Shepard Investment Group LLC v. Ormandy, 533 P.3d 774

Landlord (Shepard) charged residents a $40 monthly flat utility fee; tenant (Ormandy) rented since 2008. Landlord never sent written/electronic bills or provided explanations of provider charge allocation or assessment. No evidence of overbilling or fraud.
Tenant defaulted on November 2019 rent; landlord filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action; tenant counterclaimed under ORS 90.315(4)(b) for repeated utility-billing procedural violations during the prior year.
Trial court found 12 monthly violations (four distinct statutory failures each month) and awarded statutory damages equal to 12 months' rent (~$9,050), plus fees; Court of Appeals reversed, awarding twice the aggregate wrongful charges ($960).
Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding ORS 90.315(4)(f) damages are calculated by aggregating wrongfully billed utility amounts, doubling that aggregate, and comparing it to one month's periodic rent (award is the greater).
Court treated procedural failures as potentially ongoing (not necessarily discrete per billing cycle) and concluded the statute’s plain text and context do not direct a per-billing-cycle multiplicative penalty.
Case remanded to circuit court to enter damages consistent with the aggregate calculation (here, twice the aggregate wrongful charges of $960 was greater than one month's rent as applied).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Shepard)	Defendant's Argument (Ormandy)	Held
Whether ORS 90.315(4)(f) penalty applies per discrete billing violation (e.g., each month) or on an aggregate basis	Shepard: statute is a single remedial penalty for a course of conduct; legislature would have said "per violation" if intended; award should not multiply by each billing	Ormandy: statutory remedy intended to penalize each discrete noncompliance so landlords are deterred from repeated violations; damages should be applied monthly	Held: Damages are based on the aggregate "amount wrongfully charged" (totaled and doubled) and then compared to one month's rent; not automatically applied per billing cycle or per repeated failure
Meaning of "amount wrongfully charged" and role of ongoing procedural violations	Shepard: irrelevant how many times procedure violated; measure should be aggregate of wrongful charges	Ormandy: "amount wrongfully charged" should be read month-by-month; procedural violations recurring monthly justify repeated penalties	Held: "Amount" can be read as aggregate; procedural failures can be ongoing and make multiple billings wrongful, so statute is reasonably read to aggregate wrongful charges rather than impose a separate month-of-rent penalty for each discrete instance

State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) (statutory interpretation—text, context, legislative history methodology)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993) (use of context and consistent term meaning within a statute)
L & M Investment Co. v. Morrison, 286 Or. 397, 594 P.2d 1238 (1979) (background on purpose of the ORLTA)
Eddy v. Anderson, 366 Or. 176, 458 P.3d 678 (2020) (tenants may withhold rent for landlord noncompliance and counterclaim in FED actions)
Napolski v. Champney, 295 Or. 408, 667 P.2d 1013 (1983) (withholding/counterclaim framework referenced)
Brewer v. Erwin, 287 Or. 435, 600 P.2d 398 (1979) (characterization of statutory damages in residential tenancy context)
McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 901 P.2d 841 (1995) (abrogation on other grounds mentioned in opinion)
State v. Cloutier, 351 Or. 68, 261 P.3d 1234 (2011) (presumption of consistent term usage in related statutory provisions)