consumerlaw.osbar.orgConsumer Law Section | OSB Consumer Law

Section Consumer Law Section OSB Consumer Law Section Menu Home About Consumer Law Consumer Law in the News Legal Resources Case Law Consumer Law Resources Federal Consumer Law Statutes Oregon Consumer Law Statutes Links Section Information About the Section Executive Committee Membership Section Minutes and Reports Changes to Oregon Debt Collection Laws Under the Family Financial Protection Act In a move aimed at bolstering consumer protections and easing the burden of debt collection practices, Oregon has taken significant strides with the enactment of the Family Financial Protection Act (SB 1595). The FFPA, signed into law on March 4, 2024, introduces several key provisions designed to ensure fairness and transparency in debt collection processes. One notable aspect of the law is its emphasis on safeguarding consumers from abusive and harassing debt collection practices. The FFPA will protect Oregon families while paying off debt or fighting unfair collections by: Increasing the amount of wages that are protected from garnishment; Protecting $2,500 in someone’s bank account so they can pay for their basic needs, like rent, while paying off debt; Increasing protections to prevent Oregonians from losing their homes during debt collections; Extending the amount of time consumers have to file a complaint against a debt collector to 3 years from the date of injury; Protecting consumers from unfair attorney fees resulting from civil lawsuits for unlawful collections practices. Before the enactment of the FFPA, Oregonians did not have adequate protections to ensure that bank account balances could be available to pay for necessities, had to go through a difficult and expensive court process to get debt collectors to verify that they were going after the right person or the right amount, and only had one year to file a complaint but were often unaware of an unlawful debt collection practice until after the statute of limitations had run out. Meanwhile, collectors had six or more years to collect on a debt. As an Oregon attorney, it’s imperative to stay informed about these changes to debt collection laws. By familiarizing yourself with the Family Financial Protection Act, you can effectively advocate for your clients’ rights and navigate the evolving landscape of debt collection practices in Oregon. Sources: Press Release, Office of the House Speaker (March 6, 2024) SEIU Letter in Support of SB 1595 SB 1595 Enrolled To learn more about FFPA, register for the May 3, 2024 Consumer Law CLE Series: Changes to Debt Collection Laws Under the Family Financial Protection Act from 12 – 1 pm here . Emily Templeton, Attorney LinkedIn Underdog Law Office This entry was posted in consumer law , Debt collections , OUDCPA on April 20, 2024 by kevinmehrens . Court Ruling Exposes Oregon Landlords to New Legal Liabilities A fresh Oregon Court of Appeals opinion stands to expose landlords and property managers to a host of new legal claims, including punitive damages. The ruling in Jackson vs KA-3 Associates, LLC decided that the landlord tenant act does not cover habitability issues in the common areas of apartment complexes. 331 Or App 574, 577 (2024). So, while landlords are now exempt from liability under the landlord tenant act for conduct pertaining to the common areas of their complexes, they face new heightened liabilities for the same conduct under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act. ORS 646.605-656. Before the Jackson opinion, tenants could not bring claims for unlawful trade practices against landlords because common areas were covered under the landlord tenant act. For instance, the landlord tenant act had historically been ruled to have covered common areas of apartment complexes, like common area garbage dumpsters, common area elevators, and any other areas outside a dwelling unit that were under the control of the landlord. See ORS 90.320(1)(f), (g). And Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act specifically did not apply to these common areas because they were covered by the landlord tenant act. See ORS 646.605(6)(b)(A). However, after the Jackson opinion, landlords and property managers now face exposure to new legal liabilities for common area conditions under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, including claims not previously available under the landlord tenant act, such as punitive damages, statutory damages, and one-way attorney fees. See ORS 646.638; Ivie v. Mission Rock Residential LLC, No. 3:21-CV-01122-SB, 2022 WL 2612215, at *9 (D. Or. May 27, 2022) (denying a landlord’s motion to dismiss a tenant’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act claims because the claims were not covered by the landlord tenant act). People familiar with the Jackson case expect the opinion to be modified on reconsideration or on appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. But as of now, Jackson is good law, and until it is changed, landlords are now subject to claims for unlawful trade practices pertaining to the common areas of their premises. The opinion of the Court can be read here: Jackson v KA-3 Associates, 331 Or App 574 (2024) . Written by Michael Fuller, Founder, Underdog Law Office This entry was posted in Landlord Tenant Law , Unlawful Trade Practices , UTPA on March 29, 2024 by kevinmehrens . Courthouse Eviction Defense: What and Why At 8 a.m. on a given weekday, at the Multnomah County Circuit Courthouse downtown Portland, we pick up a docket with between 30 and 50 tenants slated for a first court appearance in their eviction case. Few know when they walk in that 30-49 other people have the same hearing scheduled for 8:45 am, and any of them could be there until midday. Since January, 51% of Oregon’s eviction cases were filed in Multnomah County; most – 88% – were for nonpayment. Almost all begin and end without the person facing eviction receiving legal advice. [1] Five days a week, tenants arrive before first appearance” and find a seat in the Crane Room, an open lobby area with tall windows and ample tables and chairs. They wait to be called into the courtroom, where the judge does roll call through the day’s docket. A look around the Crane Room reveals people facing eviction are not a representative sample of Multnomah County’s population. There are more people of color, more women, and they are generally older. In the Crane Room, 51% of tenants we helped identified as a Person of Color, compared to 31% in Multnomah overall. [2] Adults over 50 are the fastest growing homeless demographic in the county, are mostly homeless for the first time, and age 3-4X faster than their housed counterparts. [3] That tenants in eviction court reflect the homeless population is not a coincidence; eviction is the leading cause of homelessness. [4] Members of The Commons Law Center’s Tenant Eviction Defense (TED) team walk around the Crane Room and approach tenants, who are unsure of what they are supposed to do next, asking if they are interested in free legal counsel for the day’s hearing. Usually, they have questions about the service, then are interested in speaking with our attorney. Something clients often say is I’m here because I can’t pay, so there’s nothing I can do to stop eviction. This is not necessarily true, but it shows that tenants know little about their rights and options even after they show up to court, where large television displays scroll through informational slides about new laws and available rental assistance, where rental assistance sits at a nearby table. Over the intercom, sometime before 9 a.m., anyone present for a landlord-tenant matter is instructed to go to Courtroom A. The courtroom door opens and tenants sit and wait for the judge to roll call the cases. In most cases – 80% – a landlord lawyer or agent approaches the bench to show they are handling the negotiations for the plaintiff. [5] When called as defendants, tenants rise to show they are present and, if a tenant has requested our counsel, our attorney presents themselves on the record. The...