Unique question about Statute of Limitations

[JustJenny0512]

I am a tenant in Lincoln County, Oregon. I received a 30 day notice to reinstate the original terms of the rental contract from my landlord's attorney dated December 12, 2023 . The notice stated that any term of the original rental contract, dated March 1, 2020, would be fully enforced 30 days after the date of the notice on January 15, 2024 and thereafter. My question is, does that also restart the statute of limitations to that date of January 15, 2024 regarding any breach of the original rental contract by my landlord or any violations of Landlord/Tenant law committed by my landlord before January 15, 2024? I also have several other unique questions, but I don't want to bombard everyone with them all at once. Thanks so much for taking the time to read this and any feedback, positive, negative, or both will be greatly appreciated.

 

[adjusterjack]

A statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a lawsuit based on either breach of contract or non-compliance with statute. The statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the breach. The Oregon statute of limitations for breach of contract and non-complaince with a statute is 6 years.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_12.080

I'll make a few assumptions here and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Apparently you had a written agreement (lease?) from March 2020 to March 2021 that, upon expiration, converted to a month to month unwritten agreement where you were obliged to pay rent in exchange for occupancy.

On Dec 12, 2023 the LL gave you at least 30 days notice that as of Jan 15, 2024 he was imposing updated obligations on your month to month tenancy. You had the option of accepting or rejecting those obligations. You apparently did not object to those obligations because you are still there under those terms 6 months later.

Next question?

 

[LdiJ]

I am a tenant in Lincoln County, Oregon. I received a 30 day notice to reinstate the original terms of the rental contract from my landlord's attorney dated December 12, 2023 . The notice stated that any term of the original rental contract, dated March 1, 2020, would be fully enforced 30 days after the date of the notice on January 15, 2024 and thereafter. My question is, does that also restart the statute of limitations to that date of January 15, 2024 regarding any breach of the original rental contract by my landlord or any violations of Landlord/Tenant law committed by my landlord before January 15, 2024? I also have several other unique questions, but I don't want to bombard everyone with them all at once. Thanks so much for taking the time to read this and any feedback, positive, negative, or both will be greatly appreciated.

Besides the answer you already received, it would be helpful to know the context of your questions. Asking questions without context could easily get you wrong answers.

 

[Litigator22]

I am a tenant in Lincoln County, Oregon. I received a 30 day notice to reinstate the original terms of the rental contract from my landlord's attorney dated December 12, 2023 . The notice stated that any term of the original rental contract, dated March 1, 2020, would be fully enforced 30 days after the date of the notice on January 15, 2024 and thereafter. My question is, does that also restart the statute of limitations to that date of January 15, 2024 regarding any breach of the original rental contract by my landlord or any violations of Landlord/Tenant law committed by my landlord before January 15, 2024? I also have several other unique questions, but I don't want to bombard everyone with them all at once. Thanks so much for taking the time to read this and any feedback, positive, negative, or both will be greatly appreciated.

Your much to be yet revealed post calls for a bit of interpolation.

Apparently, something occurred during the course of the original lease agreement which you believe constituted the landlord's breach of one or more of the "terms and conditions of the original rental contract" and thus gave rise to your legal claim or cause of action against the landlord.

And your question is whether or not the act of imposing those same terms and conditions in a subsequent lease between the same parties rejuvenates your cause of action to the extent of renewing the commencement of the running of the applicable statute of limitations.

The answer is a definitive no! The claim is not renewed nor is any applicable statute of limitation notably affected.
_______________________

My question to you is why in the dickens would you think that it would rejuvenate your cause of action? There is no logical reason that it should or would!

It would be equally illogical to assert that your claim against the landlord dissolved or abated simply because the same terms and conditions were not reinstated in the subsequent lease.

 

[JustJenny0512]

A statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a lawsuit based on either breach of contract or non-compliance with statute. The statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the breach. The Oregon statute of limitations for breach of contract and non-complaince with a statute is 6 years.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_12.080

I'll make a few assumptions here and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Apparently you had a written agreement (lease?) from March 2020 to March 2021 that, upon expiration, converted to a month to month unwritten agreement where you were obliged to pay rent in exchange for occupancy.

On Dec 12, 2023 the LL gave you at least 30 days notice that as of Jan 15, 2024 he was imposing updated obligations on your month to month tenancy. You had the option of accepting or rejecting those obligations. You apparently did not object to those obligations because you are still there under those terms 6 months later.

Next question?

Your much to be yet revealed post calls for a bit of interpolation.

Apparently, something occurred during the course of the original lease agreement which you believe constituted the landlord's breach of one or more of the "terms and conditions of the original rental contract" and thus gave rise to your legal claim or cause of action against the landlord.

And your question is whether or not the act of imposing those same terms and conditions in a subsequent lease between the same parties rejuvenates your cause of action to the extent of renewing the commencement of the running of the applicable statute of limitations.

The answer is a definitive no! The claim is not renewed nor is any applicable statute of limitation notably affected.
_______________________

My question to you is why in the dickens would you think that it would rejuvenate your cause of action? There is no logical reason that it should or would!

It would be equally illogical to assert that your claim against the landlord dissolved or abated simply because the same terms and conditions were not reinstated in the subsequent lease.

Please don't take what I am about to say as trying to be rude or snide because I am not meaning it that way at all whatsoever. I was asking the question out of pure curiosity and my desire to learn law and the different interpretations of law. Thank you all for your answers and opinions and for not giving me those answers and opinions with kid gloves. I am really in need of some questions answered and I think I finally found the right place to get those answers. Now I feel alot better about explaining the facts of the claim I am wanting to file against my landlord. I say that because after I am finished providing the facts and I ask the question, "Do I have a snowball's chance in Hades?", I know I will get a "Grown up, whether I like it or not, true to reality of law answer", instead of people just trying to sugarcoat and tell me what I want to hear. I don't want to be a "thread Bogart", and my situation has a great deal of information to present, so if it's ok I am going to open up a new "Ask a Question", and start from scratch. Thanks again everybody, and I really look forward to learning from all of you.

 

[STEPHAN]

Please keep everything here and do not start a new thread.

 

[adjusterjack]

so if it's ok I am going to open up a new "Ask a Question", and start from scratch.

No, don't do that. You'll end up with parallel discussions which will just be annoying and discourage responses. Keep everything to this thread.

my situation has a great deal of information to present

Be brief. Very brief. Like: "On (date) my landlord (what he did). What can I do about it?"

We will ask for details if needed.

 

[zddoodah]

My question is, does that also restart the statute of limitations to that date of January 15, 2024 regarding any breach of the original rental contract by my landlord or any violations of Landlord/Tenant law committed by my landlord before January 15, 2024?

Doubtful, but one would need to review the lease and the notice and have a bit more information about why "the original terms of the rental contract" need to be reinstated.

 

[LdiJ]

Again JustJenny, we need context. The backstory if you will.

 

[Litigator22]

Please don't take what I am about to say as trying to be rude or snide because I am not meaning it that way at all whatsoever. I was asking the question out of pure curiosity and my desire to learn law and the different interpretations of law. Thank you all for your answers and opinions and for not giving me those answers and opinions with kid gloves. I am really in need of some questions answered and I think I finally found the right place to get those answers. Now I feel alot better about explaining the facts of the claim I am wanting to file against my landlord. I say that because after I am finished providing the facts and I ask the question, "Do I have a snowball's chance in Hades?", I know I will get a "Grown up, whether I like it or not, true to reality of law answer", instead of people just trying to sugarcoat and tell me what I want to hear. I don't want to be a "thread Bogart", and my situation has a great deal of information to present, so if it's ok I am going to open up a new "Ask a Question", and start from scratch. Thanks again everybody, and I really look forward to learning from all of you.

Once again, if you please:

Why would you suspect that the mere act of incorporating terms and conditions from an expired lease into a subsequent lease - covering the same property and between the same parties - could in and of itself - have any legal consequence materially affecting a cause of action theretofore accruing versus the property owner during his past performance or failure to perform any such terms and conditions?

And as a corollary - if you are of the mind that reinstating the same terms and conditions serves to renew the cause of action or claim versus the landlord (and re-sets the statute of limitations) why wouldn't it logically follow that the failure to reinstate the same terms and conditions acquits the landlord of liability?

If clarification is needed, say so. But please discontinue with your meaningless jabbering.

 

[JustJenny0512]

Once again, if you please:

Why would you suspect that the mere act of incorporating terms and conditions from an expired lease into a subsequent lease - covering the same property and between the same parties - could in and of itself - have any legal consequence materially affecting a cause of action theretofore accruing versus the property owner during his past performance or failure to perform any such terms and conditions?

And as a corollary - if you are of the mind that reinstating the same terms and conditions serves to renew the cause of action or claim versus the landlord (and re-sets the statute of limitations) why wouldn't it logically follow that the failure to reinstate the same terms and conditions acquits the landlord of liability?

If clarification is needed, say so. But please discontinue with your meaningless jabbering.

Not to be rude, but any words that come out of my head aren't meaningless jabber, they mean something to me and just because I don't present them the way you think is best, doesn't make them jabber so please discontinue your undeserved judgement and unimportant opinion of the way I present any thought at all on this forum. I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be one and therefore don't know the attorney rules of speak, so if you could behave with a little more human to human empathy, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you and have a great day.

 

[JustJenny0512]

Not to be rude, but any words that come out of my head aren't meaningless jabber, they mean something to me and just because I don't present them the way you think is best, doesn't make them jabber so please discontinue your undeserved judgement and unimportant opinion of the way I present any thought at all on this forum. I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be one and therefore don't know the attorney rules of speak, so if you could behave with a little more human to human empathy, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you and have a great day.

And just for the record, you are also wrong in asking me that question because the lease wasn't expired. Please get the facts right before responding, thank you so much.

 

[Just Blue]

Why are you creating multiple threads?
Post a brief explanation of the situation and ask your questions.
This is the thread you should be using.

Please keep in mind this site is for general information and direction.

 

[quincy]

JustJenny, add any additional questions to this thread or find assistance at: https://lasoregon.org/locations/lincoln-county-office/

 

[JustJenny0512]

I apologize to everyone for my confusion about posting my questions in the same thread, I think I understand the rules now. So here is another question I have and thanks ahead of time for any answers or insights.
In the state of Oregon, let's say Person A is buying a property owner finance from Person B and defaults somehow. Person A decides to use an Estoppel Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure Agreement to convey the property back to Person B. The agreement has a specific clause that states person B will not be deemed to have accepted the conveyance of the property back from Person A until Person B signs and records the Deed with the clerk of the county where the property is located. Person A signs the agreement on October 19, 2019, but Person B doesn't sign and record the deed until February 25, 2021. Does that mean Person A retains legal ownership of the property until February 25, 2021, when Person B signs and records the deed as required by the clause in the agreement?