Free Oregon Lease Extension Agreement

A lease extension is an agreement to carry an existing tenancy into a further term. It continues the existing lease rather than replacing it with a new one — that is the usual distinction between an extension and a renewal — though leases and statutes often use the two words for the same thing, so what governs is what the document in front of you actually says. No Oregon tenancy renews itself into a further fixed term: that takes either a clause in the lease or a fresh agreement between the parties. What Oregon changes is what happens when neither side does anything. Once the tenancy is past its first year, ORS 90.427(4)(c) converts the expiring fixed term into a month-to-month tenancy by operation of law — and from there the landlord can end it only for a tenant cause or a qualifying landlord reason. That conversion rule carries its own exception in § 90.427(8), for a unit on the landlord’s own property with not more than two dwelling units.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a clean, dated PDF that the landlord and every tenant can sign and keep a copy of. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields you leave blank print as a dash so you can complete them by hand.

Watch: Free Oregon Lease Extension Agreement explained

▶ Watch overview

This document records that an existing tenancy is continuing, on what terms, and for how long. It amends the lease rather than replacing it, so every term the parties do not change carries forward. In Oregon it also occupies a specific statutory slot. Exception (A) in ORS 90.427(4)(c) — that the landlord and tenant agree to a new fixed term tenancy — is the only one of the three exceptions that keeps the tenancy on a fixed term. This is the document that records the agreement the statute is describing. It does not create a right to renew: that comes from the lease, or from the parties agreeing now.

• The parties, exactly as they are named on the lease being renewed.
• The property, including the unit number.
• The date the original lease was signed and the specified ending date of the fixed term.
• The date the MOST RECENT of the current tenants moved in, which sets the first-year-of-occupancy test – the definition counts any tenant who has resided there a year or less.
• The date the first of the current tenants moved in, for reference only – it is not the test.
• Whether the unit is in the same building or on the same property as the landlord’s primary residence and the building or property contains not more than two dwelling units, which puts the tenancy under § 90.427(8) instead of the general rules.
• Whether the specified ending date falls within the first year of occupancy.
• That the parties are agreeing a new fixed term tenancy, if that is the intention.
• The new term – its start date and its specified ending date.
• The rent for the new term, and whether it has changed.
• If the rent is changing, the date written notice of the increase was given, so the § 90.323(2)(b) 90-day lead time can be checked against the start of the new term.
• If the tenancy is being ended instead, the qualifying reason stated in the notice.
• The date any payment under § 90.427(6)(a)(B) was made, if the landlord is terminating under subsection (5) – or that the landlord has an interest in four or fewer dwelling units.
• Whether the property is in Portland, which brings Portland City Code § 30.01.085 into play – and, if it is, the date of any 90-day termination notice, the date any relocation assistance was paid, and whether PHB has issued an exemption acknowledgement letter.
• Every other term that is changing, and a statement that the rest continue unchanged.
• What happens to the deposit already held, remembering that § 90.300(5)(a) bars a new or increased security deposit during the first year after the tenancy has begun.

• Assuming a fixed term expires. After the first year of occupancy, ORS 90.427(4)(c) converts it into a month-to-month tenancy unless one of three things happens — and the subsection opens “except as provided by subsection (8)”, so where the unit is on the landlord’s own property with not more than two dwelling units the conversion rule is not the one to read at all.
• Assuming a fixed term renews itself. It does not. The conversion in (4)(c) is to a month-to-month tenancy, not to a further fixed term; a further fixed term takes exception (A), which is the landlord and tenant agreeing one.
• Reading § 90.427(4)(a) as absolute. A landlord may terminate during a fixed term only for cause — except under § 90.427(8)(b)(B), for a unit in the same building or on the same property as the landlord’s primary residence where there are not more than two dwelling units. There a running fixed term can be ended without cause, at any time after the first year, on not less than 30 days’ notice.
• Using 30 days for a qualifying landlord reason. Those carry not less than 90 days under § 90.427(5)(a). The 60-day alternative in (5)(b) is available only in the accepted-purchase-offer case and only against a further month’s periodic rent.
• Assuming the 90-day route is free. Under § 90.427(6)(a)(B) the landlord must pay one month’s periodic rent on every subsection (5) termination, unless the landlord has an ownership interest in four or fewer residential dwelling units subject to the chapter. On the 60-day route, (5)(b)’s month is expressly in addition to that amount.
• Treating § 90.427(7) as three strikes and a letter. The subsection is conjunctive: the 90-day notice, a written warning notice at the time of each violation, three specific statements in each warning notice, three more in the 90-day notice, and delivery of the 90-day notice concurrent with or after the third or subsequent warning.
• Measuring the first year from the longest-standing tenant. Section 90.427(1)(a) counts any tenant who has resided in the unit for a year or less, so the most recent move-in is the one that decides it.
• Sending a bare rent-increase notice. Under ORS 90.323(3) the notice must specify the amount of the increase, the amount of the new rent and the effective date — and, where the increase is above the (2)(d) cap, the facts supporting the subsection (5) exemption.
• Raising the rent twice in a year, or at all in the first one. ORS 90.323(2)(c) bars more than one increase in any 12-month period, and (2)(a) bars any increase during the first year after the tenancy begins.
• Stopping at state law when the property is in Portland. Portland City Code § 30.01.085(B) provides that a landlord who declines to renew or replace an expiring rental agreement is subject to that subsection: 90 days’ written notice, and relocation assistance paid not less than 45 days before the termination date, in an amount the ordinance fixes by unit size. Subsection (C) reaches a renewal offered at a rent increase of 10 per cent or more.
• Assuming a Portland exemption applies by itself. The § 30.01.085(I) exemptions from relocation assistance – including the owner-occupied duplex – operate only so long as the landlord has applied to the Portland Housing Bureau, PHB has issued an exemption acknowledgement letter, and the tenant has been given a copy of it.
• Topping up the deposit at renewal. ORS 90.300(5)(a) bars a landlord changing the rental agreement to require a new or increased security deposit during the first year after the tenancy has begun, and (5)(b) gives the tenant at least three months to pay one required after that.

No lease renews itself into a further fixed term. A further term comes from a renewal or extension clause in the lease, or from the parties agreeing one now. What Oregon supplies instead is a rule about what happens when neither side acts — and that rule is the whole of the Oregon answer.

ORS 90.427(4)(c) provides that, except as provided by subsection (8), if the specified ending date for a fixed term falls after the first year of occupancy, the fixed term tenancy becomes a month-to-month tenancy upon the expiration of the fixed term — unless one of three things happens:

• (A) the landlord and tenant agree to a new fixed term tenancy;
• (B) the tenant gives notice in writing not less than 30 days before the specified ending date for the fixed term, or the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later; or
• (C) the landlord has a qualifying reason for termination and gives notice as specified in subsections (5) to (7) of the section.

Only the first of those is a renewal, and it is the only one that keeps the tenancy on a fixed term. The other two are ways of bringing the tenancy to an end. If none of the three happens — which is what “neither side did anything” looks like — the tenancy carries on, month to month, by operation of the subsection, on the terms of the expired lease as modified by anything the parties have since agreed.

Two further provisions sit around that list and are described below. Subsection (7) supplies a further route by which the conversion does not happen, on conditions that are more demanding than they look. Subsection (8) is the exception the quoted words open with, and where it applies it displaces the general scheme rather than adjusting it.

So the practical answer has three parts. Nothing renews on its own. Past the first year, doing nothing produces a month-to-month tenancy rather than the end of the tenancy. And whether that is true of your tenancy at all depends first on subsection (8).

Before any of the above can be applied, one fact has to be settled, and it is defined in a way that catches people out.

ORS 90.427(1)(a) provides that “first year of occupancy” includes all periods in which any of the tenants has resided in the dwelling unit for one year or less.

Read that carefully. It is not measured on the tenancy, and it is not measured on the longest-standing occupant. It is measured on any of the tenants. A household in which one person has lived in the unit for four years and another moved in eight months ago is, on that definition, within the first year of occupancy.

The consequence is practical rather than theoretical, because a household that has taken in a new tenant may find that rules it thought it had grown out of apply again. This is why the form on this page asks for the date the most recent of the current tenants moved in: on the statutory definition that is the date which decides which subsection you are reading. The earliest move-in is worth recording too, but it is not the test.

Where the fixed term’s specified ending date falls within the first year of occupancy, § 90.427(4)(b) applies instead: the landlord may terminate without cause on not less than 30 days‘ written notice before the specified ending date, or 30 days before the date designated in the notice, whichever is later.

The month-to-month equivalents run in parallel. Under § 90.427(3)(a) a tenant on a month-to-month tenancy gives not less than 30 days. Under (3)(b) a landlord during the first year of occupancy gives not less than 30 days. Under (3)(c), except as provided in subsection (8), after the first year the landlord may terminate a month-to-month tenancy only for a tenant cause with the specified notice, or for a qualifying landlord reason with notice under subsections (5) and (6). Week-to-week tenancies take at least 10 days under (2), either party.

Under § 90.427(4)(a) a landlord may terminate during a fixed term only for cause — except where subsection (8) applies, which is the next section, and which reverses that answer for the tenancies it covers.

Everything above is qualified by one subsection, and it is easy to miss because the conversion rule itself opens with the words “Except as provided by subsection (8)”.

Section 90.427(8) applies where “the tenancy is for occupancy in a dwelling unit that is located in the same building or on the same property as the landlord’s primary residence, and the building or the property contains not more than two dwelling units”. In that case the landlord may terminate the tenancy at any time after the first year of occupancy:

• Month-to-month, for cause — with notice as described in the tenant-cause sections the subsection cross-refers to ((8)(a)(A));
• Month-to-month, without cause — on not less than 60 days‘ written notice before the date designated in the notice ((8)(a)(B)); or on not less than 30 days where the landlord has accepted an offer to purchase the dwelling unit from a person who intends in good faith to occupy it as that person’s primary residence and has provided written evidence of the offer with the notice ((8)(a)(C)).
• Fixed term, during the term, for cause — under (8)(b)(A), with notice as described in the tenant-cause sections; or
• Fixed term, without cause — and this is the part that displaces the general rule. (8)(b)(B) permits termination without cause at any time during the fixed term, on written notice not less than 30 days before the specified ending date for the fixed term, or 30 days before the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later.

So “a landlord may terminate during a fixed term only for cause” is the rule for most Oregon tenancies but not for a tenant renting the other half of an owner-occupied duplex, or a unit on the landlord’s own property where there are not more than two. If that describes your situation, subsection (8) is the provision to read, not (4) — and the answers to both of this page’s headline questions change: the fixed term can be ended without cause while it is running, and the conversion in (4)(c) is subject to whatever (8) permits.

Note also § 90.427(12)(a): a notice given under subsection (2), (3)(a) or (b), or (8)(a)(B) or (b) need not state a reason for the termination. The without-cause routes are genuinely without cause, not cause routes with a lighter evidential burden.

ORS 90.427(5) lists the reasons for which a landlord may terminate a month-to-month tenancy at any time, or a fixed term on or after its expiration, on not less than 90 days‘ written notice:

• (a)(A) the landlord intends to demolish the unit or convert it to a non-residential use within a reasonable time;
• (a)(B) the landlord intends repairs or renovations within a reasonable time and the premises is unsafe or unfit for occupancy, or will be during the work;
• (a)(C) the landlord or a member of the landlord’s immediate family intends to occupy the unit as a primary residence, and the landlord does not own a comparable unit in the same building that is available for occupancy at the same time that the tenant receives the notice to terminate the tenancy;
• (a)(D) the landlord has accepted an offer to purchase the dwelling unit from a person who intends in good faith to occupy it as that person’s primary residence, and has provided written evidence of the offer with the notice.

Subsection (5)(b) shortens the period to not less than 60 days where the landlord has accepted, and has provided written evidence of, an offer as provided in paragraph (a)(D) and the landlord, at the time of giving the notice, pays the tenant an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent — and the statute says that month is “in addition to an amount, if any, to be paid under subsection (6)(a)(B)”, which is the next point.

Two details deserve emphasis. Ground (a)(C) has a condition attached that is easy to drop, and it has a measuring point: the landlord must not own a comparable unit in the same building that is available for occupancy at the same time that the tenant receives the notice — not at some later date, and not at the date the landlord formed the intention. Ground (a)(D) is not satisfied by an accepted offer alone; written evidence of the offer must be provided with the notice.

And “immediate family” is defined in § 90.427(1)(b) and is broad. It means: (A) an adult person related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, as defined in ORS 106.310 or as defined or described in similar law in another jurisdiction; (B) an unmarried parent of a joint child; (C) a child, grandchild, foster child, ward or guardian; or (D) a child, grandchild, foster child, ward or guardian of any person listed in subparagraph (A) or (B). Paragraphs (C) and (D) are separate limbs: (C) reaches the landlord’s own child, grandchild, foster child, ward or guardian, and (D) reaches those of the people described in (A) and (B).

This is the part most easily missed, because it sits in a subsection that sounds procedural. Section 90.427(6)(a) provides that a landlord terminating under subsection (5) shall:

• (A) specify in the termination notice the reason for the termination and supporting facts; and
• (B) at the time the landlord delivers the tenant the notice to terminate the tenancy, pay the tenant an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent.

Subsection (6)(b) carves out one class: the requirements of paragraph (a)(B) do not apply to “a landlord who has an ownership interest in four or fewer residential dwelling units subject to this chapter”. Note the shape of that exception — it lifts the payment only. The (a)(A) duty to specify the reason and supporting facts applies to every landlord.

Read that against the ninety-day route and the arithmetic changes. The payment is not something that attaches only to the shortened sixty-day purchase-offer notice; it attaches to every subsection (5) termination unless the small-landlord exception applies. And where the sixty-day route is used, (5)(b)’s month is expressly in addition to any amount payable under (6)(a)(B) — so that route can cost two months, not one.

The consequences of getting this wrong are set out in § 90.427(9): a landlord who terminates in violation of subsection (5), (6) or (7) is liable to the tenant in an amount equal to three months’ rent in addition to actual damages, and the tenant has a defence to an action for possession. The tenant must commence the action within one year after knowing or having reason to know of the violation.

Subsection (4)(c) lists three ways the conversion to month-to-month is avoided. There is a further route in § 90.427(7), and it is worth stating completely, because a short version of it is misleading in the landlord’s favour.

A fixed term tenancy does not become a month-to-month tenancy on expiration if the landlord gives the tenant notice in writing not less than 90 days before the specified ending date for the fixed term, or 90 days before the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later — and all three of the following are satisfied:

• (a) the tenant has committed three or more violations of the rental agreement within the preceding 12-month period, and the landlord has given the tenant a written warning notice at the time of each violation;
• (b) each written warning notice: (A) specifies the violation; (B) states that the landlord may choose to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term if there are three violations within a 12-month period preceding the end of the fixed term; and (C) states that correcting the third or subsequent violation is not a defence to termination under the subsection; and
• (c) the 90-day notice of termination: (A) states that the rental agreement will terminate upon the specified ending date for the fixed term or upon a designated date not less than 90 days after delivery of the notice, whichever is later; (B) specifies the reason for the termination and supporting facts; and (C) is delivered to the tenant concurrent with or after the third or subsequent written warning notice.

Those are conjunctive. Three violations and a 90-day letter do not engage the subsection on their own. If warning notices were not given at the time of each violation, or if a warning notice omits any of the three statements (b) requires, or if the 90-day notice was delivered before the third warning, the route is not available and the tenancy converts under (4)(c) as usual. Statement (C) in each warning is doing real work rather than filling space: it tells the tenant in advance that putting the third breach right will not save the tenancy.

This is a substantive route rather than a piece of notice machinery, and a tenant who has received warnings during the year should know both that it exists and how much has to be true before it bites.

ORS 90.323 governs increases, and it sets four separate limits. Under (2), during any tenancy other than week-to-week a landlord may not increase the rent:

• (a) during the first year after the tenancy begins — at all;
• (b) at any time after the first year without giving the tenant written notice at least 90 days before the effective date;
• (c) more than once in any 12-month period;
• (d) except as permitted by subsection (5), by a percentage greater than the maximum calculated under ORS 90.324(1).

For a week-to-week tenancy, (1) requires written notice at least seven days before the effective date.

The first two of those are the ones a renewal conversation runs into. A rent increase inside the first year is not a matter of notice at all — it is prohibited. And after the first year the lead time is ninety days, so an increase agreed six weeks before a new term begins cannot take effect with it.

The notice itself has required content under (3): the amount of the increase, the amount of the new rent, and the date on which the increase becomes effective — plus, where the increase is above the amount allowed in (2)(d), the facts supporting the subsection (5) exemption. That last item is conditional; the first three are not. The subsection (5) exemptions themselves are narrow: a first certificate of occupancy issued less than 15 years before the notice, or a unit regulated or certified as affordable housing where the change does not increase the tenant’s portion of the rent or is required by programme eligibility or a change in the tenant’s income.

On the cap itself, ORS 90.324(1) is a formula rather than a fixed figure, and the formula that applies here is in paragraph (1)(b). Subsection (1) requires the Oregon Department of Administrative Services to calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage no later than 30 September each year for the following calendar year, and (1)(b) sets it, for tenancies subject to ORS 90.323, as the lesser of ten per cent, or seven per cent plus CPI. Paragraph (1)(a) is a different figure for a different class of tenancy and is not the one a renewal under this chapter is measured against. Under ORS 90.324(2) — a separate subsection — the department must publish those percentages, together with the provisions of ORS 90.323 and 90.600, in a press release by the same date; and under (3)