SB 1002 expands Oregon’s eviction and restitution procedures in several ways. First, it creates a new process allowing a court, within 180 days of an eviction judgment, to issue a supplemental judgment of restitution if a tenant who was previously removed returns to the property without authorization, a new rental agreement, or the landlord’s permission. The bill also requires the court to provide a hearing process so the tenant can contest the landlord’s affidavit or declaration before enforcement proceeds.
The bill further updates the statutory notice forms used in eviction cases to add a separate notice for situations where a tenant returns after a judgment of restitution. It revises existing notice language to explain the right to a hearing, the move-out deadline, and the sheriff’s authority to remove occupants if they do not comply. In addition, SB 1002 amends Oregon’s unlawful-holding-by-force statutes to expressly include squatters and unauthorized occupants who entered without a tenancy, rental agreement, or other permission, and it applies the residential-tenant eviction procedures to certain nontraditional possession cases involving foreclosures, deeds in lieu, and related property possession disputes.
Impact
SB 1002 would amend ORS 105.115, 105.130, 105.152, and 105.153 and add a new section to Oregon’s eviction statutes in ORS chapter 105. The practical effect is to broaden the tools available to landlords and property owners to remove unauthorized occupants, including squatters and former tenants who reenter after eviction, while preserving a mechanism for the occupant to request a hearing. It also makes clear that the residential eviction process and associated fees can apply to certain possession disputes involving dwellings and some nontraditional occupancy situations, and it applies these changes to persons who began possession before, on, or after the act’s effective date.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be pro-enforcement and landlord/property-owner oriented. The measure is framed as a procedural fix to address reentry after eviction and unauthorized occupancy, suggesting support for faster and clearer removal processes. At the same time, the bill retains hearing rights and notice requirements, indicating an effort to balance enforcement with due process.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the expansion of eviction remedies to cover squatters and tenants who return after eviction, because that can be viewed as strengthening landlord remedies and reducing barriers to removal. Tenant advocates may be concerned about due process, the breadth of the unauthorized-occupant definition, and whether the supplemental judgment process could be used too aggressively. On the other hand, landlords and property owners are likely to support the bill because it addresses situations where an occupant leaves and then reenters, or where a property is occupied without a valid tenancy or agreement.