Oregon Condo Rental Bans Need a 75 Percent Owner Vote (ORS 100.410)

The condominium supermajority. ORS 100.410(4) sets the baseline: a bylaw amendment is not effective unless it complies with subsections (5), (6) and (7) and ORS 100.415(1)(t), is approved by at least a majority of the unit owners, is certified by the association as adopted in accordance with the bylaws and the section and acknowledged, is approved by the Real Estate Commissioner where ORS 100.413 requires it, and is recorded in the office of the recording officer of each county in which the condominium is located. Subsection (5)(a) then bars an exclusively residential condominium from writing a bylaw that demands more than a majority to amend the bylaws generally. Subsection (5)(b) carves four subjects out of that majority rule and puts them behind 75 percent of the owners, or a higher percentage the bylaws specify: age restrictions, pet restrictions, limitations on the number of persons who may occupy units, and limitations on the rental or leasing of units. A board majority cannot impose a leasing cap on the strength of a simple vote.

Mixed-use condominiums count only the residential owners. ORS 100.410(6) covers the condominium whose declaration specifies that some of the units will be used for residential purposes. There, an amendment on a subsection (5)(b) subject is not effective unless approved by 75 percent, or any greater percent the bylaws specify, of the owners of the units the declaration says will be used residentially. Commercial owners in the same building do not dilute the residential vote on a leasing restriction.

The one-year clock on a bad vote. Under ORS 100.410(9) an amendment to the bylaws is conclusively presumed to have been regularly adopted in compliance with all applicable procedures unless the presumption is effectively rebutted in an action brought within one year after the effective date of the amendment, or unless the face of the amendment itself shows it received fewer votes than required. An owner who believes a rental ban passed with 60 percent has one year from the effective date to sue, and after that the shortfall stops mattering unless the recorded amendment admits it on its face.

Planned communities: no rental clause, but a declaration threshold. ORS 94.550 to 94.783 contains no counterpart to ORS 100.410(5)(b). Nothing in the Planned Community Act singles out leasing, renting, pets, age or occupancy for a supermajority. What governs instead is where the restriction lives. ORS 94.590(1)(a) allows the declaration to be amended only with the approval of owners representing at least 75 percent of the total votes in the planned community, or a larger percentage the declaration specifies, and ORS 94.590(2)(a) lets an amendment be proposed by a majority of the board or by at least 30 percent of the owners. ORS 94.590(1)(b)(B) adds a unanimity requirement: an amendment may not change the boundaries of any lot or any uses to which any lot or unit is restricted as stated in the declaration under ORS 94.580(2)(m), which is the declaration's statement of the use, residential or otherwise, for which each lot is intended, unless the owners of the affected lots or units unanimously consent. Bylaws are the softer target: ORS 94.625(5)(a) makes a bylaw amendment effective on approval by a majority of the votes present in person or by proxy at a duly constituted meeting, by written ballot in lieu of a meeting under ORS 94.647, or by another procedure the declaration or bylaws permit, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. ORS 94.625(6) closes one gap: if a provision that ORS 94.580 requires to be in the declaration has been put in the bylaws instead, the declaration's voting requirements govern amending it. ORS 94.625(8) mirrors the condominium act's one-year window to challenge an irregularly adopted bylaw amendment.

What Oregon does not do. There is no statutory grandfather clause protecting an owner who was already leasing when the restriction passed, no statutory minimum lease term, no statutory cap on the percentage of units that may be rented, and no hardship exemption written into either act. Those terms exist in Oregon communities only because a particular declaration or set of bylaws contains them.

Enforcement runs through the courts, not an agency. 410(9), and must file within one year after the amendment's effective date unless the recorded amendment shows the vote shortfall on its face. 410(4) regardless of the vote. 580(2)(m) without the unanimous consent of the affected owners. 780(3) requires the suit within one year after the discovery or identification of the violation. 777 makes an owner's failure to comply with the declaration, bylaws or rules grounds for an action by the association or by an aggrieved owner.