Case Title: Burke v. Oxford House of Oregon Chapter V

Citation: 

Docket Number: S52226

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: June 22, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
KYRA BURKE,
Petitioner on Review,
v.
Respondents on Review.
(CC 0105-05394; CA A119933; SC S52226)
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted November 1, 2005.
Edward Johnson, Oregon Law Center, Portland, argued the
cause for petitioner on review.  With him on the briefs were Mark
G. Passannante, of Broer & Passannante, and Maureen Leonard.
Craig Colby, Portland, argued the cause for respondents on
review.  With him on the brief was Frank Wall.
Kathleen L. Wilde and James A. Wrigley, Oregon Advocacy
Center, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Fair
Housing Council of Oregon and Oregon Advocacy Center.
Adam Scott Arms, McKanna, Bishop, Joffe & Sullivan, LLP,
Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Community
Alliance of Tenants and JOIN.
Before Carson,** Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs,
De Muniz,*** Balmer, and Kistler, Justices.
CARSON, J.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
*Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, John A. Wittmayer, Judge. 196 Or App 726, 103 P3d 1184 (2004).
**Chief Justice when case was argued.
***Chief Justice when decision was rendered.
CARSON, J.
This case requires us to decide whether defendants were
subject to the requirements of the Residential Landlord and
Tenant Act (RLTA), ORS chapter 90.  Plaintiff brought an action
against defendants, Oxford House, Inc.; Oxford House of Oregon,
Chapter V; and Oxford House-Ramona, because they evicted her from
her residence without following the requirements of the RLTA. 
Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming, among other
things, that the nature of their relationship with plaintiff
exempted them from the RLTA.  The trial court, in denying
defendants' motion for summary judgment, rejected that argument
and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment,
concluding that the RLTA applied to defendants' arrangement with
plaintiff.  Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals
reversed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that
defendants' arrangement with plaintiff fit within two separate
exemptions from the RLTA's requirements.  Burke v. Oxford House
of Oregon Chapter V, 196 Or App 726, 744, 103 P3d 1184 (2004). 
We allowed plaintiff's petition for review and now reverse the
decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the
trial court.  
The following facts are undisputed.  Defendant Oxford
House, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation established "to allow
recovering alcoholics and drug addicts to support each other on
the road to independent living."  To further that mission, Oxford
House, Inc., grants charters to Oxford House chapters, and those
chapters establish and maintain individual Oxford House
residences.  Those residences are unsupervised, and Oxford House
provides no professional services to members living at its
residences.  The essential purpose of the Oxford House structure
is to allow recovering alcoholics and drug addicts to live
together in a common drug-and-alcohol-free residence.  Oxford
House, Inc., also provides support services to assist Oxford
House chapters and individual Oxford Houses in establishing
common residences for Oxford House members.  Oxford House, Inc.,
requires, as a condition of being granted a charter and of
maintaining that charter, that each Oxford House chapter, and the
houses run by that chapter, comply with three rules:  (1) each
Oxford House must be run democratically, with most decisions made
by a majority vote of members living in the house; (2) each
Oxford House must be financially self-supporting; and (3) any
member who relapses and begins using drugs or alcohol must be
expelled from the house immediately.
 (1)
Defendant Oxford House of Oregon, Chapter V (Oxford
House Chapter V) is an unincorporated association of recovering
alcoholics and drug addicts.  Oxford House, Inc., has granted a
charter to Oxford House Chapter V and has authorized Oxford House
Chapter V to establish and maintain individual Oxford House
residences.  
Defendant Oxford House-Ramona is an individual Oxford
House residence, established under the Oxford House Chapter V
charter.  Oxford House-Ramona provides housing for three to six
recovering alcoholics or drug addicts in a single house leased in
the name of Oxford House Chapter V.  Oxford House members living
in Oxford House-Ramona are assigned their own bedrooms but share
all other living spaces in the house.  Members pay a monthly
membership fee, the majority of which goes toward paying the rent
for the house.  The monthly fee also covers shared expenses such
as electricity and cable television, and part of the fee is sent
to Oxford House, Inc., as a "contribution."   
Plaintiff lived at Oxford House-Ramona.  In February
2001, following a dispute with a fellow member, a majority of the
members of Oxford House-Ramona found that plaintiff had violated
a rule prohibiting disruptive behavior.  Consequently, they
evicted plaintiff from Oxford House-Ramona and gave her 15
minutes' notice to remove her belongings.  Plaintiff was unable
to remove all her belongings, and other Oxford House members
moved the remaining belongings to the garage.  Some of
plaintiff's belongings were lost or stolen before she could
retrieve them.  Plaintiff sued defendants, seeking a declaratory
judgment that defendants were subject to the requirements of the
RLTA and seeking damages for her lost property and statutory
damages (2) for what she asserted was an unlawful eviction. 
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
asserting that (1) they were not subject to the requirements of
the RLTA because their arrangement with plaintiff was exempt from
that act's coverage; (2) they had formed no landlord-tenant
relationship with plaintiff; and (3) the RLTA was preempted by
federal law.  Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment, opposing each of defendants' legal arguments and
asserting that she was entitled to prevail on her claims as a
matter of law.  More specifically, plaintiff argued, both in the
trial court and before the Court of Appeals, that defendants
could not qualify as exempt from the RLTA because they had
structured their relationship with plaintiff to avoid application
of the RLTA, in violation of ORS 90.110.  In response to those
motions, the trial court concluded that (1) defendants and
plaintiff had a landlord-tenant relationship covered by the RLTA;
(2) defendants were not exempt from the requirements of the RLTA;
(3) the RLTA was not preempted by federal law; and (4) plaintiff
was entitled to her requested relief. (3) 
Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals concluded
that defendants' relationship with plaintiff fit within two
exemptions from the RLTA's coverage.  Id.  Based upon that
conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the
trial court and remanded the case for entry of a judgment in
defendants' favor.  Id.  Plaintiff sought and we allowed review
of the Court of Appeals decision.  
Before this court, defendants assert only that(1) they
were not subject to the requirements of the RLTA because their
relationship with plaintiff was exempt from that act's coverage
and (2) they had formed no landlord-tenant relationship with
plaintiff.  Defendants concede that the RLTA was not preempted by
federal law.
We consider only defendants' first argument because
defendants did not raise their second argument to the Court of
Appeals below.  The trial court specifically concluded that
defendants and plaintiff had formed a landlord-tenant
relationship.  Before the Court of Appeals, defendants argued
only that they were not subject to the requirements of the RLTA
because their relationship with plaintiff was exempt from that
act's coverage and that federal law preempted the RLTA.  On
appeal, defendants presented no argument that they had formed no
landlord-tenant relationship with plaintiff.  On review,
questions before this court "include all questions properly
before the Court of Appeals that the petition or the response
claims were erroneously decided by that court."  ORAP 9.20(2). 
Because defendants failed to present the Court of Appeals with
the question whether defendants and plaintiff had formed a
landlord-tenant relationship, we decline to consider it. 
Therefore, the sole issue before this court is whether
defendants were subject to the requirements of the RLTA. 
Fortunately, that issue is more interesting than it is difficult. 
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the RLTA applied to
the relationship between plaintiff and defendants.  
The RLTA "applies to, regulates and determines rights,
obligations and remedies under a rental agreement, wherever made,
for a dwelling unit located within this state."  ORS 90.115. 
However, ORS 90.110 lists various residential arrangements that
are exempt from the RLTA's requirements.  That statute provides,
in part: 
The Court of Appeals held that defendants' arrangement
with plaintiff fit into two of the exempt arrangements listed in
ORS 90.110.  We need not consider the correctness of that
interpretation, however, because we conclude that the
introductory phrase of ORS 90.110 precludes defendants from
qualifying for any of the exemptions listed in ORS 90.110.
The record in this case includes a memorandum from
Oxford House, Inc., that explains Oxford House operating
procedures to "new [Oxford House] groups, landlords, rental
agents[,] and local officials * * *."  That memorandum is
entitled "OXFORD HOUSE:  The Legal and Policy Reasons Underlying
Oxford House Group Leas[es]."  A subsection of that memorandum,
entitled "Who Signs the Lease," provides:
The introductory phrase of ORS 90.110 states that
various listed arrangements are exempt from the application of
the RLTA "[u]nless created to avoid the application of [the RLTA]
* * *."  The term "arrangements" includes not only the type of
rental arrangement but also the procedures by which the parties
have structured the rental arrangement.  See ORS 90.110(2)
(exempting from coverage of RLTA occupancy by purchaser of a
dwelling prior to closing or by seller following closing if the
occupancy is "permitted under the terms of an agreement for sale
of [the] dwelling * * *.")  The Oxford House memorandum clearly
illustrates that defendants structure their lease arrangements 
to avoid application of the landlord-tenant laws.  They readily
proclaim that that is the purpose of their group lease
requirement.  Therefore, defendants may not avail themselves of
any of the exemptions listed in ORS 90.110, and defendants were
subject to the requirements of the RLTA.  Consequently, plaintiff
was entitled to summary judgment because defendants did not
comply with the requirements of the RLTA when evicting her.  
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
1. According to Oxford House rules, a member also can be
expelled immediately, by a majority vote of house members, for
engaging in disruptive behavior, stealing, or not paying rent. 
Conversely, the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (RLTA)
requires a landlord to give a tenant a minimum of 24 hours'
notice before terminating a tenancy.  See former ORS 90.400(3)
(1999), renumbered as 90.396 (2005) (providing that landlord may
terminate tenancy on 24 hours' written notice if tenant commits
certain acts).  Of particular interest here, former ORS 90.400(9)
(1999), renumbered as 90.398 (2005), allows for speedy, although
not immediate, termination of a tenancy for drug and alcohol free
housing.  That statute provides:
Former ORS 90.400(9) (1999).
2. For example, ORS 90.375 allows a tenant to recover "up to
two months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained
by the tenant * * *" for an unlawful eviction.  Former ORS
90.425(16)(a) (1999), renumbered as ORS 90.425(a) (2005), allows
a tenant to recover "up to twice the actual damages sustained by
the tenant * * *" if the landlord fails to follow certain
procedures when dealing with tenant property.  Under ORS 90.245 a
tenant may "recover in addition to the actual damages of the
tenant an amount up to three months' periodic rent[ ]" if the
landlord attempts to enforce certain, prohibited, rental
agreement provisions.
3. The parties subsequently agreed on the amount of
plaintiff's damages, and the trial court entered judgment
accordingly.