Hickey v. Scott

Under ORS 90.394(3), “a notice of termination for nonpayment of rent must specify the dollar amount that the landlord claims is necessary to cure[,]” not the actual amount owed.

Scott appealed an eviction order for nonpayment of rent. Scott assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. On appeal, Scott argued that the notice of termination was insufficient for failing to state the amount of rent that Scott needed to pay to cure the nonpayment.  Although the notice did state an amount, that amount was more than what the trial court ultimately found was owed. Scott argued that the notice, to be sufficient, must state the actual amount owed.  Hickey did not appear on appeal. Under ORS 90.394(3), “a notice of termination for nonpayment of rent must specify the dollar amount that the landlord claims is necessary to cure[,]” not the actual amount owed. The Court found that the Oregon legislature intended the requirement that a landlord provide an “amount of rent” to cure in a notice of termination to provide a possible cure and reduce ambiguity around the landlord’s intentions. The Court further reasoned that because ORS 105.115 provides for a trial court to determine “whether and in what amount rent is due,” parties could contest any discrepancy between the landlord and tenant about the actual amount owed after the tenant made payment.  Affirmed.