- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 03-02-2016
- Case #: A156266
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Flynn, J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed judgments of restitution awarding Plaintiff possession of three commercial premises based on Defendant's forfeiture under a land sale contract. When Defendant became delinquent on payments to Plaintiff under the contract, Plaintiff mailed proper written notice of default to Defendant, who did not respond or cure the default; Plaintiff recorded a declaration and filed FED complaints seeking possession of the premises. Defendant argued at trial that the contract did not include a forfeiture remedy as defined in the statutes and also that Plaintiff provided insufficient notice default because, although ORS 93.915 requires Plaintiff mail the notice 60 days before the forfeiture date, the parties' contract required notices delivered by mail take effect three days after mailing. On appeal, after holding the contract did contain a proper forfeiture remedy, the Court held the notice was proper under ORS 93.915(5), which provides that notice "shall conclusively be presumed to be correct, and the notice adequate," unless Defendant notified Plaintiff by registered or certified mail that he had a claim to a longer period of time in which to cure the default; because Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff notice he was entitled to a longer time period under their land sale contract, he forfeited the contract. Affirmed.