Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140 (2026)

Criminal possession of rented or leased personal property

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

      164.140 Criminal possession of rented or leased personal property. (1) A person is guilty of criminal possession of rented or leased personal property if:

      (a) After renting an item of personal property from a commercial renter of personal property under a written agreement which provides for the return of the item to a particular place at a particular time, the person fails to return the item as specified, is thereafter served by mail with a written demand to return the item, and knowingly fails to return the item within 10 business days from the date of mailing of the demand; or

      (b) After leasing an item of personal property from a commercial lessor of personal property under a written agreement which provides for periodic lease payments, the person fails to pay the lessor a periodic payment when due for a period of 45 days, is thereafter served by mail with a written demand to return the item, and knowingly fails to return the item within 10 business days from the date of mailing of the demand.

      (2) Service of written demand under this section shall be accomplished by certified mail sent to the person who obtained the item of personal property by rental or lease, sent to the address stated in the rental or lease agreement and any other address of the person provided by the person to the renter or lessor. The person is responsible for providing correct current address information to the renter or lessor until the item of personal property is returned.

      (3) A bona fide contract dispute with the lessor or renter shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of criminal possession of rented or leased personal property.

      (4) For purposes of this section, the value of property shall be ascertained as provided in ORS 164.115. Criminal possession of rented or leased personal property is:

      (a) A Class A misdemeanor if the aggregate total value of the personal property not returned is under $500.

      (b) A Class C felony if the aggregate total value of the personal property not returned is $500 or more. [1979 c.476 §3; 1987 c.907 §9]

 

MAIL-RELATED OFFENSES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2014 · leading case: State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “Defendant next argues that the television shop owner is not a “commercial renter” under ORS 164.140 (1)(a). He contends that the primary business of the shop is to sell television sets and the rent to own agreements are in reality a method of financing and are not true rentals.”
State v. Williams, 209 P.3d 842 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). ““(c) Criminal possession of rented or leased personal property as defined in ORS 164.140. “(d) Criminal possession of a rented or leased motor vehicle as defined in ORS 164.”
State v. Roberts, 143 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “See Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140 (l)(a). He rented a television in Oregon, then failed to make payments and *939 failed to return the television upon demand from the rental company.”
State v. Jurado, 905 P.2d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of rented personal property of a value under $500, a Class A misdemeanor, ORS 164.140(1). As part of defendant’s sentence, the trial court imposed a restitution award of $775.”
Morris v. State, 659 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “However, we do note that both Oregon and Washington, which have statutes very similar to § 32-15-6 (see Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.140(a) (1990); Wash.Rev.”
State v. Green, 833 P.2d 311 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “*376 “(c) Criminal possession of rented or leased personal property as defined in ORS 164.140. “(d) Burglary as defined in ORS 164.”
State v. Haney, 301 P.3d 445 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “015), criminal possession of rented or leased personal property (ORS 164.140), criminal possession of a rented or leased motor vehicle (ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140(1) — 1 case
State v. Jurado, 905 P.2d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of rented personal property of a value under $500, a Class A misdemeanor, ORS 164.140(1). As part of defendant’s sentence, the trial court imposed a restitution award of $775.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant next argues that the television shop owner is not a “commercial renter” under ORS 164.140 (1)(a). He contends that the primary business of the shop is to sell television sets and the rent to own agreements are in reality a method of financing and are not true rentals.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant next argues that the television shop owner is not a “commercial renter” under ORS 164.140 (1)(a). He contends that the primary business of the shop is to sell television sets and the rent to own agreements are in reality a method of financing and are not true rentals.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140(a) — 1 case
Morris v. State, 659 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “However, we do note that both Oregon and Washington, which have statutes very similar to § 32-15-6 (see Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.140(a) (1990); Wash.Rev.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.140(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. McGill, 836 P.2d 1371 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant next argues that the television shop owner is not a “commercial renter” under ORS 164.140 (1)(a). He contends that the primary business of the shop is to sell television sets and the rent to own agreements are in reality a method of financing and are not true rentals.”
Morris v. State, 659 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “However, we do note that both Oregon and Washington, which have statutes very similar to § 32-15-6 (see Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.140(a) (1990); Wash.Rev.”
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.