Property Rights

ORS 105.111
Stay of eviction for state service member


(1)

As used in this section, “state service member” means a member of the organized militia who is called into active service of the state by the Governor under ORS 399.065 (Ordering organized militia into active state service) (1) for 30 or more consecutive days.

(2)

In an action pursuant to ORS 105.110 (Action for forcible entry or wrongful detainer), the court may stay the eviction of the defendant for up to 90 days if:

(a)

The defendant is a state service member;

(b)

The agreed-upon rent does not exceed $1,200 per month; and

(c)

The premises are occupied chiefly for dwelling purposes by the spouse, children or other dependents of the defendant.

(3)

If the defendant requests a stay of the eviction for up to 90 days and the defendant can prove that the ability of the defendant to pay the agreed-upon rent is materially affected by being called into active service, the court may grant the stay of the eviction. [2003 c.387 §7]
Note: 105.111 (Stay of eviction for state service member) was added to and made a part of 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) to 105.168 (Minor as party in proceedings pertaining to residential dwellings) by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
§§ 105.105 to 105.165

Notes of Decisions

Provisions for early trial, posting of security for accruing rent during continuance and restriction of triable issues do not violate Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of federal constitution. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US 56, 92 S Ct 862, 31 L Ed 36 (1972)

Proceedings under the Oregon forcible entry and detainer law, including proceedings against nonresident defendants, are not subject to the general statutes relating to service of process. Lexton-Ancira, Inc. v. Kay, 269 Or 1, 522 P2d 875 (1974)

A forcible entry and detainer proceeding is a "local action" for choice of law purposes. Fry v. D.H. Overmyer Co., 269 Or 281, 525 P2d 140 (1974)

the Defendant Did not State Good Affirmative Defenses By Alleging

a violation of public policy forbidding a franchisor to refuse to renew a franchise except for good cause; A "retaliatory eviction" for a refusal to engage in improper business practices; and an implied agreement to renew based upon conduct and prior dealings. William C. Cornitius, Inc., v. Wheeler, 276 Or 747, 556 P2d 666 (1976)

In forcible entry and detainer action to recover possession of commercial property, claim for attorney fees could not be litigated. Grove v. The Hindquarter Corp., 45 Or App 781, 609 P2d 840 (1980)

In forcible entry and detainer action for possession of commercial premises, landlords could not recover attorney fees. Owen J. Jones & Son, Inc. v. Gospodinovic, 46 Or App 101, 610 P2d 1238 (1980)

Equitable defense may be raised in FED proceeding. Rose v. Webster, 51 Or App 293, 625 P2d 1329 (1981)

In FED action to recover commercial property, defendant cannot assert counterclaim unless counterclaim is authorized by statute. Class v. Carter, 293 Or 147, 645 P2d 536 (1982)

Law Review Citations

16 WLR 291 (1979)

Chapter 105

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Private process server in a forcible entry and detainer action, (1975) Vol 37, p 869


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021