Preface

by District Judge Michael Marcus

For most people most of the time, law is not a regular concern. Many get through life just fine without ever going to court except, perhaps, for an occasional traffic ticket. The vast majority of citizens do not commit crimes by disobeying criminal laws. Most people who have to spend real energy in a legal dispute do it in divorce court, in some regulatory hassle arising in a small business, or in a battle with the IRS over taxes.

Landlord/tenant law (and real property law, of which it is a part) has for centuries reflected and defined profound social and political principles about wealth, power, economics, and liberty. The first "landlord" was the king of England (whose "court," by the way, was the forerunner of today's civil and criminal courts), "tenants" were the peers of the realm, and rent was payable largely in military service. Today, landlord/tenant law remains one of those areas of the law which really does touch many people's lives. If you're in the landlord business, this body of law is relevant to the way you generate an income, and it is - or should be - on your mind on a regular basis. If you rent your home, you may have no occasion to think about landlord/tenant law until and unless you get into some dispute about your rights and responsibilities. Once that happens, it is more likely than not that the law directly addresses your question -- and the law may or may not surprise you.

Modern Oregon landlord/tenant law combines some relatively ancient principles with modern realities. As before the adoption in 1973 of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the relationship is largely governed by a rental agreement. Unless the rental agreement otherwise provides, a landlord may terminate a tenancy without "cause." And as long as the tenancy is in effect, the tenant is entitled to exclusive possession of the premises - in fact, a landlord who enters without a lawful basis is actually trespassing on property owned by the landlord. Essentially what changed in 1973, in recognition of the realities that people no longer thatch their own roofs, and that the quality of rental housing has social consequences far beyond the parties to a tenancy, was that landlords were required to provide "habitable" housing (whether or not expressly required by the rental agreement) and that tenants could use habitability violations (and others) to defend an eviction action based on nonpayment of rent.

Central to the modern view is that a tenant's defense of an eviction action can serve the public interest in assuring a basic standard of decency in housing. The legislative adjustments from and after 1973 have either provided new approaches to old issues (such as landlords' entries and abandoned property), new approaches to new issues (such as habitability enforcement, deposit and late payment regulation, "drug houses," and mobile and floating homes), or simply mechanical adjustments to the procedures involved (such as how to serve what kind of notice to terminate which kind of tenancy under various circumstances). The overriding objective is to protect the continuing principle that disputes must be resolved swiftly to protect the rights of the parties and to avoid violence.

By helping people understand their rights and responsibilities, OSPIRG's Renter's Handbook helps landlords and tenants avoid costly and unpleasant disputes, equips them to negotiate rental relationships which function smoothly, and to resolve problems which do arise with a minimum of personal and financial trauma.

Top | Introduction
Table of Contents