Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Owner Occupant Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears compromise on shortening notice when seller accepts buyer who will occupy unit; tenants’ advocates, realtors reach agreement
Summary
Senate Bill 586 would change landlord notice rules when a tenant-occupied unit is sold to a buyer who intends to occupy it; stakeholders presented a negotiated compromise that preserves a 90-day option but allows a 60-day notice if the buyer provides one month’s rent as relocation assistance.
The Senate Committee on Housing and Development held a public hearing on Senate Bill 586, a bill that would modify the notice a landlord must give a tenant on a fixed-term tenancy when selling the dwelling unit to a buyer who intends to reside in it.
Senator Mark Meek said the 2019 statute created a landlord cause to terminate tenancy when a buyer offers to occupy the unit, but the 90-day notice period has created practical obstacles for buyers and sellers completing typical real-estate closings. He said buyers often close in 30–45 days and that the current 90-day window can make financing and interest-rate locks impractical.
Stakeholders worked through the weekend and presented a negotiated dash-1 amendment. Under the compromise, the existing 90-day notice remains available; however, a seller and buyer may provide a 60-day notice if they also provide an additional payment equal to one month’s rent as relocation assistance to the tenant. The amendment also addresses an earlier drafting gap by allowing the termination option to apply when the buyer intends to occupy a unit within a two-to-four-unit property (duplex, triplex, quadplex) as long as the termination applies only to the unit the buyer will occupy. The parties also agreed to require the seller to provide evidence of the accepted offer at the time notice is given rather than up to 120 days later, to improve enforceability.
The Oregon Law Center and Oregon Realtors testified that they opposed the original draft but supported the compromise amendment. Tenant advocates urged caution and expressed concern about reduced notice, while industry groups said the amendment would resolve transaction problems for buyers seeking to occupy a unit without forcing them to take investor financing.
No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; the negotiated language was described on the record and parties indicated support for the dash-1 amendment.
