Johnson Mobile Park, Inc. v. Schoffstall

A termination notice under ORS 90.632(3) that ambiguously identifies the date designated for termination of a tenancy is invalid and subject to dismissal because it fails to provide precise and accurate information, as required under the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

Tenant appealed a judgment awarding restitution of the premises to Landlord in a forcible entry and detainer (FED) proceeding. Tenant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss, arguing that Landlord's notice terminating her tenancy was invalid because it ambiguously stated that her tenancy would end "at 12:00 midnight (end of day)" on a specified date, in violation of ORS 90.632 and ORS 90.160(1). The Court reasoned that the phrase "12:00 midnight (end of day)" could reasonably be understood to mean either the beginning or end of the stated date, creating exactly the kind of ambiguity the legislature sought to eliminate when it amended ORS 90.160(1) in 2015 to replace "midnight" with "11:59 p.m." The Court further reasoned that, although ORS 90.160(1) does not itself require a notice to state a specific time, the notice's ambiguous wording failed to precisely identify a designated termination date as required by ORS 90.632(3), and that providing tenants more time than statutorily required did not cure that defect. The Court held that the notice was invalid, therefore the FED action was subject to dismissal. Reversed.