The Oregon Supreme Court’s recent decision in KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire, 373 Or 676 (2025), is more than just a statutory interpretation case—it’s the latest in a series of rulings from the court that collectively signal the court’s commitment to strengthening tenant protections under Oregon law.

In KKMH Properties, a tenant kept 277+ guinea pigs “free range” in a rental property, causing extensive damage that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair.  The landlord issued a 30-day termination notice stating that “no cure opportunity” was available because the damage was so extensive and costly.

The central question: Must landlords inform tenants of their right to cure violations even when the landlord believes that cure is practically impossible?

The court’s answer: A resounding, “Yes.”  Justice Duncan, writing for a unanimous court, held that cure rights are determined by law, not landlord assessment.  The court rejected the “subjective assessment” approach that would have allowed landlords to skip cure notices when they reasonably believed tenants couldn’t accomplish the cure.  Under KKMH Properties, whether a termination notice must include cure information depends solely on whether the tenant has a legal right to cure—regardless of the landlord’s view of the tenant’s practical ability to exercise that right.

A few legal takeaways stand out from the KKMH Properties decision:

1. Broad interpretation of curable violations.  Under ORS 90.392(4), the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “change in conduct, repairs, payment of money or otherwise” broadly.  The word “otherwise” essentially creates a catch-all category, meaning virtually every violation is legally curable except specific repeat violations under subsection (5).  See KKMH Properties, 373 Or at 693 (“As written, subsection (4) appears to cover every means of curing a violation.”).
2. Strict notice compliance is required. Even when property damage seems impossible to cure within 14 days, landlords cannot skip the cure notice requirements.  The court emphasized that providing tenants with accurate information about their rights is only a “slight burden” that serves the crucial statutory purpose of preventing wrongful evictions.  See id. at 699.  This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s observations in earlier landlord-tenant cases that it is the landlord, and not the tenant, who is in the best position to comply with legal requirements.  See, e.g., Hickey v. Scott, 370 Or 97, 106 (2022) (observing that “landlords are typically in the best position to provide tenants with information about the reason for termination and how it might be cured so as to avoid eviction”).
3. Legislative history confirms tenant-protective purpose. The court traced the evolution from 1973 through 2005 of the ORLTA, showing that when the notice requirement was added in 1989, legislators specifically stated that “the right to cure already exists under existing law” and they wanted to ensure tenants knew about it.

The Supreme Court’s broader pro-tenant trajectory

Notably, KKMH Properties doesn’t stand alone—it’s part of a clear pattern of Oregon Supreme Court decisions strengthening tenant protections:

• Eddy v. Anderson, 366 Or 176 (2020): Addressed good faith requirements under ORLTA, holding that tenants need not provide written notice of counterclaim under ORS 90.360(2).
• C.O. Homes v. Cleveland, 366 Or 207 (2020): Holding that, under ORCP 23, courts cannot allow prejudicial amendments to eviction complaints that substantially change claims for relief.
• Hickey v. Scott, 370 Or 97 (2022): Termination notices for nonpayment must specify the precise amount owed, and overstating the amount invalidates the notice.

Throughout these cases, the court has consistently acknowledged the inherent imbalance in landlord-tenant relationships and provided comprehensive guidance—as opposed to narrow, fact-based rulings—that clearly explain tenants’ rights.  In other words, the Supreme Court understands that technical legal requirements aren’t just procedural niceties—they’re essential safeguards for people facing the loss of their homes.

And it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that these cases come against the backdrop of Oregon’s housing crisis.  Eviction cases in Oregon reached their highest levels since at least 2011 in 2023.[1] With approximately 85 percent of evictions based on nonpayment of rent, precise notice requirements become crucial protections for vulnerable tenants.

^[1]           Bryce Dole, OPB.org, Oregon passed expensive legislation supporting renters facing housing crisis. Eviction cases are still climbing (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.opb.org/article/2025/01/29/oregon-housing-renters-land-lords-politics-homelessness-rent-renters-eviction/