Shepard Investment Group LLC v. Ormandy

When a landlord violates procedural conditions to utilize pass-through billing, a tenant may recover “an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged to the tenant, whichever is greater.” ORS 90.315(4)(f).

Plaintiff, a landlord, appealed a judgment awarding Defendant, a tenant, $9,050 in damages based on Plaintiff’s violation of ORS 90.315. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, modifying Defendant’s damage award to $960, and Defendant appealed. Defendant assigned error to the appellate court’s interpretation of ORS 90.315(4). On appeal, Defendant argued that ORS 90.315(4) imposes a “per violation” penalty. In response, Plaintiff asserted that the statute was not meant to award damages on a “per violation” approach but rather an aggregate approach. ORS 90.315 allows landlords to “require a tenant to pay to the landlord a utility or service charge or a public service charge that has been billed by a utility or service provider to the landlord.” This is called pass-through billing. When a landlord violates procedural conditions to utilize pass-through billing, a tenant may recover “an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged to the tenant, whichever is greater.” ORS 90.315(4)(f). The Court found that under ORS 90.315(4)(f), damages are calculated by aggregating the value of utilities incorrectly billed, doubling that amount, and comparing it to the rent for the period. The greater amount is what a plaintiff is entitled to for damages. Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred when awarding Defendant damages per violation and that Defendant was entitled to $960. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.