KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire

Under ORS 90.392(3)(c) must state that a violation can be cured when, as a matter of law, a tenant has a right to cure the violation.

Plaintiff issued Defendant an eviction notice based on property damage. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss, because the notice did not comply with the statute. The plaintiff argued that they do not have to give notice when it is implausible that the tenant would be able to cure the violation. Under ORS 90.392(3)(c) a termination notice must state that a violation can be cured when, as a matter of law, a tenant has a right to cure the violation. The Court reasoned that it is not up to the landlord to decide whether the tenant can cure a violation. The Court emphasized that allowing landlords to not inform tenants of the ability to cure the violation might lead tenants to believe they have no choice, but to leave the property. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.