267 P.3d 169
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Housing Authority of Jackson County (plaintiff) leased an apartment to Gates (defendant) in Oct 2009.
- Police responded to a Aug 22, 2010 noise complaint; Gates was arrested for meth possession.
- Plaintiff issued a termination notice on Aug 27, 2010, for violation of an occupancy rule and gave until Sept 30, 2010 to vacate.
- Gates did not vacate; plaintiff filed forcible entry and detainer (FED) on Oct 6, 2010 seeking possession based on the termination.
- Plaintiff’s management testified Gates signed the occupancy rules and they are part of the lease; trial court questioned, then held occupancy rules were not incorporated.
- On appeal, the court held the occupancy rules were incorporated into the lease and reversed the FED judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether occupancy rules were incorporated into the lease | Gates signed the occupancy rules; they are part of the entire agreement. | Occupancy rules were merely attached and not incorporated. | Yes; occupancy rules incorporated into the lease. |
| Whether termination for material noncompliance was proper | Termination for violation of lease terms allowed. | No basis to terminate since occupancy rules weren’t incorporated. | Not separately addressed beyond incorporation ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- NW. Pac. Indem. v. Junction City Water Dist., 295 Or. 553 (1983) (when specific terms refer to another writing, the other writing is part of the contract)
- Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358 (1997) (contract interpretation; text and context determine ambiguity)