Landlord to maintain premises in habitable condition
- agreement with tenant to maintain premises
Amended by SB 1536
Effective since March 23, 2022
Relating to indoor temperature control; creating new provisions; amending ORS 90.320, 90.730, 94.779, 100.023, 197.772, 431A.400, 431A.410 and 431A.412; repealing sections 1 and 1a, chapter 85, Oregon Laws 2022 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1533); and declaring an emergency.
Source:
Section 90.320 — Landlord to maintain premises in habitable condition; agreement with tenant to maintain premises, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors090.html
.
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)