Subdivisions and Partitions

ORS 92.495
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]
§§ 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