105.145 Judgment
on trial by court; duties of parties to stipulated agreement. (1) If an action is tried by the
court without a jury, and after hearing the evidence the court concludes that
the complaint is not true, the court shall enter judgment against the plaintiff
for costs and disbursements. If the court finds the complaint true or if
judgment is rendered by default, the court shall render a general judgment
against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the
premises and the costs and disbursements of the action. If the court finds the
complaint true in part, the court shall render judgment for the restitution of
such part only, and the costs and disbursements shall be taxed as the court
deems just and equitable.
(2) If, as a
result of a court-sponsored or other mediation or otherwise, the plaintiff and
defendant agree, in the manner provided by ORCP 67 F for judgment by
stipulation, that the defendant shall perform in a certain manner or that the
plaintiff shall be paid moneys agreed to be owing by the defendant and that as
a result of that performance or payment the defendant shall retain possession
of the premises, including retention of possession contingent upon that
performance or payment of moneys by the defendant by a certain date, the court
shall enter an order or judgment to that effect. In addition, if the plaintiff
and defendant agree that the plaintiff shall perform in a certain manner or pay
moneys to the defendant by a certain date, the court shall enter an order or
judgment to that effect.
(3) If, as
provided by subsection (2) of this section, the parties enter an order or
judgment by stipulation that requires the defendant to perform in a certain
manner or make a payment by a certain date and the defendant later demonstrates
compliance with the stipulation, the court shall enter a judgment of dismissal
in favor of the defendant. [Amended by 1997 c.577 §35; 1999 c.603 §36; 2003
c.378 §22]
Notes of Decisions
Exec. Mgmt. Corp. v. Juckett, 547 P.2d 603 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 2× “” Confusion in this case is created by the legislature failing to amend ORS 105.145, which provides: "* * * If the court finds the complaint true * * * it shall render a general judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and the…”
Prime Residential v. Neal, 340 Or. App. 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “By way of background, ORS 105.145 through ORS 105.149 supply a process through which a landlord and a tenant can negotiate a settlement of an eviction proceeding that permits the tenant to retain possession of the premises contingent on compliance with the parties’ agreement.”
Erickson v. R&R Ranches, LLC, 503 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Through court- sponsored mediation in November 2015, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment, purportedly under ORS 105.145,1 1 ORS 105.145 provides, in part: “(2) If, as a result of a court-sponsored or other mediation or otherwise, the plaintiff and defendant agree, in…”
Share v. Williams Et Ux, 285 P.2d 523 (Or. 1955).
“ORS 105.145. The court proceeded to order that neither party should have costs or disbursements which would indicate that the court thought that the judgment was given in a proceeding in equity.”
Prime Residential v. Neal, 340 Or. App. 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “By way of background, ORS 105.145 through 105.149 supply a process through which a landlord and a tenant can negotiate a settlement of an eviction proceeding that per- mits the tenant to retain possession of the premises contin- gent on compliance with the parties’ agreement.”
South State Inv. Co. v. Brigum, 611 P.2d 305 (Or. 1980).
“Plaintiff also prayed for costs and disbursements as provided in ORS 105.145. The sheriff attempted to personally serve defendant at the apartment on May 5, 1978.”
Natache D Rinegard-Guirma (Bankr. D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” At trial, the bank’s lawyer acknowledged that resort to enforcement of the foreclosure judgment would be unnecessary for the bank either to collect any money from Guirma (the bank has no deficiency judgment) or to obtain ownership of the property to the exclusion of Guirma…”
Edwards v. Fenn, 768 P.2d 942 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“The remaining issues here were plaintiffs’ claims for costs and disbursements in the action due them under ORS 105.145, and for the amount of the continuance bond posted under ORS 105.”
Lindsey v. Normet, 341 F. Supp. 638 (D. Or. 1970).
“*642 A fourth ground of attack asserts that ORS 105.145 and 105.150 offend both due process and equal protection of the laws because these sections deny a tenant the opportunity to raise in an F.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.145(2) — 3 cases
Prime Residential v. Neal, 340 Or. App. 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“By way of background, ORS 105.145 through ORS 105.149 supply a process through which a landlord and a tenant can negotiate a settlement of an eviction proceeding that permits the tenant to retain possession of the premises contingent on compliance with the parties’ agreement.”
Erickson v. R&R Ranches, LLC, 503 P.3d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Through court- sponsored mediation in November 2015, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment, purportedly under ORS 105.145,1 1 ORS 105.145 provides, in part: “(2) If, as a result of a court-sponsored or other mediation or otherwise, the plaintiff and defendant agree, in…”
Prime Residential v. Neal, 340 Or. App. 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“By way of background, ORS 105.145 through 105.149 supply a process through which a landlord and a tenant can negotiate a settlement of an eviction proceeding that per- mits the tenant to retain possession of the premises contin- gent on compliance with the parties’ agreement.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.