Elk Creek Management Company v. Harold Gilbert and Melissa Strittmatter
260 P.3d 686 (2011), 244 Or. App. 382 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oregon's anti-retaliation statute for landlords and tenants, ORS 90.385, the term 'retaliate' requires proof that the landlord acted with an intent to harm the tenant in response to the tenant's protected activity, such as a complaint. A landlord's action that is merely a causal result of the tenant's complaint, without the landlord's subjective motive to get back at the tenant, does not constitute unlawful retaliation.
Facts:
- Gilbert and Strittmatter were month-to-month tenants in a house managed by Elk Creek Management Company and owned by DeBoer.
- Before mid-May 2009, Gilbert called the owner, DeBoer, to complain about the electrical system in the rental house.
- On May 19, 2009, DeBoer and an employee, Gluch, conducted a 'walk-through' of the house, during which Strittmatter also complained about the electrical system.
- A month later, DeBoer and Gluch returned with a licensed electrician, who informed DeBoer that the electrical wiring required extensive work.
- That same afternoon, Gluch called the tenants to inform them that DeBoer was ending their month-to-month lease.
- The next day, the tenants received a formal 30-day no-cause eviction notice, accompanied by a note explaining that the owner needed to make repairs, including 'updating the electrical.'
Procedural Posture:
- After the 30-day notice period expired, tenants Gilbert and Strittmatter did not vacate the property.
- Elk Creek Management Company filed a forcible entry and detainer (eviction) action against the tenants in an Oregon trial court.
- The tenants raised the affirmative defense that the eviction was impermissible retaliation for their complaints about the property's condition.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, Elk Creek, concluding the termination was not for retaliatory reasons.
- The defendant tenants appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an eviction 'retaliate' against a tenant for making a complaint under Oregon's Residential Landlord Tenant Act (ORS 90.385) only if the landlord acts with a motive to harm the tenant in response to the complaint?
Opinions:
Majority - Schuman, P. J.
Yes, an eviction is only retaliatory if the landlord acts with a motive to harm the tenant. The court held that the plain meaning of 'retaliate' involves an intent to repay an injury in kind. The court rejected the tenants' argument for a 'but-for' causation test, where an eviction would be retaliatory if it would not have happened but for the complaint, regardless of motive. The court's analysis of the legislative history revealed that the Oregon legislature deliberately removed a provision that would have created a rebuttable presumption of retaliation based on the temporal proximity of a complaint and an eviction. This removal signifies a legislative intent to place the full burden of proving the landlord's retaliatory motive on the tenant. Therefore, without proof of the landlord's subjective intent to harm the tenants for complaining, the eviction is not considered retaliatory under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for retaliatory eviction in Oregon, significantly raising the burden of proof for tenants. By requiring tenants to affirmatively prove a landlord's subjective retaliatory motive, the court makes these claims much more difficult to win, as a landlord's state of mind is challenging to establish. The ruling narrows the scope of the anti-retaliation statute, allowing landlords to evict tenants for legitimate economic or business reasons that arise from a tenant's complaint, such as the discovery of prohibitively expensive repairs. This interpretation prioritizes the plain meaning of 'retaliate' and legislative intent over a broader, more protective interpretation for tenants.
Unlock the full brief for Elk Creek Management Company v. Harold Gilbert and Melissa Strittmatter