Question of Oregon Tenant/Landlord Law

I own a few rental properties in Oregon. I generally allow my tenants after their first year lease to go month-to-month. One of my properties expires on the 15th of each month. However, I just received notice that my tenant is giving me 30 days notice and will be moving out June 21st.

I know in other states where I have rentals, you need to give at least 30 days notice BEFORE the lease term ends (i.e., in a month-to-month your lease term expires every 30 days rather than once a year). However, I've been told that in Oregon that my tenant has the right to give 30 days whenever they wish.

To this lease, in other states they could give me notice on May 22nd, but their lease would then end July 15th as to move out they would have had to give me notice by May 16th for their lease to end June 15th.

It's not a huge issue, as I never have trouble renting this place, but I would like to be up-to-date on this facet of Oregon rental law. I know there are other landlords on this board and I'd love your input.

Hugs & Kisses,
maxiep

 

Can I sleep in the backyard until you rent it to someone?

 

Sure. It has a pond for you to bathe.

 

Good question.

I don't know what the law is, but I've always expected at least 30 days notice with respect to the day they will be out of the house. If that day happens to be past the end of their last scheduled month-to-month period, I just pro-rate the portion of the month that extended past the full month. I typically error on the side of being lenient with my tenants with these type of issues.

I'd be curious if you find out the actual law.

 

If you're on month to month the tenant simply has to give 30 days notice at any point and they're good. It doesn't matter when the rental month actually starts.

Oregon Revised Statutes:
91.070 Tenancy from month to month. One who holds the lands or tenements of another, under the demise of the other, and no certain time has been mentioned, but a monthly rental has been reserved, is considered a tenant from month to month. Except as otherwise provided by statute or agreement, such tenancy may only be terminated by either the landlord or tenant giving the other, at any time during the tenancy, not less than 30 days’ notice in writing prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy. The tenancy shall terminate on the date designated and without regard to the expiration of the period for which, by the terms of the tenancy and holding, rents are to be paid.

 

I repped everyone in this thread except for Wook, to whom I cannot give more reputation. Thanks for the great input!

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to speeds again.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Made me think of the opening scene to the original Shrek movie.

 

I was thinking Caddyshack, but I don't have a pool on this property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKmejXZJN2M

 

I have a more general tenant/landlord question. If in your contract, it states that the upon the completion date, it continues on a month to month basis, would you find it shady if your landlord sent you (or, since you are a landlord, would you feel shady sending) a renewal notice in that last month saying if you sign a 1 year lease the rent stays the same, 6 month it goes up $50 and month to month it goes up $100. I think technically it was legal, because by sending us that notice they were terminating our lease and starting a new one, but it still seemed shady to me. Especially since one of the reasons we signed the original lease was because the flexibility after the initial 12 months.

 

This doesn't seem shady to me. If you wanted to guarantee your rent wouldn't go up, you should negotiate a longer term lease when the first one ended. When both parties agree that a month-to-month situation will take place after the lease expires, they are both taking on risk. The tenant is taking on risk that their rates could rise at any time, the landlord is taking risk that their tenants may move out in 30 days. As a tenant, I don't think you should expect to be able to continue renting month-to-month without rates going up as the market is increasing rents. That is why you sign a long term lease in the first place.

FWIW, I've been on both sides of this situation. While I obviously didn't like my rent going up when I was a tenant, I completely understood that it was entirely reasonable for the landlord to do so.

 

Even though in the lease terms on the first page it explicitly states that upon the term completion it continues on a month to month basis (and confirmed to be what happens by the then property manager, who I think just spoke out of his ass, so I don't blame the actual owners for that)? I think what made us upset about it was we would ask about it and then the current property manager would just relay an answer that just was 'if you want to go month to month, you can for $100 more a month", which didn't answer our question about the actual lease terms.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't see an issue with that. It makes sense to me that the rent would be higher on a month-to-month basis than a year lease. It sounds like the manager told you all along that the rent would go up by $100/month when you went to month-to-month. Are you saying you're upset because that dollar amount was not specified on the original lease?

 

The lease states that the terms continue upon the year ending and when we asked the property manager he said that it automatically goes month to month after the year (confirming what we thought the lease stated). We didn't find out about the increase to go month to month until about 6 weeks before our year was up.

I understand they can raise our rent, but it just seems like they purposely put in the language making it seem like you automatically go on month to month, with no term changes, but at the same time never had any intention of letting that transpire (again, the renewal letter was them giving us written notice that they were ending our original lease and essentially signing a new one, but this time with an option on the term length).

All my other leases have either stated that a new lease needs to be signed after the year (up until 3 years ago I either lived in the U-District in Seattle or in another college town, so they always made us sign on for a full year), so this was my first experience with the issue.

 

I have properties where I won't let people go month-to-month, because of the ebbs and flows of the rental market. I don't think it's shady at all.

 

By law if you don't sign a new lease after expiration of your term, your lease goes to month-to-month. Your property manager didn't lie to you. It is a choice by the landlord, however, if they'll let you go mtm. In this case, they want to incentivize you to sign a year lease.

 

Yeah, I get all that. But to use it as a selling point is probably why we were upset when 10.5 months later we find out that won't be the case. But that was probably just the prop manager making shit up. We're still in the same apt, so it obviously didn't make us move.

 

It would have been nice if they told you up front, but they don't have to. The wife and I were looking at apts recently and several told us that once we went month to month that it would be $50 more a month for rent. Like blazerboy said, the way the market is, the rent can change quickly, so it makes sense to be able to up it or reduce it. What I didn't like is my wife and I had a situation where the rent for the floor plan we were in went down for people signing a new lease, but since we were on month to month on our old lease, we paid the old amount. I understand it, and it was only $5 a month less, but I got a little more upset about it when after we left they then claimed we caused $1600 worth of damages to our unit and we had to drive back to Spokane to go to small claims court.

 

Bathe? In water? Have you ever smelled wet Wookiee? I just need an industrial shop-vac, a heavy-duty steel comb, and a can or two of Carpet Fresh...