- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 02-03-2021
- Case #: A165117
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J. & Aoyagi, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Gill appealed a judgment where the lower court awarded Kirresh restitution after a residential forcible entry and detainer action. The lower court based the restitution award on an earlier proceeding that declared Kirresh entitled to pursue a forfeiture action under ORS 93.905 through ORS 93.940. Gill argued that because the contract between the parties did not provide for a forfeiture remedy, Kirresh was not entitled to such remedy under the applicable statutes. Kirresh argues that the statutes do not require the contract to provide an express forfeiture remedy in order to pursue one. ORS 93.910 provides, “Whenever contract for transfer or conveyance of an interest in real property provides a forfeiture remedy . . . default under the contract may be enforced only after notice . . . .” In conjunction, ORS 93.930(1) provides, “When a contract for conveyance of real property has been forfeited in accordance with its terms . . . .” The Court held that because “whenever” and “when” are used, those terms limit such remedy to apply only when the contract provides for that remedy. Reversed and Remanded.