Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.805 (2026)

Action for waste

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      105.805 Action for waste. If a guardian, conservator or tenant in severalty, or in common, for life or for years of real property commits waste thereon, any person injured thereby may maintain an action at law for damages against the guardian, conservator or tenant. In the action there may be judgment for treble damages, forfeiture of the estate of the party committing or permitting the waste and eviction from the property. Forfeiture and eviction shall only be given in favor of the person entitled to a reversion against the tenant in possession, when the injury to the estate in reversion is determined in the action to be equal to the value of the tenant’s estate or unexpired term, or when the waste was committed with malice. [Amended by 1973 c.823 §103]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Vollertsen v. Lamb, 732 P.2d 486 (Or. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vollertsen v. Lamb, 732 P.2d 486 (Or. 1987). · cites it 18× “” Landlord further alleged that the waste was committed *492 “wilfully, maliciously and in deliberate disregard of plaintiffs rights and plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages * * * under the provisions of ORS 105.805.” Landlord also alleged that he was entitled to…”
Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLC, 180 F. Supp. 3d 745 (D. Or. 2016). · cites it 3× “Whether Ross’s Remodel of the Failing Building Basement Is Waste Walker Place brings its statutory waste claim under ORS § 105.805. That statute provides, “If a guardian, conserva-; tor or tenant in severalty, or in common, for life or for years of real property commits waste…”
Kinzua Lumber Co. v. Daggett, 281 P.2d 221 (Or. 1955). · cites it 2× “810 makes provision for the recovery of treble damages from anyone who “wilfully injures” a tree, and, going on, prescribes the manner in which the evil purpose may be established, we cannot, by the process of judicial interpretation, infuse into ORS 105.”
Holman Transfer Co. v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 599 P.2d 1115 (Or. 1979). “The considerations which we found convincing in those cases do not necessarily apply when we are construing a statute which, like ORS 756.”
Jones v. Bierek, 743 P.2d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Lamb, 302 Or 489 , 732 P2d 486 (1987), the Supreme Court held that an action by a landlord against a former tenant for damages to the premises under ORS 105.805 is a tort which exists independently of RLTA and the parties’ rental agreement and which was therefore governed by the…”
Waldner v. Stephens, 200 P.3d 556 (Or. 2008). “The court noted that the landlord’s claim relied on ORS 105.805 and not the ORLTA, and that he had not pleaded his claim “as an attempt to enforce the rental agreement.”
Catellus Dev. Corp. v. L.D. McFarland Co., 910 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Or. 1995). “505; and (11) Eleventh Claim — by allowing a release of hazardous substances and waste which damaged the Property, McFarland breached its duty under ORS 105.805 to prevent waste. *1513 In response, Defendants collectively move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third, Fourth,…”
Pedro v. January, 494 P.2d 868 (Or. 1972). “② There are two other statutes of interest: ORS 105.805, which permits an action for triple damages against a life tenant who commits waste; and ORS 105.”
Vollertsen v. Lamb, 706 P.2d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “220 1 for unpaid rent and under ORS 105.805 2 for waste. As well as holding that the Act provided plaintiffs exclusive remedy, the trial court specifically held that ORS 105.”
Schlabach v. Tollenaar, 98 P.3d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “81 for roof and sewer repairs and cleanup costs in a waste claim under ORS 105.805. The parties waived a jury trial, and the case was tried to the court.”
Nelbach v. Nelbach (D.C. 2023). “Law § 815 (McKinney 2022); Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.805 (2021); S.D. Codified Laws § 21-7-2 (2023); Wash.”
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.