an appointment is appropriate. [1974 c.1 §§19,20; 1975 c.643 §14; 1983 c.570 §28]

Notes of Decisions

Parcel of land is subject to this law even though intersected by road. State v. Emmich, 34 Or App 945, 580 P2d 570 (1978)

Imposi­tion of greater sen­tence for viola­tion of Subdivision Control Law than those imposed for viola­tions of ORS 92.010 (Definitions for ORS 92.010 to 92.192) to 92.090 (Approval of subdivision plat names) and 92.100 (Approval of plat by city or county surveyor) to 92.160 (Notice to Real Estate Commissioner of receipt of subdivision plat) did not violate equal protec­tion. State v. Baker, 48 Or App 999, 618 P2d 997 (1980)

Seller of real prop­erty could not seek to void transac­tion as it was not within class of per­sons these pro­vi­sions seek to protect. Seal v. Polehn, 52 Or App 389, 628 P2d 746 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 293 (1979)

Chapter 92

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Standards county may impose for approval of private roads created in parti­tioning land, (1972) Vol 35, p 1230; effect of county zoning ordinances on approved subdivision plat, (1973) Vol 36, p 702; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., decision, (1974) Vol 36, p 960

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 394-403 (1974)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 92—Subdivisions and Partitions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors092.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 92, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano092.­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.