Chapter 90

 

      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)

 

      90.100

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      In definition of “tenant,” reference to occupying dwelling to exclusion of others means to exclusion of public, not to exclusion of other tenants. Torbeck v. Chamberlain, 138 Or App 446, 910 P2d 389 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Occasional use of boat for transportation does not disqualify boat used primarily as domicile from definition of “floating home”. Ramsum v. Woldridge, 222 Or App 109, 192 P3d 851 (2008)

 

      90.110

(formerly 91.710)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Whether occupancy of hotel or motel is “transient occupancy” depends upon whether occupier of premises intends to establish relatively permanent living arrangement typical of residency. Lyons v. Kamhoot, 281 Or 615, 575 P2d 1389 (1978)

 

      Occupancy is conditional upon employment if occupancy is for purpose other than mere residence, regardless of whether employer derives benefit from occupancy by employee. Montgomery v. Howard Johnson Inn, Gresham, 228 Or App 315, 208 P3d 503 (2009)

 

      Payment of rent by employee whose occupancy is conditional upon employment does not create landlord-tenant relationship. Montgomery v. Howard Johnson Inn, Gresham, 228 Or App 315, 208 P3d 503 (2009)

 

      90.115

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Applicability of Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to rental agreements does not implicitly preempt law of city, town, county or other political subdivision of state. Thunderbird Mobile Club v. City of Wilsonville, 234 Or App 457, 228 P3d 650 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.120

(formerly 91.720)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Notice rule stated in ORS 91.110 is not applicable because this section expressly states that ORS 91.010 to 91.220 do not apply to rights and obligations governed by Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Skourtes v. Schaer, 36 Or App 659, 585 P2d 703 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.125

(formerly 91.725)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Statutory liability created by this section is not necessarily “tort” liability. Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or 630, 762 P2d 997 (1988)

 

      Commercial tenant leasing space in same building as residential tenant and suffering damage from violation of Residential Landlord and Tenant Act was not “aggrieved party.” Madden v. Thomasson, 123 Or App 399, 859 P2d 1190 (1993)

 

      Provision that remedies of ORS chapter 90 be administered to allow recovery of “appropriate damages” does not allow award of unpleaded noneconomic damages. Rieman v. Swope, 190 Or App 516, 79 P3d 399 (2003)

 

      90.130

(formerly 91.730)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Absent evidence of tenant’s bad faith, she was entitled to recover amount equal to twice security deposit where landlord retained deposit and failed to provide written accounting. Ellsworth v. Gladden, 36 Or App 385, 584 P2d 774 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.135

(formerly 91.735)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Contractual clause whereby tenants paid one month rent in exchange for right to terminate lease, with last month of tenancy “free” if lease was unbroken, was not unconscionable and did not violate Landlord and Tenant Act. Zemp v. Rowland, 31 Or App 1105, 572 P2d 637 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section does not unconstitutionally impair the ability to contract. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.155

(formerly 90.910)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Where notice provides tenant with no less than 30 days’ net notice, recitation of the three-day extension for mailing is not required. Manifold Business & Investment, Inc. v. Mixon, 132 Or App 314, 888 P2d 103 (1995)

 

      Where tenant deliberately evaded service by personal delivery but received notice by alternative method, tenant could not claim improper notice. Stonebrook Hillsboro, LLC v. Flavel, 187 Or App 641, 69 P3d 807 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where rental agreement allows for mail and attachment notice, right to notice is reciprocal. American Property Management Corp. v. Nikaia, 230 Or App 321, 215 P3d 906 (2009)

 

      Mailing address that landlord designates for receipt of mail and attachment service must be address at which landlord will receive notice that is sent by first class mail. American Property Management Corp. v. Nikaia, 230 Or App 321, 215 P3d 906 (2009)

 

      90.220

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 52 WLR 1 (2015)

 

      90.245

(formerly 91.745)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      The application of this section does not result in an unconstitutional taking of property. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      The distinction drawn in this section between landlords and tenants by granting certain rights to tenants and placing certain responsibilities on landlords does not violate equal protection. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section does not unconstitutionally impair the ability to contract. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.250

(formerly 91.750)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      The application of this section does not result in an unconstitutional taking of property. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      The distinction drawn in this section between landlords and tenants by granting certain rights to tenants and placing certain responsibilities on landlords does not violate equal protection. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section does not unconstitutionally impair the ability to contract. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 865 (1980)

 

      90.255

(formerly 91.755)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Since this section does not provide that attorney fees are to be considered part of costs, in order to be recovered they must be separately pleaded and proved at trial. Pacific NW Dev. Corp. v. Holloway, 274 Or 367, 546 P2d 1063 (1976); Pritchett v. Fry, 286 Or 189, 593 P2d 1133 (1979)

 

      Where landlord initiated FED action seeking possession, tenant made counterclaim for damages, and landlord was awarded possession while tenant was awarded damages, no “prevailing party” existed and thus award of attorney fees was abuse of discretion. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Myers, 35 Or App 23, 581 P2d 545 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Tenant represented by legal aid organization was entitled to award of attorney fees under this section. West v. French, 51 Or App 143, 625 P2d 144 (1981)

 

      Where final judgment is rendered for possession to tenant, rent to landlord and for landlord on counterclaims, outcome is too inconclusive to warrant discretionary award of attorney fees to either party. Amatisto v. Paz, 82 Or App 341, 728 P2d 42 (1986)

 

      Defendant, as prevailing party in landlord-tenant action, is entitled to attorney fees under this section when pleadings state claim under Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, despite plaintiff’s characterization of claim as one for common law waste. Kunce v. Van Schoonhoven, 83 Or App 458, 732 P2d 70 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section applies to writ of review proceeding when litigation concerns possession of rental premises under rental agreement. Whittle v. Marion County District Court, 108 Or App 463, 816 P2d 658 (1991)

 

      Where results of proceedings were conclusive, petitioners prevailed on sole claim before court and there were no unusual circumstances, court erred in failing to exercise its discretion to award attorney fees under this section. Whittle v. Marion County District Court, 108 Or App 463, 816 P2d 658 (1991)

 

      Attorney fees shall be awarded to prevailing party absent unusual circumstances. Tanner v. Grissom, 135 Or App 309, 898 P2d 797 (1995)

 

      “Reasonable attorney fees” may be based on contingent fee agreement. Coulter Property Management, Inc. v. James, 160 Or App 390, 981 P2d 395 (1999)

 

      Prevailing party’s entitlement to attorney fees in absence of unusual circumstances is additional factor court must consider under ORS 20.075 when deciding whether to award attorney fees. Stocker v. Keith, 178 Or App 544, 38 P3d 283 (2002)

 

      Dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint makes defendant prevailing party without regard to reasons leading to dismissal. Brennan v. La Tourelle Apartments, 184 Or App 235, 56 P3d 423 (2002)

 

      Where defendant prevails on claim and plaintiff prevails on counterclaim, both defendant and plaintiff are prevailing parties who may recover attorney fees for claims on which they prevailed. Barlow Trail Mobile Home Park v. Dunham, 189 Or App 513, 76 P3d 1146 (2003)

      Where both parties prevail on claims and counterclaims, party obtaining net award under judgment is prevailing party. LeBrun v. Cal-Am Properties, Inc., 197 Or App 177, 106 P3d 647 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where both parties prevail on claims and counterclaims, but no damages are awarded to either party, each party is prevailing party with regard to claim on which it prevailed. LeBrun v. Cal-Am Properties, Inc., 197 Or App 177, 106 P3d 647 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Determination whether to make discretionary award of attorney fees to prevailing party must include consideration of factors described in ORS 20.075. Barbara Parmenter Living Trust v. Lemon, 345 Or 334, 194 P3d 796 (2008)

 

      90.262

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 52 WLR 1 (2015)

 

      90.300

(formerly 91.760)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Contractual clause whereby tenants paid one month rent in exchange for right to break lease, with last month of tenancy “free” if lease was unbroken, did not constitute a disguised security deposit subject to this section. Zemp v. Rowland, 31 Or App 1105, 572 P2d 637 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Legislative intent gave landlord duty of providing specific written accounting before claiming security deposit, and mere statement by landlord’s wife that tenant could come to landlord’s home to get accounting was insufficient to fulfill duty. Ellsworth v. Gladden, 36 Or App 385, 584 P2d 774 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Court does not have discretion to reduce amount of recovery prescribed by statute. Beckett v. Olson, 75 Or App 610, 707 P2d 635 (1985); Waldvogel v. Jones, 196 Or App 446, 103 P3d 124 (2004)

 

      90.302

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Because money was not charged by “landlord” in “rental agreement,” term in lease and purchase option contract that referred to $5,000 “nonrefundable move in fee” was not illegal “fee” for purposes of this section. Charter v. Kearney (In re Colen), 516 B.R. 618 (Bkrtcy. D. Or. 2014)

 

      90.305

(formerly 91.765)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This section does not compel unwilling performance of strictly personal services in violation of the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.320

(formerly 91.770)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Damages for emotional distress are not available for landlord’s nonculpable or negligent failure to maintain premises in habitable condition under this section. Brewer v. Erwin, 287 Or 435, 600 P2d 398 (1979)

 

      The application of this section does not result in an unconstitutional taking of property. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      The distinction drawn in this section between landlords and tenants by granting certain rights to tenants and placing certain responsibilities on landlords does not violate equal protection. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section does not unconstitutionally impair the ability to contract. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where no evidence to show by what amount conditions claimed to render house uninhabitable diminished its rental value, trial court properly dismissed action for diminished value under this section. Lane v. Kelley, 57 Or App 197, 643 P2d 1397 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Plaintiffs, who had requested jury instruction that included statement that dwelling unit be considered uninhabitable if lacking adequate heating facilities maintained in good order, were entitled to have their theory of case presented to jury. Paprock v. Defenbaugh, 71 Or App 624, 693 P2d 654 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Patio deck within residential tenant’s exclusive control was “floor” within meaning of this section and landlord was required to maintain floor in good repair. Humbert v. Sellars, 300 Or 113, 708 P2d 344 (1985)

 

      Oregon courts have not recognized implied warranty of habitability. Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or 630, 762 P2d 997 (1988)

 

      Covering over swimming pool skimmer in tenant’s backyard constituted “floor” under this section and landlords were thus required to maintain covering in “good repair.” Appleberry v. Berry, 98 Or App 398, 779 P2d 205 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Unhabitable condition causing statutory violation does not depend on landlord knowledge of condition. Davis v. Campbell, 327 Or 584, 965 P2d 1017 (1998)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 854 (1980)

 

      90.340

(formerly 91.790)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This section does not unconstitutionally impair the ability to contract. Marquam Investment Corp v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 28 WLR 433 (1992)

 

      90.360

(formerly 91.800)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Injunction requiring landlord to “bring the premises into compliance with the City of Portland Housing Codes” exceeded remedial authority granted by this section to extent code compliance was not embodied in or did not coincide with habitability requirements of [former] ORS 91.770. L & M Investment Co. v. Morrison, 44 Or App 309, 605 P2d 1247 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      The application of this section does not result in an unconstitutional taking of property. Marquam Investment Corp v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      City termination of water service deprived tenants of property right in cause of action for injunctive relief. Turpen v. City of Corvallis, 26 F3d 978 (9th Cir. 1994)

 

      Landlord knowledge of habitability violation is not predicate to recovery. Davis v. Campbell, 144 Or App 288, 925 P2d 1248 (1996), aff’d 327 Or 584, 965 P2d 1017 (1998)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 846 (1980)

 

      90.365

(formerly 91.805)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      The evidence showed affirmative conduct by the landlord to correct electrical defects and was sufficient to support an inference that the landlord induced the tenant to use the incorrect fuses which resulted in a fire. Conradi v. Helvogt, 278 Or 229, 563 P2d 707 (1977)

 

      In action for damages and injunctive relief, finding that landlord had notice water was undrinkable but not unsuitable for other domestic purposes was supported by substantial evidence. Austin v. Danford, 63 Or App 334, 663 P2d 802 (1983)

 

      In action for damages and injunctive relief, evidence supported decision that landlords were grossly negligent in failing to provide drinkable water. Austin v. Danford, 63 Or App 334, 663 P2d 802 (1983)

 

      90.370

(formerly 91.810)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This section does not unconstitutionally discriminate between residential and nonresidential tenancies. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      If tenant counterclaims and tenders into court any outstanding rent, tenant is entitled to retain possession provided counterclaim award plus tendered rent equal or exceed amount of rent adjudicated due. Napolski v. Champney, 295 Or 408, 667 P2d 1013 (1983)

 

      Tenant, in FED action based on nonpayment of rent, who asserted and recovered on counterclaims and tendered into court, after trial and verdict but before judgment, difference between rent due and recovery on counterclaims was entitled to judgment for possession and was prevailing party. Eddy v. Parazoo, 77 Or App 120, 711 P2d 205 (1985)

 

      When tenant withheld rent in good faith based on alleged habitability violations, landlord brought FED action, and tenant counterclaimed and paid rent into court, tenant was entitled to retain possession even though landlord prevailed on habitability counterclaims and action for rent. Amatisto v. Paz, 82 Or App 341, 728 P2d 42 (1986)

 

      Tenant may allege Unfair Trade Practices Act violation as counterclaim to FED action. Hoffer v. Szumski, 129 Or App 7, 877 P2d 128 (1994)

 

      90.380

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Recovery of damages for renting out of “posted” unfit dwelling does not require that notice of unfitness be affixed to dwelling. Sunflower v. Bladorn, 168 Or App 206, 1 P3d 513 (2000)

 

      90.385

(formerly 91.865)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Disputable presumption, that action taken by landlord against tenant within six months after complaint is retaliatory, did not arise where tenant did not make complaint concerning electrical deficiencies to Bureau of Buildings until after notice of proposed rent increase. Ficker v. Diefenbach, 34 Or App 241, 578 P2d 467 (1978), as modified by 35 Or App 829 (1978)

 

      Complaint stating that landlord pried back porch off house and left large pile of debris scattered in tenant’s backyard adequately alleged decrease in services under this section. Brewer v. Erwin, 287 Or 435, 600 P2d 398 (1979)

 

      Distinction drawn by this section 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

 

      This section does not violate Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution by impeding access to the courts. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section does not permit involuntary servitude, compel unwilling performance of strictly personal services or permit an unconstitutional taking of property in violation of Oregon or United States Constitutions. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      The disputable presumption in former version of this section did not result in denial of due process, under the Oregon or United States constitutions or violate Oregon constitutional provision relating to separation of powers or trial by jury. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      This section does not contain an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 615 P2d 1064 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where tenancy is under fixed-term lease, prohibition against landlord bringing action for possession ceases upon expiration of lease. Pendergrass v. Fagan, 218 Or App 533, 180 P3d 110 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

 

      To prove retaliation under section, tenant must establish that landlord served notice of termination because of tenant’s complaint; tenant need not additionally prove that complaint caused landlord actual or perceived injury or that landlord intended to cause tenant equivalent injury in return. Elk Creek Management Co. v. Gilbert, 353 Or 565, 303 P3d 929 (2013)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 850 (1980)

 

      90.394

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 90.400)

 

      On termination of tenancy for unpaid rent pursuant to this section, landlord was required to proceed to regain possession in judicial proceeding authorized by Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer law (ORS 105.105 to 105.165). Smith v. Topits, 64 Or App 799, 669 P2d 1167 (1983)

 

      90.396

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      To specify date and time of termination, landlord must explicitly include in notice of termination actual date and time that tenancy will terminate. Greenway v. Parlanti, 245 Or App 144, 261 P3d 69 (2011)

 

      Where tenant created and distributed false notices to other tenants in mobile home park indicating rent decrease, tenant’s behavior was not “outrageous in the extreme,” as used in this section, which means conduct similar in degree to putting others at risk of substantial injury or actually inflicting substantial damage to property. Emon Enterprises, LLC v. Kilcup, 285 Or App 639, 395 P3d 78 (2017)

 

      90.400

(formerly 91.820)

 

      See annotations under ORS 90.394.

 

      90.405

(formerly 91.822)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 285 (1979)

 

      90.412

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 90.415)

 

      Where landlord, in two or more separate rental periods, accepts rent with knowledge of default, fact that one acceptance occurs before notice of termination is given is irrelevant. Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County v. Long, 196 Or App 205, 100 P3d 1123 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.415

 

NOTE: Repealed as of September 27, 2007

 

      See annotations under ORS 90.412.

 

      90.425

(formerly 91.840)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Notice stating landlord would provide access for removal of property did not satisfy requirement of ORS 105.165 to notify tenant that property was available for removal without payment of storage charge. Taylor v. Hayden Island Mobile Home Park, 123 Or App 318, 859 P2d 1173 (1993)

 

      Any noncompliance in seizing and retaining tenant property triggers discretionary double damage remedy, regardless of showing that noncompliance was deliberate, malicious or negligent. Taylor v. Hayden Island Mobile Home Park, 123 Or App 318, 859 P2d 1173 (1993)

 

      Potential damage to realty does not affect ability of lienholder to repossess manufactured structure titled as vehicle. BankAmerica Housing Services v. P.D.N. and Associates, 159 Or App 264, 977 P2d 396 (1999)

 

      Substantial compliance with notice requirement is insufficient to prevent landlord liability. Tompte v. Stone, 195 Or App 599, 98 P3d 1171 (2004)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 289 (1979)

 

      90.427

(formerly 91.855, then 90.900)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Tenant may terminate month-to-month residential tenancy at any time for any reason or no reason. Skourtes v. Schaer, 36 Or App 659, 585 P2d 703 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Landlord may evict tenant who terminates tenancy, but then wrongfully remains possession beyond termination date. Skourtes v. Schaer, 36 Or App 659, 585 P2d 703 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where party failed to make claim for money damages in pleadings, it was error for trial court to enter judgment granting that relief. Cheryl Wilcox Property Management v. Appel, 110 Or App 90, 821 P2d 428 (1991)

 

      90.429

(formerly 90.905)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Vehicle meeting statutory definitions of both manufactured dwelling and recreational vehicle, but not identified by manufacturer as recreational vehicle, is manufactured dwelling. Brandes v. Shelley, 129 Or App 68, 877 P2d 670 (1994)

 

      90.510

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Landlord’s ability to charge tenant for utility service “provided directly” to tenant’s dwelling unit refers to type of utility service provided, not to quantity of utility service used by tenant. Beldt v. Leise, 185 Or App 572, 60 P3d 1119 (2003)

 

      90.630

(formerly 91.886)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 91.885)

 

      This section is exclusive method for termination of mobile home space rental agreements. Ostlund v. Hendricks, 289 Or 543, 615 P2d 327 (1980)

 

      In FED action to recover mobile home space, letter sent to tenant which contained no designated date for termination of tenancy was ineffective notice. Ostlund v. Hendricks, 289 Or 543, 615 P2d 327 (1980)

 

      90.725

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Recovery of actual damages is available whether or not tenant seeks injunctive relief or termination of rental agreement. LeBrun v. Cal-Am Properties, Inc., 197 Or App 177, 106 P3d 647 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

 

      90.900

(formerly 91.855)

 

      See annotations under ORS 90.427.

 

      90.905

 

      See annotations under ORS 90.429.

 

      90.910

 

      See annotations under ORS 90.155.