House Bill 4116: Oregon Closes DIDMCA’s Predatory Lending Loophole

On March 5, 2026, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 4116 (“HB 4116”), opting Oregon out of the federal preemption available under the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”) 12 U.S.C. § 1831d.

DIDMCA permits an out-of-state bank to make loans at interest rates allowable under the laws of the bank’s home state. For example, a bank in Utah can make loans in Oregon at rates allowed in Utah. Utah has no caps on rates, so a Utah bank can charge Oregon consumers whatever rates it chooses. Lenders partner with out-of-state banks to take advantage of this privilege.  Consumer advocates refer to these relationships as rent-a-bank lending. DIDMCA grants state banks the ability to export financial terms nationwide but also provides states with the right to “opt out” of federal preemption for loans made “in the state” that exercise the opt out option.

In 2007, the Oregon legislature protected Oregon consumers’ rights by eliminating licensing exemptions for financial institutions and capping interest rates at 36%. As financial technology has evolved, predatory online lenders found a way to exploit this law by using the DIDMCA loophole to bypass Oregon’s 36% interest rate cap.

Oregon is the fourth U.S. jurisdiction (others are Colorado, Iowa, Puerto Rico) to opt out under Section 525 of DIDMCA.  HB 4116 amends the Oregon Consumer Finance Act (“CFA”), and through these amendments, Oregon formally opts out of the federal interest-rate preemption for state-chartered banks. The amended Section 725.015 of the CFA expressly states that Oregon does not permit any of the amendments under DIDMCA to apply to consumer finance loans made in Oregon. Under the CFA, a “consumer finance loan” is defined broadly to include any loan or line of credit up to $50,000, whether unsecured or secured by personal or real property, with periodic payments and terms longer than 60 days.

HB 4116 further expands the CFA’s application to any lender, agent, broker, or facilitator making consumer finance loans of $50,000 or less to a consumer who resides in or maintains a domicile in Oregon and either:

  • Is physically located in the state when negotiating, agreeing to terms, or executing a consumer finance loan of $50,000 or less via mail, telephone, or internet; or
  • Makes a payment on such a loan by debiting an account at a financial institution or trust company in the state, or by using a negotiable instrument drawn on a financial institution or trust company.

HB 4116 will become effective June 7, 2026.

Submitted by: Michelle Druce, Executive Director of the Oregon Consumer League
www.oregonconsumerleague.org

Oregon HB 2463: Changes in Small Claims and Justice Court Response Times and Constitutional Jury Trial Rights

Oregon’s 2025 small claims legislation, House Bill 2463, began as an Oregon State Bar law-improvement measure sponsored through the Bar’s Consumer Law Section. As introduced, the bill was designed to clarify how to determine whether a defendant in small claims has the right to demand a jury trial under ORS 46.455: specifically, clarifying that the $750 threshold that must be met includes prejudgment or preaward interest, fees, and costs. During the legislative process, the bill was expanded by amendment to make another important procedural change: extending the time to respond to a small claims notice from 14 days to 30 days in both circuit court small claims proceedings and justice court proceedings.

HB 2463 changes both how response deadlines work and how to evaluate the jury-trial threshold in small claims cases.

The bill’s original purpose: clarifying the $750 jury-trial threshold.

HB 2463 originated through the Oregon State Bar’s Law Improvement Program. Emily Templeton—2026 Chair of the Oregon State Bar Consumer Law Section—testified before both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Oregon State Bar put the bill forward as a technical, clarifying bill intended to improve the clarity of Oregon’s small claims statutes and the right to a jury trial under Oregon’s Constitution.

Oregon’s constitution allows for the right to a jury trial where the value of the controversy exceeds $750. Or Const Art VII (Amended), § 3. Prior to January 1, 2026, the law was not clear as to how the value of the controversy was calculated, which resulted in inconsistent application of the right to a jury trial.

Under ORS 46.455, when a defendant receives notice of a small claim, the defendant may demand a hearing in small claims court, but if the claim exceeds $750, the defendant may instead invoke the constitutional right to a jury trial. The problem identified in the Oregon State Bar testimony was that defendants and courts may not know exactly which elements of damages listed on the Notice of Claim form count toward that $750 threshold.

HB 2463 amended ORS 46.455 to make clear that “prejudgment or preaward interest, fees and other costs are included in that $750 calculation.” The same clarification applies for claims in both circuit court and justice court. This rule makes the law easier for unrepresented defendants and court staff to understand when a defendant is entitled to a jury trial.

As amended, ORS 46.455 now provides that if “the total amount or value claimed, including identified prejudgment or preaward interest, fees and costs, exceeds $750,” the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. The justice court counterpart, ORS 55.065, was also amended to include parallel language.

The answer period to respond to a Notice of Small Claim is now 30 days.

HB 2463 started as a clarification bill about the jury-trial threshold, and through the legislative process, a major reform to increase access to justice for unrepresented defendants in small claims cases was added to the bill.

The proposed amendment, dated April 21, 2025, changed the time to respond to a Notice of Small Claim from “14 days” to “30 days.” The increased time to respond was effective for all cases filed after January 1, 2026. Related statutes were amended to note this change, including ORS 30.648, ORS 46.445, ORS 46.455, ORS 55.045, and ORS 55.065.

Testimony from Oregon Consumer Justice to the Senate Committee on Judiciary supported HB 2463 and the amendment to extend the answer period in small claims court from 14 days to 30 days. Oregon Consumer Justice described the civil legal system as overwhelming for people unfamiliar with court processes and stated that the 14-day answer period in small claims is often too short, particularly in debt collection cases.

The Amendment was adopted in the final bill, and HB 2463 included the increased 30-day deadline. In circuit court small claims cases under ORS 46.455, a defendant now has 30 days after service to admit and pay, demand a hearing, assert a counterclaim, or, if the amount exceeds $750, demand a jury trial. In justice court under ORS 55.065, the defendant now likewise has 30 days to respond.

How to determine whether there is a right to a jury trial

Under the enrolled bill, if a defendant has a right to request a jury trial to hear the claim in the Notice of Claim the Total claimed must be over $750. The total sum of the claim includes:

  1. the principal amount demanded;
  2. any identified prejudgment or preaward interest;
  3. any identified attorney fees or other fees;
  4. any identified costs.

If the total of those identified amounts exceeds $750, the defendant may invoke the right to jury trial under ORS 46.455 (small claims) or ORS 55.065 (justice court).

HB 2463 is a good example of how a technical bar-sponsored law-improvement bill can evolve into a meaningful procedural reform ensuring clear and consistently applied constitutional and due-process protections for Oregon consumers.

Chris Mertens
Mertens Law, LLC
1235 SE Morrison St., Fl. 1
Portland, OR 97213
[email protected]

OSB CONSUMER LAW SECTION AWARD OF MERIT PRESENTED TO CONSUMER ATTORNEY, MICHAEL FULLER

On December 11, 2025, the OSB Consumer Law Section presented consumer attorney, Michael Fuller, with the Section’s Award of Merit.  The Award of Merit recognizes an individual’s or entity’s efforts that have significantly advanced consumer rights in Oregon. In particular, the award recognizes achievements that required the recipient to overcome adversity and/or which improved access to justice.

Michael’s story is one of amazing grit and resilience.  He has a long list of accomplishments, protecting consumers and serving underdogs. He has empowered consumers to stand up and fight back through life-changing pro bono cases. He is a bridge to the underserved in our community.

Michael was a past Consumer Law Section Chair and is the founder of Underdog Law Office. Michael’s career exemplifies integrity, creativity, and tireless dedication to advancing consumer rights and access to justice.

Over the past year, Michael taught courses at all three Oregon law schools on tenant rights under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. By training the next generation of lawyers and inspiring interest in tenant defense, he is helping address the Bar’s urgent need for qualified attorneys to represent low-income tenants.

Michael is regularly invited to share his expertise on panels across the state, including Oregon Consumer Justice’s presentation on New Consumer Debt Collection Protections under the Family Financial Protection Act (SB 1595), the Multnomah Bar Association’s Insurance Considerations in Litigation program, and Lewis & Clark Law School’s Public Interest Law Project’s discussion on People’s Lawyering.

Through his teaching, mentorship, and pro bono work, Michael models the very best of our profession—a deep commitment to fairness, accountability, and the rule of law. His fearless dedication and passion for fighting for the underdog make him a natural fit for the Award of Merit.

Congratulations Michael and thank you for all you do to advance consumer rights and improve access to justice!

-Michelle Druce

Friday, October 17, 2025 Consumer Law Landscape CLE

Friday, October 17th, join the OSB Consumer Law Section and OCJ Law for an in-depth look at the 2025 Oregon Legislative Session and its impact on consumer law practice. This program will review significant bills that passed, analyze key Oregon Supreme Court decisions and highlight notable legislation that was introduced but stalled in committee or failed to advance through the House or Senate. Attendees will gain insight into both the changes now shaping consumer protection in Oregon and the policy debates that signal where the law may be headed.

Denied Over a Data Error: Using the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to Challenge Tenant Screening Reports

Imagine this: A man named Mr. Lopez applies for an apartment in Portland. He’s never been arrested, sued, or evicted. He has steady income, good references, and nothing to hide. But a few days later, he gets the news—his application was denied based on “information contained in a background report.”

When he finally gets a copy of the report, he sees why: a six-year-old eviction case filed in Lane County—against a different “Juan Lopez.” No middle name. No birth date. Just the wrong man, barred from housing because a screening company matched the name and ran with it.

This is a hypothetical. But the scenario is far from uncommon. In Oregon’s housing market, where tenants often face fierce competition for limited rental stock, screening errors don’t just inconvenience applicants—they lock them out.

The Rise of Tenant Screening Agencies

Tenant screening is a billion-dollar industry. Private companies like AppFolio RealPage, RentGrow, and TransUnion harvest eviction filings, criminal records, credit data, and “rental history” from across the country and package it into reports sold to landlords.

These screening reports frequently cause harm due to:

  • Outdated or obsolete records (e.g., dismissed or expunged cases);
  • Blatantly inaccurate data (e.g., mislabeling misdemeanors as felonies);
  • Misleading presentation (e.g., listing the end of probation as the date of conviction);
  • Mixed files resulting from common-name errors.

Tenant screening companies are Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA) subject to the FCRA. See List of Consumer Reporting Companies, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2025) (last accessed May 14, 2025). When these companies get it wrong, it’s tenants who pay the price—emotionally, financially, and in housing opportunity.

Legal Theories Under the FCRA

The FCRA provides a private right of action for various violations, many of which are especially relevant to tenant screening. Key statutory claims include:

  • 1681e(b) – Failure to ensure accuracy:

CRA’s must use “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in reports. Reports that misstate outcomes or confuse identities violate this provision.

  • 1681i – Failure to reinvestigate disputes:

CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information. Failure to do so can support a standalone claim.

  • 1681c – Reporting obsolete information:

Non-conviction adverse information older than seven years (e.g., arrests, civil cases) may not be included—unless the statute of limitations hasn’t expired.

  • 1681s-2(b) – Failure of furnishers to investigate:

If the furnisher of the inaccurate information (e.g., a property management company) fails to correct it after receiving a CRA dispute, the consumer may have a viable claim against the furnisher.

  • § 1681n(a) & 1681o(a) – Damages:

Depending on whether the violation was willful or negligent, consumers may recover actual, statutory, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees.

Practical Considerations for Oregon Practitioners

To bring a successful FCRA claim, attorneys must establish more than a mere error. Key elements include:

  • A verifiable inaccuracy in the report;
  • Causation and injury (e.g., housing denial, lost deposits, emotional distress);
  • Evidence of unreasonable procedures or failure to reinvestigate;
  • Publication to a third party (i.e., report shared with a landlord).

Discovery may involve seeking internal accuracy audits, matching algorithms, and data source contracts. Oregon practitioners should also be aware of:

  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016) (need to plead injury in fact); TransUnion v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021) (same).
  • Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 127 S. Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (for punitive damages, plaintiff must demonstrate defendant knew or should have known that its conduct violated the statute).

Keep in mind the statute of limitations. A plaintiff must bring a FCRA claim within the earlier of 2 years after plaintiff discovers the violation or 5 years after the violation occurred. See §1681p.

Conclusion

Tenant screening companies have become gatekeepers in Oregon’s housing market. But when they get it wrong—and they often do—tenants aren’t just losing out on an apartment. They’re losing stability, safety, and the chance to start over. Oregon attorneys can and should use the FCRA not just as a sword, but as a shield, to ensure that access to housing is based on facts, not flawed algorithms.

New lawyers and those without experience litigating FCRA claims are strongly encouraged to co-counsel with an FCRA specialist.

Emily Templeton, Attorney                                                                                                                   LinkedIn                                                                                                                                           Underdog Law Office

YOU’RE INVITED! Free Legal Answers CLE and Reception Hosted by OCJ Law

Hello,

Have you been curious about participating in OSB’s Free Legal Answers? Please join us for an immersive Free Legal Answers CLE put on by the OSB Consumer Law Section followed by a FUN SOCIAL!

WHERE: Keller Rohrback, 601 SW 2nd Ave #1900, Portland, OR 97204, in the The Den & The Study Room. Zoom participation is possible.

WHEN: November 20, 2024 from 4:00 – 5:30 (CLE); 5:45 – 7:30 (Social, see below).

WHAT: OSB’s Eric McClendon will present on Free Legal Answers. Then attendees will have the opportunity to TRY IT OUT! Choose what, if any, question(s) you want to answer remotely while being surrounded by a group of creative, fun, and collaborative lawyers.

AFTERWARDS: Please join us for a social from 5:45 – 7:30, hosted appetizers and bar by OCJ Law. Location TBD.

Please RSVP to our social chair, Rebecca Babarsky ([email protected]), by November 14 at 12 pm.

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:

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

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

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 judge informs all tenants they will have an opportunity to negotiate with their landlord or landlord agent the same day; most tenants want to negotiate.

After roll call, tenants file back into the Crane Room and wait. There are many more tenants than landlord lawyers and agents and most have multiple cases, sometimes a dozen. Tenants who sign up to work with TED have to queue with other tenants who signed up, waiting for our attorney to be available to speak with the tenant and then the landlord’s representative to negotiate. It looks somewhat like a DMV, with people waiting anxiously, needing to get back to their jobs, kids, expiring parking meters. Unlike at the DMV, the stakes are high – tenants we speak to consistently say that they arrived at court scared and hopeless.

One tenant client, “Mary,” met us while crying softly in the courtroom and setting a trial date for her eviction case. She’d lived in her apartment for 14 years, was over 50, and primary caretaker for her sister, 67 years old, who lives with her. Mary did not know where she or her sister would go. They are their only family around and friends did not have space. Now that Mary’s sister is on disability and Mary’s back to working part-time, they could pay the rent but not catch up on the months they fell behind. A rental assistance agency had committed funds to Mary’s housing back in May 2023 but by October 2023 they had not been received. With our help, Mary connected with a different rental assistance agency, the landlord promptly sent the required information, Mary’s back rent was paid and her eviction case dismissed.

During negotiations, a landlord lawyer or agent will typically tell unrepresented tenants, based on the negotiating authority their landlord clients, who are not present, allow, that unless they can pay everything owed in a short amount of time, their choices are to move out or be evicted. For most tenants, paying in full in short order is not possible. Yet, for most tenants, avoiding an eviction and staying housed might both be possible thanks in large part to recent legislation.

Oregon’s HB 2001 (2023)[6] did a lot for low-income tenants evicted for nonpayment, allowing them up until the time of trial to pay the rent due listed on their eviction notice to require the case be dismissed. Multnomah County’s primary rental assistance agency, Bienestar, is also onsite in the Crane Room, accepting referrals and answering questions about individual cases for tenants and their lawyers.

With a modicum of legal advice, options widen for parents trying to keep their kids housed after an illness, injury, or job loss puts them behind on rent. They can set a trial date, which gives them at least two weeks to work with rental assistance and to earn, raise, and otherwise find the back rent they owe. A tenant might need help negotiating a move out, repairs, a behavioral agreement, or other terms with the landlord.

Most importantly, those who receive legal advice know how to avoid having an eviction on their record, a shared goal among TED’s clients. Disruptive displacement—having to move under unfavorable terms—leads to homelessness,[7] negative health outcomes,[8] interference in children’s education,[9] instability in communities,[10] negative impacts on credit scores, and makes it harder to rent again.[11]

Tenant eviction defense prevents disruptive displacement. In a randomized trial in New York City, “Tenants who were represented by attorneys were more than four times more likely to retain possession of their apartments than similar tenants who were not represented.”[12] Representation has drastically reduced disruptive displacement in San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia and many other cities.[13] Washington State passed a right to counsel program for tenants in 2021[14] and already 50% of tenants served through the program, whose outcomes are known, remain housed.[15]

Preventing evictions presents huge cost savings for shelters and other social support systems. A cost benefit analysis commissioned by New York City predicted that a program to represent tenants could recoup $3 to $6 for every dollar spent.[16] In fact, it is cheaper, period, to keep people housed than allow them to become homeless.[17]

Eviction also discriminates. In many cities across the U.S., Black tenants, particularly women as heads of Black households, are 2X as likely, or more, to be evicted.[18] In California, Latinx tenants saw similarly disproportionate eviction rates.[19] Recent scholarship argues that summary eviction proceedings are racialized and “one of the most violent acts resulting from a judgment of our civil courts.”[20]

Over six months of 2023, The Commons Law Center’s in-court Tenant Eviction Defense program served 516 tenants over 78 clinics. On clinic days, TED’s attorneys gave brief legal advice and helped negotiate nearly 20% of the matters on the docket. Of the tenants we served, 84% avoided having an eviction on their record, including 56% who kept their housing and 28% who agreed to move out.

Typically, with a team of just 1 lawyer and 1 paralegal or clerk, TED has been able to obtain majority favorable outcomes for about a fifth of Multnomah tenants on the eviction docket. The downstream effects of this simple intervention cannot be overstated.

No tenant should be disruptively displaced because they are unaware of their rights and opportunities, struggling to navigate the legal system under stress, or unable to negotiate on a level playing field with landlord lawyers. Policymakers have an opportunity to positively impact multiple overloaded systems by investing in legal advice for tenants facing eviction.

The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel maintains a list of jurisdictions that have adopted some kind of right to legal counsel for tenants facing eviction.[21] In Oregon, local and state governments are responding. Oregon Housing and Community Services commissioned a report from the Oregon State Bar to explore the landscape of tenant representation, and is working with Oregon State Bar’s Modest Means Program and others to fund legal services for tenants facing eviction. Multnomah County and the City of Portland Housing Bureau have made significant investments.

As a result, Oregon Law Center’s Eviction Defense Project has doubled the number of lawyers practicing tenant law since 2020; Portland Community College’s CLEAR Clinic and Multnomah Public Defender’s Community Law Project have effective, ongoing and growing programs to serve tenants; and Portland State University’s Evicted in Oregon serves as a data clearinghouse. The Commons Law Center is proud to be among this group of committed justice advocates and looks forward to expanding our work to help more families stay housed.

By: Auden Friedman & Amanda Caffall

[1] Evicted in Oregon, By County: Latest Eviction Data. Updated on: November 15, 2023, https://www.evictedinoregon.com/by-county-latest-eviction-data (last visited on December 4, 2023).
[2]  Evicted in Oregon, By County: Latest Eviction Data. Updated on: November 15, 2023, https://www.evictedinoregon.com/by-county-latest-eviction-data (last visited on December 4, 2023).
[3] Sharon Meieran, 50 is the New 70: The rising epidemic of aging and homelessness 5 (2021).
[4] Andrew Scherer, The Case Against Summary Eviction Proceedings: Process as Racism and Oppression, 53 Seton Hall Law Review 18 (2022).
[5] By County: Latest Eviction Data. Updated on: November 15, 2023, https://www.evictedinoregon.com/by-county-latest-eviction-data (last visited on December 4, 2023).
[6] H.B. 2001. § 2021.
[7] Stout Risius Ross, LLC, The Estimated Cost of an Eviction Right to Counsel Outside of New York City 30 (2022).
[8] Ibid., 43.
[9] Ibid., 50.
[10]Ibid., 54.
[11]Ibid., 40.
[12] Stout Risius Ross, LLC, The Estimated Economic Impact of an Eviction Right to Counsel in Detroit 98 (2022).
[13]  Ibid., 97-101.
[14] ​​RCW 59.18.640
[15] Jim Bamberger et al., Report to the Legislature on Implementation of the Appointed Counsel Program for Indigent Tenants in Unlawful Detainer Cases 8 (2022)
[16] Stout Risius Ross, LLC, The Estimated Economic Impact of an Eviction Right to Counsel in Detroit 11,12 (2022).
[17] Ly A, Latimer E, Housing First Impact on Costs and Associated Cost Offsets: A Review of the Literature. 60 Can J Psychiatry 475-87 (Nov. 2015).
[18]Stout Risius Ross, LLC, The Estimated Cost of an Eviction Right to Counsel Outside of New York City 27 (2022).
[19] Stout Risius Ross, LLC, The Estimated Economic Impact of an Eviction Right to Counsel in Detroit 66 (2022).
[20] Andrew Scherer, The Case Against Summary Eviction Proceedings: Process as Racism and Oppression, 53 Seton Hall Law Review 2 (2022).
[21] National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, Current Tally of Tenant Right to Counsel Jurisdictions (2022) http://civilrighttocounsel.org/highlighted_work/organizing_around_right_to_counsel (last visited December 4, 2023)

What Happens When You Finance a Vehicle at a Dealership

When consumers go in to an Oregon dealer to make a financed purchase of a vehicle, they usually walk out with completed documents believing they have finalized their purchase and financing. Nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, when a consumer enters into a financing agreement at a car dealer, very rarely is the contract final.

What Actually Happens at the Dealership?

If you have ever purchased a car from a dealer before, you are very familiar with the process. After you decide on a car you like, the salesperson asks, “how much can you do a month?” You tell them the number and they take it back to their manager to get the approval. They usually come back and say something like, “we can’t get you $400 per month but we can get $425.” After some back and forth, you both agree on a monthly payment amount that you can afford, and you go to the back room to sign the documents. You review the terms (the APR, the monthly payment amount, number of terms, etc.) and you and the dealer both sign. You shake hands, they hand you the keys, tell you “congratulations”, and you drive home with your new car. Everything is done, right? Well, not quite. There are some surprising things they likely did not tell you about.

  1. Financing was not final when you signed the financing agreement.

Yes, you read that right. The financing agreement (often called, Retail Installment Contract) that you and the dealer both signed is not final. At the time of signing, the dealer might have told you that they “got you financed at 4.9% interest and $410 per month with Oregon Community Credit Union.” What likely happened was they did not even submit an application to a lender, let alone receive an approval. What they actually did was they estimated that they can probably get you financed at 4.9% interest and $410 per month with Oregon Community Credit Union. The retail installment contract that you signed was an agreement where the dealer is giving you the loan for $410 per month with the option to sell that loan to a lender at that rate.

  1. They can change the lender without your approval.

After you sign the retail installment contract with the dealer, it then has 14 days to find a lender who is willing to purchase the loan at that rate. Even if the retail installment contract specifically states that the lender is Oregon Community Credit Union, the dealer can unilaterally choose to sell the loan to whatever finance company they want, as long as the loan terms remain the same. So don’t be surprised if you get a welcome letter from United Finance Company telling you to make your payments to them.

  1. You may have to return your newly purchased car.

Oftentimes, life isn’t that neat in the auto finance world. Sometimes, the dealer cannot find financing at the rate that they promised you in the retail installment contract that you and the dealer signed. Luckily for them there’s a built-in condition subsequent in the contract that allows them to either finance the loan in-house or cancel the loan, if they can’t find financing within 14 days of signing the contract. What does this really mean in practice? If they don’t like the contract you signed, they can back out of the deal, but if you don’t like the contract you signed, you cannot. If this does not sound fair to you, this is where the law steps in to make it slightly more even.

If the dealer calls you to sign new paperwork because they were not able to find financing for you at the rate you both agreed on, the law allows you to unwind the deal and get all of your money back. The dealer may attempt to keep your down payment, but that is illegal under ORS 646A.090.

  1. They can cancel the deal if they want to.

If you’re thinking all of this doesn’t sound right, you’re not alone. Dealers often present the terms in the finance office as if that is a final and binding contract, and they rarely say there’s an option to unwind the deal if the financing fails. If the consumer wants to unwind the deal the next day because they find out they cannot afford the payments, dealers never allow the consumer to unwind the deal. But if the dealer can’t fund the deal, they can get out of the contract, risk free. This is clearly not a fair situation for consumers.

  1. We need a change in the statute.

That is why in 2023, lawmakers proposed a bill (HB 2801) to prevent dealers from creating an option to cancel the contract. What this means is if the dealer and the consumer sign a contract, that contract is final at the time of signing. Although HB 2801 seems like a no-brainer, it did not pass out of committee. The bill was sent to a workgroup, and it will be discussed outside of committee with the hope of coming back to life in the next session. With any luck and lots of hard work, HB 2801 will pass, and the statute will finally reflect what the average Oregonians believe is happening when they sign a contract to purchase a car.

By Young Walgenkim