Ramsum v. Woldridge

192 P.3d 851, 222 Or. App. 109, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1146
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedSeptember 3, 2008
Docket06F014061 A133663 (Control), 06F014060 A133664, 06F016147 A133665
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 192 P.3d 851 (Ramsum v. Woldridge) 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
Ramsum v. Woldridge, 192 P.3d 851, 222 Or. App. 109, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

*112 EDMONDS, P. J.

Defendants lived on their sailboats at Eagle’s Cove Marina, where they rented moorage slips from plaintiff, the owner of Eagle’s Cove. 1 Plaintiff served defendants with 30-day eviction notices under ORS 91.070. When defendants refused to vacate the slips, plaintiff filed Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) actions under ORS chapter 91 to evict them. At trial, defendants defended on the ground that ORS chapter 91 was inapplicable because their sailboats qualified as “floating homes” under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (RLTA) in ORS chapter 90. The trial court entered FED judgments in favor of plaintiff and supplemental judgments for costs and disbursements, concluding that the RLTA did not apply. The cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. On defendants’ appeal, we reverse for the reasons that follow.

The relevant facts are undisputed. Because the facts are undisputed, we review for error of law. Eagle’s Cove Marina is primarily populated with boats and is advertised as a live-aboard community. Eagle’s Cove consists of a walkway connected to a wooden dock, which provides moorage slips for approximately 78 boats. At each end of the dock, there are laundry, shower, and bathroom facilities. Each individual slip has a storage shed as well as electricity, water, and sewage hook-ups.

All defendants rented slips at Eagle’s Cove on a month-to-month basis and lived on their sailboats, using them as their primary residences. Defendants attached their sailboats to the docks with ropes that are tied to dock cleats. The ropes are relatively easy to remove, and, according to defendant Woldridge, preparing to sail takes about 30 minutes. Defendant Woldridge sails his boat approximately 15 days out of the year. Defendant McCune’s boat has never left its slip, and defendant Trevillyan has moved his boat only *113 once since moving to Eagle’s Cove, when it was towed from one slip to another.

The RLTA requires that tenants be given 180 days’ notice before eviction can occur from a tenancy involving a “floating home” under ORS 90.429. 2 In contrast, ORS 91.070 requires not less than 30 days’ notice before an eviction can occur if a month-to-month tenancy does not involve a floating home. 3 In these cases, plaintiff gave only a 30-day notice of eviction. The trial court ruled that only a 30-day notice was required, reasoning,

“I rule that the 30-day notice given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants pursuant to ORS 91.070 was valid and properly served. Further, I rule that the boats are ‘boats’ as defined by ORS 830.700(1) and are not ‘floating homes’ as defined under ORS 830.700(4) and Chapter 90. The Defendants’ tenancies were month-to-month tenancies and the Plaintiff lawfully terminated the tenancies. The Plaintiff is entitled to an immediate judgement of restitution.”

In a separate document, entitled “Findings of Fact,” the trial court made the following undisputed findings:

“15. Mark MacCune lives aboard his boat moored at Eagle’s Cove Marina and RV and uses it as his primary residence.
*114 “16. Rick Woldridge lives aboard his boat moored at Eagle’s Cove Marina and RV and uses it as his primary residence.
“17. Clifford Trevillyan lives aboard his boat moored at Eagle’s Cove Marina and RV and uses it as his primary residence.
“18. The boats of Mark MacCune, Rick Woldridge and Clifford Trevillyan are capable of being self-propelled and being used as a mode of transportation.”

Additionally, the trial court ruled that defendants’ sailboats are not floating homes, reasoning that the sailboats are not “structures”:

“19. Under applicable Oregon laws and statutes, the Defendants’ boats are considered “boats’ and not ‘manufactured homes’ or ‘floating homes.’
“20. A ‘boat’ is a form of watercraft that is used or capable of being used as a means of transportation. ORS 830.700(1).
“21. A ‘floating home’ is not capable of being used as a means of transportation. ORS 830.700(4).
“22. The boats of Mark MacCune, Rick Woldridge and Clifford Trevillyan are not considered structures within the texts and contexts of the statutes.
“23. ORS Chapter 91 * * * is the applicable law controlling in this case.”

The trial court then entered general judgments in favor of plaintiff, but it stayed enforcement of those judgments, pending the outcome of this appeal. The trial court also entered supplemental judgments that denied plaintiffs request for attorney fees but awarded plaintiff costs and disbursements. While this appeal was pending, plaintiff sold Eagle’s Cove, and the buyer has not been substituted as a party plaintiff.

The threshold issue is whether these cases are moot because plaintiff no longer owns Eagle’s Cove. Our review of the record indicates that defendants remain liable for the supplemental judgments for costs and disbursements even though plaintiff no longer has any interest in evicting them. Because the judgments for costs and disbursements are still *115 in controversy and depend on a determination on the merits, we conclude that these cases are not moot. See Bates v. Gordon, 212 Or App 336, 341-42, 157 P3d 1219 (2007) (“Because the filing fee award is still in controversy and because the award depends on the correctness of the trial court’s decision on the merits, thus having a practical effect on the rights of the parties, we conclude that the case is not moot.”).

We turn to the merits. Essentially, defendants’ assignments of error frame a single issue — whether their sailboats are “floating homes” within the contemplation of the RLTA. If the sailboats are “floating homes,” then 30 days’ notice was not sufficient to lawfully evict them without cause. The RLTA applies only to the rental of a “dwelling unit”:

“This chapter applies to, regulates and determines rights, obligations and remedies under a rental agreement, wherever made, for a dwelling unit located within this state.”

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

Related

Jared v. Harmon
557 P.3d 1102 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024)
Schultz v. Scott
551 P.3d 949 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024)
Reeves v. Plett
395 P.3d 977 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2017)
Hart v. Hill
216 P.3d 909 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 P.3d 851, 222 Or. App. 109, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsum-v-woldridge-orctapp-2008.