Senate committee hears data on rising evictions, courtroom reforms and gaps in assistance

SALEM, Ore. — The Senate Committee on Housing and Development on Feb. 3 heard an informational briefing on eviction trends in Oregon and how recent legal changes have affected court outcomes.

Sybil Hebb, an attorney and policy specialist with the Oregon Law Center, told the committee the state logged 27,290 eviction cases filed in 2024 and that nonpayment filings accounted for a large share of those cases. "Every one of those represents a household at risk, whose livelihood, whose roof over their head was in danger," Hebb said.

The presentation framed the filings against broader affordability data and recent statutory reforms. Hebb summarized the effect of House Bill 2001 (part of the 2023 housing reform package), including a permanent extension of the nonpayment notice period from 72 hours to 10 days and a statutory requirement that notices include information about where to obtain assistance in multiple languages. She said HB 2001 also required that landlords accept rent‑assistance payments and automated the expungement of qualifying forcible entry and detainer (FED) judgments when those judgments meet statutory criteria.

Why it matters: Committee members were shown how cost burdens and limited low‑cost stock push households toward court. Hebb emphasized that higher rent burdens and limited supply mean more households — especially households of color and households with children — face eviction risk and displacement.

Key facts and findings

- Court filings: Hebb presented court data showing 27,290 eviction filings in 2024 and average monthly filings above 2,200 during the year. She contrasted that with a 2019 monthly pre‑pandemic average of about 1,556 filings.

- Nonpayment cases: Hebb said nonpayment filings rose and accounted for about 87% of filings in 2024 (as presented to the committee).

- Legal‑procedural reforms: HB 2001 (2023) lengthened nonpayment notice periods to 10 days; requires notices to include multilingual assistance information; made payment before judgment a basis for case dismissal; prohibits landlords from refusing rent assistance payments; strengthened default‑judgment procedural protections; and automated expungement for qualifying FED judgments.

- Expungement eligibility: Hebb said the statute had long allowed expungement of some judgments (for example, those more than five years old or judgments where the tenant prevailed), and that automation of expungements began under an Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) timeline. She reported OJD had removed roughly half of qualifying judgments from records by the end of 2024.

- Court representation gap: Hebb told the committee that about 9% of tenants in eviction proceedings are represented by counsel. By contrast, she reported about 46% of landlords are represented by counsel and that representation rises to about 62% when agents are included. She described that disparity as a structural concern in access to justice.

- Displacements outside court: Hebb cautioned the committee that many displacements never reach court. She cited studies estimating that the number of households receiving landlord notices can be two to five times higher than court filings, meaning the court data likely undercounts total displacement risk.

Assistance programs and timing concerns

Hebb described rent assistance and prevention resources as key to preventing judgments. She noted the Eviction Prevention Rapid Response program — prioritized for households already in court proceedings — could turn around assistance quickly (she said it has worked "as quickly as a week") but that the program had run out of money at the time of her testimony. She also summarized that rent assistance payments accepted before judgment generally lead to dismissals under the statutory change.

Voucher uptake and lease‑up timeframes

Hebb and senators discussed voucher use and time limits. Using a Central Oregon example reported in local media, Hebb said that only about 32% of households offered vouchers in one 2023 example made use of them, in part because households have 120 days to use vouchers and can forfeit them if they cannot find a unit to lease up in that time. Hebb noted local housing authorities can grant reasonable‑accommodation extensions in some cases (for example, disability‑related needs), but she said extending voucher timeframes generally is governed by federal regulation.

Committee questions and docket procedure

Senators asked procedural and jurisdictional questions: whether evictions are heard in justice courts or circuit courts (Hebb said it varies by county and that some counties use both court types), how quickly rent assistance arrives in practice (Hebb said turnaround varies by program and provider, and that pandemic‑era centralized programs were slow but that targeted rapid‑response funds can be quicker), and whether landlords are shifting properties to short‑term rentals because of perceived eviction hurdles (Hebb said she has heard that concern from some landlords).

What the hearing did not decide

This was an informational briefing; no committee votes were taken. Hebb offered to provide committees additional materials and county‑level court mappings after the hearing.

Ending

The committee did not take formal action after the presentation. Hebb said she would follow up with committee members and provide the presentation materials and county court mappings. The chair closed the informational session and proceeded to the next agenda item on homeownership programs.