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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 701.565 (2026)

Notice of defect requirement; contents; mailing

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      701.565 Notice of defect requirement; contents; mailing. (1) Except as provided in ORS 701.600, an owner may not compel arbitration or commence a court action against a contractor, subcontractor or supplier to assert a claim arising out of or related to any defect in the construction, alteration or repair of a residence or in any system, component or material incorporated into a residence located in this state unless the owner has sent that contractor, subcontractor or supplier a notice of defect as provided in this section and has complied with ORS 701.575.

      (2) An owner must send a notice of defect by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If a notice of defect is sent to a contractor or subcontractor, the owner must send the notice to the last known address for the contractor or subcontractor as shown in the records of the Construction Contractors Board. If a notice of defect is sent to a supplier, the owner must send the notice to the Oregon business address of the supplier or, if none, to the registered agent of the supplier.

      (3) A notice of defect sent by an owner must include:

      (a) The name and mailing address of the owner or the owner’s legal representative, if any;

      (b) A statement that the owner may seek to compel arbitration or bring a court action against the contractor, subcontractor or supplier;

      (c) The address and location of the affected residence;

      (d) A description of:

      (A) Each defect;

      (B) The remediation the owner believes is necessary; and

      (C) Any incidental damage not curable by remediation as described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; and

      (e) Any report or other document evidencing the existence of the defects and any incidental damage. [2003 c.660 §2; 2011 c.268 §1]

 

      Note: See note under 701.560.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2017 · leading case: Strizver v. Wilsey, 150 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Strizver v. Wilsey, 150 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 17× “595, to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiffs had not complied with ORS 701.565 and ORS 701.575, which require homeowners to take certain steps to allow remediation of construction problems before bringing suit against residential contractors.”
Shell v. Schollander Companies, 336 P.3d 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff served a Notice of Defect on defendant, pursuant to ORS 701.565, on June 25, 2010. The dispute centers on which statute of repose applies to these facts.”
Adrianus Alkemade v. Quanta Indem. Co., 687 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2017). “See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 701.565 , 701.570(5)(c)(A), 701.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 701.565(1): 1 case
Strizver v. Wilsey, 150 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “595, to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiffs had not complied with ORS 701.565 and ORS 701.575, which require homeowners to take certain steps to allow remediation of construction problems before bringing suit against residential contractors.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 701.565(2): 1 case
Strizver v. Wilsey, 150 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “595, to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiffs had not complied with ORS 701.565 and ORS 701.575, which require homeowners to take certain steps to allow remediation of construction problems before bringing suit against residential contractors.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 701.565(3)(d): 1 case
Strizver v. Wilsey, 150 P.3d 10 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “595, to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiffs had not complied with ORS 701.565 and ORS 701.575, which require homeowners to take certain steps to allow remediation of construction problems before bringing suit against residential contractors.”
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.