Background
Harbor Mobile Home Park brought a forcible entry and detainer action seeking possession of a manufactured-home space rented by Michelle Lee Woods. The park relied on nonpayment notices issued under ORS 90.394 and a 30-day termination notice issued under ORS 90.630(10) after alleged late payments in September and December 2024 and January 2025.
The parties disputed whether Woods had paid or attempted to pay the rent owed. The landlord testified that certain payments were credited to earlier months and that December 2024 and January 2025 remained unpaid. After setting aside a default judgment, the trial court proceeded immediately to a bench trial. It found the notices sufficient, determined that Woods had failed to pay rent for December through February, and awarded possession to the landlord.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Woods had not preserved her argument that the December and January notices were defective because mailed notices required three additional days. Any error was not plain because the landlord had both mailed and posted the notices under provisions in the rental agreement, and the competing interpretations of the agreement and ORS 90.155 were reasonably debatable.
The court also concluded that Woods had not shown legal error concerning the rent payments. Termination under ORS 90.630(10) rested on three qualifying late payments or nonpayments, and ORS 90.630(11) did not give Woods a right to cure that basis for termination through later payment. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding directly to trial: Woods did not clearly request a continuance, did not identify specific unavailable evidence, and did not demonstrate identifiable prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A statutory objection to the timing or service of an eviction notice must be presented clearly in the trial court to preserve it for appeal.
- A manufactured-home-space tenant cannot cure a termination based on three qualifying late payments under ORS 90.630(10) merely by paying the rent afterward.
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion by proceeding to trial when a party fails to make a clear continuance request or show resulting prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of preserving notice-based defenses in eviction proceedings and clarifies that repeated-late-payment termination focuses on the occurrence of the qualifying late payments, not merely whether the tenant later offers payment.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.