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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.641 (2026)

Civil action for unlawful collection practice; damages; attorney fees; time for commencing action

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

      646.641 Civil action for unlawful collection practice; damages; attorney fees; time for commencing action. (1) Any person injured as a result of willful use or employment by another person of an unlawful collection practice may bring an action in an appropriate court to enjoin the practice or to recover actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater. The court or the jury may award punitive damages, and the court may provide such equitable relief as it deems necessary or proper.

      (2) In any action brought by a person under this section, the court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal to a prevailing plaintiff. The court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal to a prevailing defendant only if the court finds that the plaintiff had no objectively reasonable basis for bringing the action or asserting the ground for appeal.

      (3) Actions brought under this section shall be commenced within three years from the date of the injury. [1977 c.184 §3; 1981 c.897 §79; 1995 c.618 §99; 2024 c.100 §30]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Lithia Motors, Inc. v. Yovan, 204 P.3d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lithia Motors, Inc. v. Yovan, 204 P.3d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 14× “However, the unlawful trade practice statutes also authorize the state, through district attorneys and the Attorney General, to bring actions to enjoin unlawful trade practices, ORS 646.632, and to recover civil penalties up to $25,000 for each trade practice violation.”
Van Westrienen v. Americontinental Collection Corp., 94 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D. Or. 2000). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs seek punitive damages under ORS 646.641(1) which provides that: Any person injured as a result of willful use or employment by another person of an unlawful collection practice may bring an action in an appropriate court to enjoin the practice or to recover actual…”
Quick Collect, Inc. v. Higgins, 308 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “*238 Finally, plaintiff attacks the trial court’s award of fees, asserting that, because ORS 646.641 and 15 USC section 1692k(a)(3) allow a discretionary award of attorney fees, the court was required to consider the factors under ORS 20.”
Creditors Prot. Ass'n Inc. v. Britt, 648 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “Assuming that plaintiff satisfied the requirements of ORCP 59H in taking its exception to the instruction, it is apparent from the record that the instructions were sufficient to satisfy even plaintiffs narrow interpretation of ORS 646.641. “Judge: The allegations are two…”
Lithia Medford LM, Inc. v. Yovan, 295 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “Under ORS 646.641(1), the Act authorizes an award of punitive damages against debt collectors who engage in unlawful debt collection practices proscribed in ORS 646.”
Chamberlain v. Jim Fisher Motors, Inc., 578 P.2d 1225 (Or. 1978). · cites it 2× “) because he coupled the statements with mention of the automatic judgment of $200 which is allowable under the provisions of ORS 646.641. Because, however, plaintiff's judgment has been affirmed under ORS 481.”
Steele v. a & B Auto. & Towing Serv., Inc., 899 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “ORS 646.641. At trial, defendant moved for directed verdicts against all three of plaintiffs claims, and plaintiff moved for a *635 directed verdict against defendant’s counterclaim.”
Barbara Parmenter Living Trust v. Lemon, 194 P.3d 796 (Or. 2008). “Of the remaining two claims, tenants prevailed on a claim (waste) for which no fees are authorized and *342 lost on a claim (unlawful debt collection practices) for which another statute, ORS 646.641(2), authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Hedrick v. Spear, 907 P.2d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× ““Defendant is entitled to recover $200 as damages under ORS 646.641(1). “12. “Defendant is entitled to an award of his attorney fees pursuant to ORS 646.”
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “, ORS 646.641(2) (authorizing prevailing party attorney fee award in action for unlawful debt collection practices); ORS 650.”
Pro Car Care, Inc. v. Johnson, 118 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “*260 Judgment and supplemental judgment on counterclaim under ORS 646.641 reversed; otherwise affirmed.”
Tipton v. Willamette Subscription Television, 735 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “639 to ORS 646.641, and against attorney defendants for negligent misrepresentation.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.641(1) — 8 cases
Lithia Motors, Inc. v. Yovan, 204 P.3d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “However, the unlawful trade practice statutes also authorize the state, through district attorneys and the Attorney General, to bring actions to enjoin unlawful trade practices, ORS 646.632, and to recover civil penalties up to $25,000 for each trade practice violation.”
Van Westrienen v. Americontinental Collection Corp., 94 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D. Or. 2000). “Plaintiffs seek punitive damages under ORS 646.641(1) which provides that: Any person injured as a result of willful use or employment by another person of an unlawful collection practice may bring an action in an appropriate court to enjoin the practice or to recover actual…”
Lithia Medford LM, Inc. v. Yovan, 295 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Under ORS 646.641(1), the Act authorizes an award of punitive damages against debt collectors who engage in unlawful debt collection practices proscribed in ORS 646.”
Creditors Prot. Ass'n Inc. v. Britt, 648 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “Assuming that plaintiff satisfied the requirements of ORCP 59H in taking its exception to the instruction, it is apparent from the record that the instructions were sufficient to satisfy even plaintiffs narrow interpretation of ORS 646.641. “Judge: The allegations are two…”
Steele v. a & B Auto. & Towing Serv., Inc., 899 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “ORS 646.641. At trial, defendant moved for directed verdicts against all three of plaintiffs claims, and plaintiff moved for a *635 directed verdict against defendant’s counterclaim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.641(2) — 8 cases
Lithia Motors, Inc. v. Yovan, 204 P.3d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “However, the unlawful trade practice statutes also authorize the state, through district attorneys and the Attorney General, to bring actions to enjoin unlawful trade practices, ORS 646.632, and to recover civil penalties up to $25,000 for each trade practice violation.”
Barbara Parmenter Living Trust v. Lemon, 194 P.3d 796 (Or. 2008). “Of the remaining two claims, tenants prevailed on a claim (waste) for which no fees are authorized and *342 lost on a claim (unlawful debt collection practices) for which another statute, ORS 646.641(2), authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Quick Collect, Inc. v. Higgins, 308 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “*238 Finally, plaintiff attacks the trial court’s award of fees, asserting that, because ORS 646.641 and 15 USC section 1692k(a)(3) allow a discretionary award of attorney fees, the court was required to consider the factors under ORS 20.”
Van Westrienen v. Americontinental Collection Corp., 94 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D. Or. 2000). “Plaintiffs seek punitive damages under ORS 646.641(1) which provides that: Any person injured as a result of willful use or employment by another person of an unlawful collection practice may bring an action in an appropriate court to enjoin the practice or to recover actual…”
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “, ORS 646.641(2) (authorizing prevailing party attorney fee award in action for unlawful debt collection practices); ORS 650.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.641(3) — 1 case
Bennett v. Reliable Credit Ass'n, 865 P.2d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
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.