470 P.3d 390
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Portland enacted Ordinance 188219 (2017), amending PCC 30.01.085 to add tenant protections requiring landlords to pay specified one‑time relocation assistance in two main circumstances: (1) no‑cause terminations with at least 90 days' notice (payment due ≥45 days before termination) and (2) when a rent Increase Notice shows a ≥10% rent hike in 12 months and the tenant gives written notice of intent to terminate within 14 days (payment due within 14 days of tenant notice). The ordinance applied to existing rental agreements.
- Plaintiffs are Portland landlords who sued for declaratory relief, arguing the ordinance is invalid under state law and the Oregon Constitution.
- Plaintiffs’ four challenges: (1) express preemption by ORS 91.225 (ban on local rent control); (2) implied preemption by ORS 90.427 (statutory no‑cause termination scheme in the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act); (3) unconstitutional impairment of contract obligations under Article I, §21 of the Oregon Constitution as applied to existing leases; and (4) impermissible creation of a private cause of action for tenants to enforce municipal law.
- Trial court granted the City’s summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed cross‑motions for summary judgment de novo.
- The appellate court upheld the City on the legal issues (preemption, contract impairment, private cause of action) but vacated the trial court’s dismissal as an improper final disposition in a declaratory judgment action and remanded for entry of an appropriate declaratory judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance is expressly preempted by ORS 91.225 (rent control ban) | Ordinance indirectly controls rent by imposing large relocation payments tied to ≥10% rent increases, so it is "rent control" and preempted | ORS 91.225 targets direct regulation of the amount charged as rent; the ordinance does not set or cap rent, it only imposes a separate relocation payment | Not preempted: ORS 91.225 prohibits local regulation that controls rent amounts ("rent control"); the ordinance does not regulate rent amounts and thus is outside that preemptive scope |
| Whether the ordinance is implicitly preempted by ORS 90.427 (no‑cause termination rules) | ORS 90.427 establishes the exclusive procedural/notice regime for no‑cause terminations and landlords’ possession rights; city cannot add notice length or monetary obligations | ORS 90.427 sets minimum notice requirements and does not make lesser state protections exclusive; cities may impose additional civil requirements so long as compliance with state law remains possible | Not preempted: ordinance and ORS 90.427 can operate concurrently; ordinance imposes additional civil obligations but does not make state compliance impossible |
| Whether the ordinance impermissibly impairs existing contracts in violation of Article I, §21 | Applying new obligations to existing rental agreements impairs contracts | Plaintiffs failed to identify particular contractual terms whose obligations are impaired; general assertion insufficient | Rejected: plaintiffs did not identify contractual obligations impaired by the ordinance; facial contract‑clause claim fails |
| Whether the ordinance improperly creates a private cause of action for tenants | Municipal law cannot create new private liabilities/enforceable causes of action against landlords | Municipalities may impose civil duties enforceable in state courts; precedent allows private suits to enforce municipal law | Rejected: Sims v. Besaw’s Cafe controls and permits tenant suits to enforce municipal ordinances |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogue Valley Sewer Servs. v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437 (discusses home‑rule preemption framework and when state law displaces local law)
- La Grande/Astoria v. Public Emp. Rel. Bd., 281 Or 137 (preemption analysis: interpret local law to function consistently with state law where possible)
- Thunderbird Mobile Club, LLC v. City of Wilsonville, 234 Or App 457 (local civil regulation not displaced where it does not make compliance with state law impossible)
- Sims v. Besaw’s Cafe, 165 Or App 180 (municipalities may create civil duties enforceable by private suits in state court)
- Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 115 Or App 11 (interpreting "rent control" as restrictions on rent amounts)
- Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, 297 Or App 446 (proper disposition in declaratory judgment actions is to issue a declaration of parties' rights)