Reach Community Development v. Stanley, 274 P.3d 211

Plaintiff is an authorized managing agent for the owner of a Portland residential complex; defendant is a tenant under a monthly rental agreement.
Rent is subsidized; monthly rent of $365 due on the first day of each month.
Plaintiff served a 10-day “for cause” termination notice before August 17, 2009, prompting a BOLI investigation.
After August 17, 2009, plaintiff refused to accept rent for September–December 2009 and returned a partial payment with a letter stating it would not accept payments while the dispute persisted.
Defendant later tendered $500 on December 7, 2009; plaintiff returned it and then issued a 72-hour notice to pay or vacate on December 10, which was revised to demand all accrued rent on December 16.
Trial court found plaintiff did not waive the right to timely rent and entered judgment of restitution in plaintiff’s favor.12

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did August 17 waiver extinguish plaintiff’s right to timely rent after the dispute?	Plaintiff did not waive timely rent; it reserved rights by withholding acceptance.	August 17 letter evidenced waiver of timely rent payments during dispute.	Waiver of timely rent rights found; does not address accrual period.
Did waiver extend to waiving the right to demand all accrued rent within 72 hours after dispute resolution?	No clear reinstatement of accrued-rent demand after dispute.	Once waived, reinstatement requires reasonable notice before default.	No evidence of intentional reinstatement; 72-hour demand valid to collect accrued rent.

McMillan v. Follansbee, 194 Or.App. 145 (Or. App. 2004) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or. 675 (Or. 1984) (principle that appellate court may review legal conclusions with evidence supporting findings)
Stinemeyer v. Wesco Farms, 260 Or. 109 (Or. 1971) (notice requirements for reinstatement after waiver in strict foreclosure contexts)