Sewage Disposal Is an Essential Service for Tenant-Owned RV Spaces; Tenant Sanitation Duties Are Independent of Landlord Habitability Compliance

Sewage Disposal Is an Essential Service for Tenant-Owned RV Spaces; Tenant Sanitation Duties Are Independent of Landlord Habitability Compliance

Introduction

In Jared v. Harmon, 374 Or 381 (2025), the Oregon Supreme Court resolved a recurring and practically important tension in the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA): what happens when a landlord fails to provide a habitable RV space, but the tenant, faced with that failure, contributes to unsanitary conditions? The Court held that (1) sewage disposal is an “essential service” landlords must provide for tenant-owned RV spaces, and ORS 90.320(3)’s “structure-only” exception does not excuse that obligation; and (2) tenants’ duties to keep premises sanitary under ORS 90.325 are independent of the landlord’s habitability obligations—meaning a tenant cannot legally discharge raw sewage onto the ground even if the landlord failed to install a sewage system.

The dispute arose when the respondent landlord (Greg Jared) rented a single RV space on farm-zoned land to the petitioner tenant (Katie Harmon). There was no septic or sewage system. After the tenant’s RV was connected to a pipe that discharged raw sewage to the ground and the county issued a health notice, the landlord issued a for-cause termination and brought a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action. The tenant defended and counterclaimed for habitability violations (failure to provide sewage disposal and safe drinking water).

The Court affirmed the landlord’s possession judgment, holding the tenant violated ORS 90.325 by continuing to discharge sewage after discovery of the condition. But it reversed on one counterclaim: the tenant may recover habitability damages for the lack of a sewage system because the landlord already knew of that condition and thus no tenant notice was required under ORS 90.360(2). The safe drinking water counterclaim failed for lack of landlord knowledge or notice.

Summary of the Opinion

  • ORS 90.320(3)’s “structure-only” exception does not eliminate a landlord’s obligation to provide sewage disposal for tenant-owned RV spaces. Sewage disposal is an “essential service” for such spaces (ORS 90.100(15)(b)(A)), and tenants have remedies when that service is not supplied (ORS 90.360, ORS 90.365).
  • Tenants’ duties under ORS 90.325 to keep areas under their control “clean [and] sanitary” are independent of a landlord’s habitability compliance. A landlord’s breach is not a condition precedent to, nor does it excuse, a tenant’s sanitation duties.
  • On these facts, after learning the RV’s connection discharged to the ground, the tenant’s continued use violated ORS 90.325(1)(b) and (c). The landlord could terminate for cause under ORS 90.392 after notice and failure to cure.
  • Habitability damages under ORS 90.360(2): The tenant may recover for the lack of a sewage disposal system because the landlord knew that condition; no tenant notice was required. But the tenant cannot recover for unsafe drinking water without evidence the landlord knew or reasonably should have known, or that the tenant gave notice.
  • Judgment: Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part; remand for further proceedings on damages for the sewage-disposal counterclaim.
  • Concurrence: Emphasized the practical limits some RV tenants face in invoking statutory remedies and stressed the fact-intensive nature of whether landlord failures prevent tenant compliance with ORS 90.325.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Bennett v. Farmers Ins. Co., 332 Or 138 (2001): Established that when a party prevails at trial, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to that party. The Court applied this standard in reviewing landlord’s premise-possession proof.
  • Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC, 374 Or 1 (2025): Recently clarified ORS 90.320’s habitability framework, including that the statute lists conditions a dwelling “must not substantially lack.” The Court adopted Jackson’s interpretive approach, including reliance on text, context, and helpful legislative history (Gaines methodology).
  • State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 373 Or 816 (2025): Confirmed standard of review for statutory interpretation—legal error, using the Gaines framework.
  • L & M Investment Co. v. Morrison, 286 Or 397 (1979): Recognized the 1973 ORLTA’s purpose to clarify and restate landlord-tenant rights and obligations, informing contextual reading of duties and remedies.
  • Napolski v. Champney, 295 Or 408 (1983): Held rent obligations are reciprocal to landlord habitability obligations (via ORS 90.250), and identified the “implicit withholding remedy” in FED cases through ORS 90.370. The Court contrasted this reciprocity with the non-reciprocal, independent nature of ORS 90.325 tenant sanitation duties.
  • Eddy v. Anderson, 366 Or 176 (2020): Described ORS 90.360 as providing two separate remedies for habitability violations (termination after cure opportunity and damages/injunctive relief), and recognized ORS 90.370’s counterclaim mechanism for withheld rent based on diminished value. Eddy anchored the remedial architecture applied here.
  • Legislative and regulatory context:
    • ORS 90.320: Landlord habitability duty “at all times.”
    • ORS 90.320(1)(c)(C)–(D): Water supply connected to a lawful sewage system; safe drinking water.
    • ORS 90.320(3): “Structure-only” exception for certain habitability requirements; inapplicable to sewage disposal for tenant-owned RV spaces.
    • ORS 90.325(1)(b)–(c): Tenant duty to maintain sanitary conditions and dispose of waste legally.
    • ORS 90.360(1), (2), (4): Fix-or-terminate notice remedy; damages/injunctive relief; landlord knowledge and tenant notice limitations; tenant-caused condition bar.
    • ORS 90.365(1), (2), (6): Remedies for failure to supply “essential services” (including sewage disposal for tenant-owned RV spaces), termination for imminent threat, and tenant-caused-condition bar.
    • ORS 90.392: For-cause termination, notice and cure structure; material violation of ORS 90.325 as cause.
    • ORS 90.401: Landlord may pursue remedies simultaneously or sequentially, including damages for tenant noncompliance.
    • ORS 90.370: Tenant counterclaims in possession actions; landlord’s pre-suit knowledge requirement for certain counterclaim relief.
    • ORS 90.100(14), (15)(b)(A), (37): Definitions of “dwelling unit” (for RVs, it is the space, not the RV), “essential service” (sewage disposal for tenant-owned RV spaces), and “premises.”
    • ORS 197.492, 197.493: RV park siting; confirmation that RVs may lawfully connect to sewage systems.
    • OAR 340-071-0130(3): Prohibits discharge of untreated wastewater onto the ground—regulatory backdrop to the county health notice.
    • URLTA (1972): Modeled the ORLTA; Commissioners’ Comments show landlord-tenant duties are “converse,” not contingent.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court followed the standard statutory interpretation framework: text, context, and legislative history. Three pillars undergird its conclusions.

  1. Sewage disposal remains a landlord obligation for tenant-owned RV spaces.
    • Textual anchor: ORS 90.100(15)(b)(A) expressly defines “sewage disposal” as an “essential service” for “rental space for a recreational vehicle owned by the tenant.” This is not merely definitional; it is operative via the remedies in ORS 90.360 and ORS 90.365. If tenants can obtain remedies for a failure to supply an essential service, landlords must have a corresponding obligation to supply it.
    • Context: ORS 90.320(3) excludes only those habitability requirements that “reasonably apply only to a structure” used as a residence. Unlike smoke alarms, locks, or building envelope integrity, sewage disposal does not “reasonably apply only” to a structure. The definition of “essential services” and the siting statutes (ORS 197.493) confirm sewage connections can be, and are, provided to RV spaces.
    • Legislative/Model Act context: The ORLTA and URLTA treat basic health and sanitation services as universal. Sewage disposal is fundamental to habitability irrespective of whether the dwelling is a permanent structure or an RV.
  2. Tenant sanitation duties under ORS 90.325 are independent, not contingent on landlord compliance with ORS 90.320.
    • Text: ORS 90.320 imposes landlord habitability duties “at all times”; ORS 90.325 imposes qualified tenant duties (e.g., “as the condition of the premises permits” and “to the extent that the tenant is responsible for causing the problem”). The statutes speak to distinct obligations; nothing makes ORS 90.325 conditional on ORS 90.320.
    • Context: The legislature has expressly created reciprocal dependencies elsewhere (e.g., ORS 90.250 rent reciprocity). It did not do so for sanitation duties. Instead, it provided tenants robust remedies to respond to landlord defaults (ORS 90.360 and 90.365), including cost-deduction, damages for diminished rental value, and termination—rather than a defense that excused unsanitary conduct.
    • URLTA commentary: Landlord maintenance duties and tenant cleanliness duties are “converse,” not conditional upon each other.
  3. Application to the facts: continued raw sewage discharge violated ORS 90.325 and justified for-cause termination under ORS 90.392.
    • Control and premises: Even if the discharge point was 50 feet away and outside the tenant’s direct control, the RV (and its discharge port) was within the tenant’s control. The tenant could cap the port and cease use—consistent with the county’s compliance instructions.
    • “As the condition of the premises permits”: The absence of a sewage system did not prevent the tenant from stopping the discharge by capping and using portable storage/offsite disposal.
    • Responsibility for causing the problem: The record supported the trial court’s implicit finding that tenant continued to use the illegal discharge after discovery, despite the notice, making her responsible at least in part.
    • Remedies the tenant could have used instead: Under ORS 90.365, the tenant could have procured reasonable amounts of the essential service (e.g., hauling/disposing sewage) and deducted costs from rent, or pursued diminished rental value damages, or pursued termination under ORS 90.360/ORS 90.365(2). The tenant-caused-condition bars in ORS 90.360(4) and ORS 90.365(6) foreclose remedies for harm caused by the tenant’s own deliberate/negligent acts.

3) Habitability Counterclaims and the ORS 90.360(2) Knowledge/Notice Rule

  • Counterclaim 1 (Sewage connection): Reversed for the tenant. The “condition that caused the noncompliance” was the absence of a sewage disposal system—a condition the landlord admitted he knew from the outset. Under ORS 90.360(2), where the landlord “knew or reasonably should have known” of the condition, tenant notice is unnecessary. Damages and/or injunctive relief are thus available.
  • Counterclaim 2 (Safe drinking water): Affirmed for the landlord. There was no evidence of landlord knowledge or tenant notice that the wellhouse water was unsafe for drinking, precluding damages under ORS 90.360(2).

4) The Concurrence

Justice Masih, joined by Justice James, agreed that the landlord breached habitability by not supplying sewage disposal and that the tenant’s first counterclaim should proceed. On possession, the concurrence underscored two points:

  • Practical limits: Many RV tenants may lack the resources or realistic ability to front the costs required to exercise statutory remedies (e.g., hauling/disposal; alternative housing), even if those costs are later recoverable.
  • Fact-intensiveness: Whether a landlord’s failures prevent a tenant from complying with ORS 90.325 is a fact question. On these facts, the record supported the trial court’s implicit finding that tenant bore responsibility by continuing the discharge after notice. But future cases may differ.

Impact and Implications

Practical Effects on RV Tenancies and Rural Rentals

  • Landlords renting single RV spaces (outside RV parks) should treat sewage disposal as a non-negotiable essential service. ORS 90.320(3) is not a safe harbor for omitting sewage connections for tenant-owned RVs.
  • Tenants cannot respond to a landlord’s failure by creating or perpetuating public health hazards. Continuing discharge of raw sewage after discovery, even absent a landlord-provided system, supports for-cause termination.
  • Counties and health authorities can continue to leverage OAR 340-071-0130(3), and landlords cannot defend by pointing to ORS 90.320(3).

Litigation Strategy and Proof

  • Possession claims based on ORS 90.325 violations will turn on proof of tenant control, factual ability to comply (“as the condition of the premises permits”), and whether the tenant caused or continued the condition after discovery and proper notice/opportunity to cure (ORS 90.392(4)).
  • Damage counterclaims under ORS 90.360(2) hinge on knowledge/notice: tenants should document landlord knowledge or give timely notice where landlord knowledge is uncertain; landlords should document inspections and responses to complaints.
  • Tenants should consider ORS 90.365 remedies early: procure the essential service and deduct; claim diminished rental value; or terminate for imminent threats (48-hour notice) when applicable. Preserve receipts and communications.
  • Tenant-caused-condition bars (ORS 90.360(4) and ORS 90.365(6)) can defeat tenant remedies if the tenant’s acts or omissions created or continued the problem.

Doctrinal Clarifications

  • Independence of duties: Unlike rent/habitability reciprocity (Napolski; ORS 90.250), the tenant’s sanitation duty (ORS 90.325) is not tethered to landlord habitability compliance (ORS 90.320). The statutes provide discrete duties and separate remedies rather than conditional obligations.
  • Scope of “premises” and tenant control: For RV tenancies, the “dwelling unit” is the space, not the RV, but the tenant’s control over the RV (e.g., capping a discharge port) matters. A tenant cannot excuse unsanitary offsite discharge merely because the endpoint lies beyond the rented pad.
  • ORS 90.320(3)’s “structure-only” carveout is narrow: It does not reach essential services like sewage disposal that are equally applicable to RV spaces. The definitional and remedial structure of the ORLTA enforces that result.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED): A fast-track court process to determine who has the right to possess a rental property. Not a damages trial, though counterclaims can impact rent/possession in some circumstances.
  • Habitability (ORS 90.320): The landlord’s duty to ensure the rented space is safe and livable; framed as conditions the dwelling must not “substantially lack,” including lawful sewage connection and safe drinking water.
  • Essential Services (ORS 90.100(15)): Core services necessary for habitability. For tenant-owned RV spaces, this includes sewage disposal—and, when required, drainage.
  • Tenant Sanitation Duties (ORS 90.325): Tenants must keep areas under their control clean and sanitary and dispose of waste legally. This duty applies “as the condition of the premises permits” and “to the extent [the tenant] is responsible for causing the problem.”
  • Notice and Knowledge (ORS 90.360(2)): Tenants can recover damages for landlord habitability violations only if the landlord knew or should have known of the problem, or if the tenant notified the landlord in a reasonable time before the loss. If the landlord truly had no knowledge and the tenant gave no notice, damages are barred.
  • For-cause Termination (ORS 90.392): Landlords may terminate a tenancy for material violations (including ORS 90.325 sanitation breaches) after written notice and a cure period. Failure to cure by the deadline leads to termination.
  • Tenant-Caused-Condition Bars (ORS 90.360(4); ORS 90.365(6)): Tenants cannot terminate or recover damages if the condition was caused by their own deliberate or negligent act or by someone on the premises with their consent.

Practice Takeaways

  • Landlords:
    • Before renting any RV space, confirm lawful sewage disposal and potable water issues; document systems and compliance steps.
    • Use RV-appropriate rental agreements that reflect ORLTA definitions and obligations, including essential services and cure-notice mechanics.
    • If a public health notice issues, deliver clear, compliant cure notices under ORS 90.392 and inspect for compliance before filing an FED.
  • Tenants:
    • Do not discharge sewage onto the ground. Upon discovering an illegal discharge, cap the RV port immediately and use lawful disposal.
    • Notify the landlord in writing of habitability issues unless you are certain the landlord already knows (e.g., no system installed), and preserve evidence of notice/knowledge.
    • Leverage essential service remedies: procure and deduct reasonable costs (with documentation), claim diminished value, or terminate if the condition presents imminent, serious threats and statutory criteria are met.
  • Counsel:
    • Build the knowledge/notice record for ORS 90.360(2) damages. Identify the specific “condition that caused the noncompliance.”
    • For possession, frame the ORS 90.325 inquiry around control, feasibility of compliance, responsibility for causing/continuing the problem, and cure opportunities.
    • Anticipate county health enforcement evidence (e.g., inspector testimony) and reconcile conflicting tenant testimony with site inspections.

Conclusion

Jared v. Harmon sets two clear guideposts in Oregon landlord-tenant law for RV spaces: (1) landlords must provide sewage disposal for tenant-owned RV spaces; the ORS 90.320(3) “structure-only” exception does not apply to essential services like sewage; and (2) tenants’ sanitation duties are independent. A landlord’s habitability breach does not license a tenant to create or perpetuate public health hazards by discharging raw sewage. The decision preserves robust tenant remedies for landlord failures—particularly where the landlord knows of the condition—while confirming that a tenant’s own acts may support for-cause termination if the tenant continues unsanitary conduct after discovery and notice.

The concurrence’s pragmatic caution—that many RV tenants may struggle to marshal resources to invoke statutory remedies—signals that future cases may turn on whether landlord breaches effectively prevent tenant compliance with ORS 90.325. For now, the Court’s rule of independent duties, coupled with knowledge/notice filtering for habitability damages, provides a structured framework for courts and parties confronting the growing reality of RV-based housing.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Oregon

Comments