Kailash Ecovillage, LLC v. Santiago

426 P.3d 245, 292 Or. App. 640
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 5, 2018
DocketA164411
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 426 P.3d 245 (Kailash Ecovillage, LLC v. Santiago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kailash Ecovillage, LLC v. Santiago, 426 P.3d 245, 292 Or. App. 640 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

LAGESEN, P.J.

*642This is a residential eviction case in which tenant has appealed a general judgment awarding restitution of the premises-an apartment-to landlord; the trial court entered that judgment after denying tenant's motion to dismiss the case. The issue before us is whether landlord's pretermination notice gave tenant the statutorily required amount of time to remedy the defects identified in the notice. The resolution of that issue turns on whether landlord met the statutory requirements under ORS 90.155(1) for serving tenant by first class mail and attachment, a manner of service commonly known as "nail and mail" service. If landlord was not *247entitled to use nail and mail service, landlord was required to give tenant more time to cure the defects than tenant was afforded in the notice, rendering landlord's notice fatally defective so as to require the granting of tenant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that landlord did not meet the statutory requirements for using nail and mail service. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand to the trial court with directions to dismiss.

The relevant facts are not disputed, making the question of whether landlord satisfied the statutory requirements for using "nail and mail" service one of law. Accordingly, we review the trial court's resolution of that question for legal error. See generally American Property Management Corporation v. Nikaia , 230 Or App 321, 323, 215 P.3d 906 (2009) (so reviewing the question of whether landlord met the statutory requirements for using nail and mail service).

We start with the law. Under ORS 90.155(1), a landlord is permitted to use nail and mail service only if the parties' rental agreement affords the tenant a "reciprocal right" to use nail and mail service. The statute states:

"(1) Except as provided in ORS 90.300, 90.315, 90.425 and 90.675, where this chapter requires written notice, service or delivery of that written notice shall be executed by one or more of the following methods:
"(a) Personal delivery to the landlord or tenant;
*643"(b) First class mail to the landlord or tenant; or
"(c) If a written rental agreement so provides, both first class mail and attachment to a designated location. In order for a written rental agreement to provide for mail and attachment service of written notices from the landlord to the tenant, the agreement must also provide for such service of written notices from the tenant to the landlord. Mail and attachment service of written notices shall be executed as follows:
"(A) For written notices from the landlord to the tenant, the first class mail notice copy shall be addressed to the tenant at the premises and the second notice copy shall be attached in a secure manner to the main entrance to that portion of the premises of which the tenant has possession; and
"(B) For written notices from the tenant to the landlord, the first class mail notice copy shall be addressed to the landlord at an address as designated in the written rental agreement and the second notice copy shall be attached in a secure manner to the landlord's designated location, which shall be described with particularity in the written rental agreement, reasonably located in relation to the tenant and available at all hours."

ORS 90.155(1). As we have explained, it is not sufficient that a rental agreement simply state that a tenant has a reciprocal right to use nail and mail service. Rather, the agreement must supply the information necessary to give the tenant "a clear and effective method * * * to effectuate nail and mail service." American Property Management Corporation , 230 Or App at 328, 215 P.3d 906. That standard, as the plain terms of the statute signal, requires the landlord, among other things, to designate an address in the rental agreement at which the landlord will receive notices sent by first class mail. Id. If the landlord fails to supply the tenant with such an address in the rental agreement, then the landlord is not entitled to use nail and mail service and, more to the point, must give the tenant more time to cure the defects identified in the notice (unless the landlord accomplishes service by personal delivery under ORS 90.155(1)(a) ). Id. at 328-29, 215 P.3d 906 ; see generally ORS 90.155.

*644With that statutory foundation, we turn to the facts. Paragraph 27 of the parties' rental agreement provides for nail and mail service:

"27. WRITTEN NOTICES: All notices required under this Rental Agreement or state law to be in writing shall be served personally, by first class mail, or by first class mail and attachment. If served by first class mail and attachment, a notice from Owner/Agent to Resident shall be deemed served on the day and at the time *248it is both mailed by first class mail to Resident at the Premises and attached in a secure manner to the main entrance of that portion of the Premises of which Resident has possession. If served by first class mail and attachment, a notice from Resident to Owner/Agent shall be deemed served on the day it is both mailed by first class mail to Owner/Agent at the address set forth on this Rental Agreement

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Norton v. Kees
494 P.3d 1036 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021)
Crown Property Management, Inc. v. Cottingham
450 P.3d 979 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
426 P.3d 245, 292 Or. App. 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kailash-ecovillage-llc-v-santiago-orctapp-2018.