Schultz v. Scott

“[T]he legislature intended courts applying ORS 90.427(5)(c) to focus on how the landlord intends to occupy the space in order to determine whether the landlord intends to occupy ‘the dwelling unit as a primary residence.’”

Defendant appeals the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, evicting the defendant (tenant). Defendant assigns error to both the trial court’s denial of her motion for involuntary dismissal because the court did not have a copy of the notice, and to the trial court’s interpretation of ORS 90.427(5)(c). The Court declined to exercise its discretion over the first assignment of error. Landlord (plaintiff) sought to evict the defendant from a unit that was part of a larger house because the Landlord intended to occupy the house as a whole for his primary residence. The unit was separated from the rest of the house by a locked door. Tenant argues that the rest of the house counts as a “second unit” and that the statute required Landlord to occupy her unit specifically as a primary residence. “[T]he legislature intended courts applying ORS 90.427(5)(c) to focus on how the landlord intends to occupy the space in order to determine whether the landlord intends to occupy ‘the dwelling unit as a primary residence.’” Because the landlord intended to occupy the entire house, including the tenant’s unit, as his primary residence, and because the house could be occupied as a single primary residence, the Court held that the trial court did not err in determining that ORS 90.427(5)(c) was satisfied. Affirmed.