Subdivisions and Partitions

ORS 92.430
Notice to purchaser of cancellation rights

  • form


(1)

Subject to ORS 92.427 (Cancellation of agreement to buy interest in subdivision or series partition) (7), the first written real property sales contract signed by the purchaser for the sale of a lot, parcel or interest in a subdivision or series partition shall contain, either upon the first page of such contract or upon a separate sheet attached to such first page, the following notice in at least 8-point type:

BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT YOU ARE INCURRING A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE AN INTEREST IN LAND. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT BY WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE SELLER OR THE SELLER’S AGENT AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
BEFORE EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT, OR BEFORE THE THREE-DAY CANCELLATION PERIOD ENDS, YOU SHOULD DO THE FOLLOWING:

(1)

CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE PUBLIC REPORT, IF ANY, ON THE SUBDIVISION OR SERIES PARTITION AND ANY ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION DELIVERED BY THE SELLER.

(2)

INQUIRE OF YOUR LENDER AS TO WHETHER YOU CAN GET ADEQUATE FINANCING AT AN ACCEPTABLE INTEREST RATE.

(3)

INQUIRE OF THE SELLER AND THE LENDER WHAT THE AMOUNT OF THE CLOSING COSTS WILL BE.

(2)

A copy of the notice set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall be given to each purchaser under a contract described in subsection (1) of this section at the time of or immediately following the purchaser’s signing of such contract, for the use of the purchaser. [1975 c.643 §17; 1983 c.570 §21]
§§ 92.305 to 92.495

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 to 92.090 and 92.100 to 92.160 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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021