Recently, the Oregon Apellate Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision in Fircrest Properties, LLC v. Simmons, 347 Ore. App. 637. The central issue in this case was the interpretation of ORS 90.427(1)(a) concerning the termination of month-to-month tenancies within the “first year of occupancy.” ORS 90.427(1)(a) provides that first year of occupancy includes all periods in which any of the tenants has resided in the dwelling unit for one year or less. The interpretation of “first year of occupancy” is important because certain provisions in ORS 90.427 provide landlords with the right to terminate tenancies without cause if the tenancy is within the first year of occupancy.

In this case, the relevant provision was ORS 90.427(3)(b). This provision states that landlords may terminate month-to-month tenancies without cause if the tenant is within their first year of occupancy.

At first glance, ORS 90.427(3)(b) is simple. But what happens if one tenant has resided in the dwelling unit for more than one year while a recently acquired roommate has resided in the same dwelling unit for less than one year? In Fircrest Properties, LLC, the tenants essentially argued that the tenancy could not be terminated without cause under ORS 90.427(3)(b) because the one year occupancy resets when a new tenant is added to the lease.

The Appellate Court disagreed and held that if any tenant on a rental agreement has resided in the dwelling unit for one year or less, the landlord may terminate the tenancy for all the tenants without cause.

While this new ruling may make proceeding with some termination notices easier for landlords, landlord-tenant law in Oregon remains technical and is ever-changing. If you would like to discuss the implications of the court’s decision in Fircrest Properties, LLC v. Simmons on ORS 90.427, please reach out to one of our landlord-tenant attorneys.