Burke v. State
290 P.3d 790
Or.2012Background
- Burke owned 18 acres in Clackamas County; property subject to statewide land use planning goals and local restrictions.
- Burke retained legal title and possession under a land sale contract with Griffin, later assigned to Educative, LLC.
- Ballot Measure 37 claims were filed; Measure 49 supersedes Measure 37 and provides up to three homes via an owner-based claim.
- Measure 49 defines “owner” to include fee-title holders or purchasers under a recorded land sale contract; acquisition date rules apply with multiple owners.
- DLCD denied Burke and Educative’s Measure 49 claim, adopting the position that only the purchaser under a land sale contract is the owner for purposes of Measure 49.
- Court of Appeals affirmed DLCD; the issue is whether the definition of “owner” in ORS 195.300(18) is mutually exclusive or inclusive, and whether a seller who retains title can be an owner under Measure 49.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the three owner categories in ORS 195.300(18) mutually exclusive? | Burke urging inclusive construction; all categories may apply depending on facts. | DLCD urging mutually exclusive categories; disjunctive 'or' signals exclusivity. | No; categories are inclusive, allowing more than one owner status. |
| Does a seller who retains title under a land sale contract qualify as an owner under ORS 195.300(18) for Measure 49 claims? | Seller can be an owner under (a) and (b) and may acquire dates permitting relief. | Only the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract is the owner. | Yes; Burke is an owner under (a) and Educative under (b); seller retains ownership status for Measure 49 purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Reedsport v. Hubbard, 202 Or 370, 274 P.2d 248 (1954) (Oregon Supreme Court 1954) (purchaser treated as owner under land sale contract; seller retains limited rights)
- Bedortha v. Sunridge Land Co., Inc., 312 Or 307, 822 P.2d 694 (1991) (Oregon Supreme Court 1991) (seller’s rights and equitable interests under land sale contracts explained)
- Heider v. Dietz, 234 Or 105, 380 P2d 619 (1963) (Oregon Supreme Court 1963) (equitable conversion exceptions recognized; limits of rule governing ownership under contracts)
- Clackamas County v. 102 Marijuana Plants, 323 Or 680, 920 P2d 149 (1996) (Oregon Supreme Court 1996) (legislative findings not controlling over operative provisions; statutory interpretation context)
- Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or 38, 11 P.3d 228 (2000) (Oregon Supreme Court 2000) (interpretation of voter-approved measures and statutory construction principles)
- Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, 348 Or 15, 227 P.3d 1145 (2010) (Oregon Supreme Court 2010) (contextual interpretation of statutory texts and ownership concepts)