105.180 Action
for failure to comply with duty of holder; recovery of costs; arbitration. (1) If any holder of an interest
in an easement fails to maintain the easement contrary to an agreement or
contrary to the maintenance provisions of a recorded instrument creating the
easement or, in the absence of an agreement or recorded instrument imposing
maintenance obligations, fails after demand in writing to pay the holder’s
proportion of the cost as indicated in ORS 105.175 (3) and (4), a civil action
for money damages or specific performance or contribution may be brought
against that person in a court of competent jurisdiction by one or more of the
other holders of an interest in the easement, either jointly or severally. In
any such civil action, the court may order such equitable relief as may be just
in the circumstances. Nothing in ORS 105.170 to 105.185 shall impose a
maintenance obligation on the holder of an interest in an easement based on the
maintenance provisions in an instrument creating the easement if such holder is
not a party to such instrument, whether the instrument is recorded or not,
after such holder ceases to use the easement.
(2) The
prevailing party shall recover all court costs, arbitration fees and attorney
fees.
(3) Any holder of
an interest in the easement may apply to the court of competent jurisdiction
where the easement is located and that has jurisdiction over the amount in
controversy for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion the
cost, and the matter may be arbitrated in accordance with ORS 36.600 to 36.740.
The application may be made before, during or after performance of the
maintenance work. [1989 c.660 §5; 1991 c.49 §3; 2003 c.598 §34]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case:
Guild v. Baune, 115 P.3d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Guild v. Baune, 115 P.3d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 18× “The legal basis for the fee awards was ORS 105.180. However, because this action does not arise under ORS 105.”
Lemargie v. Johnson, 157 P.3d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “175 and ORS 105.180. Plaintiffs argue that, under ORS 105.”
Gildow v. Smith, 957 P.2d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “Plaintiff did not specifically cite ORS 105.180 2 or request money damages, but he did seek attorney fees under ORS 105.”
Moir v. Ozeruga, 496 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 7× “Based on those determinations, the court concluded that, on the sixth coun- terclaim, “each party prevailed on half of the allegations decided under ORS 105.180.” Upon naming each party a partial prevailing party, the court awarded $81,000.”
Simpkins v. Connor, 150 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“Smith, 153 Or App 648, 653 , 957 P2d 199 (1998) (“[a]lthough plaintiff did not specifically allege that his action was brought under ORS 105.180, his *236 amended complaint adequately pie faded] a claim for relief under that section” where the complaint alleged that the…”
Pfaendler v. Bruce, 98 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“105, and ORS 105.180. According to 7 Thompson on Real Property § 60.”
Montagne v. Elliott, 92 P.3d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“” ORS 105.180 provides a civil action “for money damages or specific performance or contribution” against any holder of an interest in an easement that fails to maintain the easement in accordance with an agreement or the statute.”
Tipperman v. Tsiatsos, 915 P.2d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“” 6 ORS 105.180(1) provides that ORS 105.175 applies to “all easements existing on or created after January 1,1992[.”
Guild v. Baune, 119 P.3d 281 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “We held that the declaratory judgment establishing the parties’ proportionate responsibility under the easement does not arise under ORS 105.180 and that that statute cannot serve as a basis for an attorney fee award to any of the parties.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.180(1) — 4 cases
Guild v. Baune, 115 P.3d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“The legal basis for the fee awards was ORS 105.180. However, because this action does not arise under ORS 105.”
Moir v. Ozeruga, 496 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Based on those determinations, the court concluded that, on the sixth coun- terclaim, “each party prevailed on half of the allegations decided under ORS 105.180.” Upon naming each party a partial prevailing party, the court awarded $81,000.”
Gildow v. Smith, 957 P.2d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Plaintiff did not specifically cite ORS 105.180 2 or request money damages, but he did seek attorney fees under ORS 105.”
Tipperman v. Tsiatsos, 915 P.2d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“” 6 ORS 105.180(1) provides that ORS 105.175 applies to “all easements existing on or created after January 1,1992[.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.180(2) — 5 cases
Lemargie v. Johnson, 157 P.3d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“175 and ORS 105.180. Plaintiffs argue that, under ORS 105.”
Moir v. Ozeruga, 496 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Based on those determinations, the court concluded that, on the sixth coun- terclaim, “each party prevailed on half of the allegations decided under ORS 105.180.” Upon naming each party a partial prevailing party, the court awarded $81,000.”
Gildow v. Smith, 957 P.2d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Plaintiff did not specifically cite ORS 105.180 2 or request money damages, but he did seek attorney fees under ORS 105.”
Guild v. Baune, 115 P.3d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“The legal basis for the fee awards was ORS 105.180. However, because this action does not arise under ORS 105.”
Guild v. Baune, 119 P.3d 281 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“We held that the declaratory judgment establishing the parties’ proportionate responsibility under the easement does not arise under ORS 105.180 and that that statute cannot serve as a basis for an attorney fee award to any of the parties.”
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.