Free Oregon Notice to Enter

This Oregon Notice to Enter gives a tenant clear written notice before the landlord enters the rental unit. Under ORS 90.322, the landlord must give at least 24 hours of actual notice and may enter only at reasonable times – and even after proper notice, the tenant may still deny consent to that entry. See our tenant screening laws by state hub and how to screen tenants guide to keep your Oregon tenancies documented from the start.

Complete the fields below to generate an Oregon Notice to Enter. ORS 90.322 requires at least 24 hours of actual notice and entry only at reasonable times. The form records the date, time window, purpose, the persons entering, and how the notice is delivered – so you can show you gave proper notice before the entry.

Watch: Oregon Notice to Enter explained

▶ Watch overview

Oregon sets a clear statutory rule for landlord entry in ORS 90.322. A landlord who wants to enter the rental unit must give the tenant at least 24 hours of actual notice of the intent to enter, and may enter only at reasonable times. “Actual notice” means notice the tenant in fact receives, and a “reasonable time” is one that does not conflict with the tenant’s reasonable and specific plans to use the premises. The notice should state the date, the approximate time, and the purpose of the entry.

Two situations change the notice requirement. In a genuine emergency – fire, flood, gas leak, or another immediate threat – the landlord may enter at any time without consent or notice; but if the tenant was absent during that entry, the landlord must give the tenant actual notice within 24 hours after entering, stating the fact and the date and time of entry, the nature of the emergency, and the names of those who entered. And when the tenant has requested a repair in writing, no further notice is needed to enter on demand and do that work until it is finished – though that authorization expires after 7 days unless the repairs are in progress, after which the 24-hour-notice rule applies again. The landlord and tenant can agree to the contrary about a specific entry, but a broad showing or open-access waiver does not override ORS 90.322; it cannot be buried as boilerplate to sidestep the statute. The sections that follow walk through the purposes that justify entry, what makes a time reasonable, how the emergency and tenant-request exceptions work, how showings and the denial right interact, what the lease can and cannot do, and – most important for managing risk – exactly what remedies an Oregon tenant has when entry goes wrong.

ORS 90.322 frames entry around legitimate landlord functions, and a workable list of permitted purposes follows directly from the statute and from ordinary property management. The unifying test is whether the landlord has a real, property-management reason to be inside the unit, rather than a pretext for checking up on or pressuring the tenant. When the reason is genuine and the 24-hour actual notice is given, entry is rarely controversial – and the tenant is far less likely to invoke the denial right against a clearly legitimate visit.

Repairs and maintenance are the most common reason a landlord needs access: responding to a tenant’s request, performing scheduled upkeep, and addressing conditions the landlord is obligated to fix. The requested-versus-unrequested distinction matters here, because a tenant’s written repair request supplies its own authorization to enter on demand for up to seven days, while landlord-initiated maintenance still needs the full 24-hour actual notice. Inspections – annual condition checks, move-out walkthroughs, and pre-renewal assessments – are equally routine, and a clear notice describing the inspection keeps it from feeling intrusive.

Showings are a frequent flashpoint. A landlord may need to show the unit to a prospective tenant near the end of a lease, to a prospective buyer if the property is on the market, or to a lender, appraiser, or contractor during a refinance or planned repair. Each is a legitimate purpose under ORS 90.322, but each also brings strangers into the tenant’s home, so generous notice and reasonable scheduling matter most here – and because the tenant can still deny consent to a given showing, confirming access in advance is far better than arriving to a posted refusal.

Building services and safety work round out the list: supplying necessary or agreed services, pest control treatment, servicing heating and cooling systems, and testing smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors. Safety-device testing in particular protects both sides, and most tenants welcome it when it is scheduled with notice. Across all of these purposes, the form lets the landlord state the exact reason, describe the work, and list everyone who will enter, which is the single most effective way to turn a potentially contested entry into a routine, documented visit.

It is worth being explicit about what is not a legitimate purpose. Entering to check whether the tenant is keeping the unit “well enough” with no maintenance reason, to look for lease violations on a hunch, to confront a tenant over a dispute, or simply to remind a tenant who controls the property are not property-management purposes; they are the kind of pretextual entries that, repeated, become the harassment ORS 90.322(8) lets a tenant stop. The discipline of writing the purpose on the notice is itself a useful filter: if a landlord cannot state a concrete, legitimate reason on paper, that is a strong signal the entry should not happen.

The two pillars of ORS 90.322 are actual notice and reasonable time, and each carries more weight than it first appears. “Actual notice” is not satisfied by merely sending something; it means notice the tenant in fact receives. A letter dropped in the mail days earlier, or an email to an address the tenant never checks, can fail the test even if the calendar shows more than 24 hours elapsed. The safe practice is to choose a channel the tenant genuinely uses and to confirm the notice landed, so the 24-hour clock starts from real receipt rather than from a hopeful send.

The 24 hours is a floor, not a target. Counting a bare 24 hours from a notice delivered late in the evening for an early-morning entry invites an argument that the tenant had no realistic chance to prepare, secure pets, or raise a conflict. Many Oregon landlords build in more than the minimum precisely because a comfortable margin is easy to defend and a shaved one is not. The notice itself should carry the detail the statute contemplates – the date, the approximate time, and the purpose – so the tenant knows what to expect and the landlord has a record of exactly what was announced.

“Reasonable times” does the rest of the work. A reasonable time is one that does not conflict with the tenant’s reasonable and specific plans to use the premises, which in practice means normal daytime, weekday hours unless the tenant agrees otherwise. Early mornings, late nights, and weekends are harder to defend as reasonable, and entering during plans the tenant has actually told you about – a work-from-home meeting, a sleeping night-shift worker – can be unreasonable even with a full 24 hours’ notice. Offering a window rather than a single rigid moment, and matching the entry to the tenant’s schedule where you can, both reinforce that the entry is reasonable.

Reasonableness has a frequency dimension too. A single, well-noticed entry to make a repair is plainly reasonable; a pattern of frequent entries, or repeated demands for entry, can cross into harassment and expose the landlord to the ORS 90.322(8) remedy, because the sheer volume of intrusions interferes with the tenant’s possession regardless of how correctly each one is announced. The safe practice is to consolidate work into one visit, enter no more often than the task genuinely requires, and keep a dated record of each notice and each entry.

Because ORS 90.322 demands actual notice rather than merely attempted notice, how the landlord delivers the notice is not a formality – it is the difference between a defensible entry and an unauthorized one. The statutory clock does not start when the landlord drops a letter in the mail or hits send; it starts when the notice reaches the tenant in a way the tenant in fact receives. A notice mailed two days before an entry can still fail if it had not arrived, and an email to a stale address the tenant never opens is no notice at all. The whole point of the actual-notice standard is to put the risk of a missed message on the landlord who chose the channel, so the channel should be one this particular tenant genuinely uses.

Personal delivery to the tenant is the strongest method, because a hand-delivered notice is hard to dispute and the 24 hours begins from a moment the landlord can describe. Posting on the door is practical and common, and pairing it with an email or text strengthens it by adding a timestamp and a second channel the tenant is likely to see. Email or text alone is reasonable where the tenant routinely uses that channel and, ideally, where the parties agreed to electronic notice; certified mail creates an excellent paper trail but is slow, so it fits only when the schedule comfortably allows the full 24 hours to run after delivery rather than after mailing. Whatever the method, the landlord should be able to say not just that the notice was sent but that it was received.

Proof is the other half of the equation. A landlord who keeps a copy of every notice, the date and method of delivery, and any confirmation – a read receipt, a reply, a photo of the posted notice with a visible date – converts a future “I never got it” argument into a documented record. That record matters because the consequence of getting actual notice wrong is not abstract: an entry made on notice the tenant never actually received is an unlawful entry, and an unlawful entry is exactly what triggers the minimum-damages remedy in ORS 90.322(8). The delivery field on this form exists so the landlord captures, at the moment of delivery, how the notice went out and therefore why it satisfied the actual-notice rule.

Oregon’s most distinctive feature is that proper notice does not by itself clear the way. After receiving the landlord’s notice, the tenant may still deny consent to that particular entry, and the landlord may not enter over the refusal. The statute is specific about how the tenant asserts the denial: by giving actual notice of the denial to the landlord or the landlord’s agent, or by attaching a written notice of the denial in a secure manner to the main entrance of the portion of the premises the tenant exclusively controls – and the denial must be made before or at the time the landlord attempts to enter. A note taped to the front door, securely posted, is enough to turn the landlord away.

This right is real but not unlimited. It lets a tenant refuse a specific noticed entry; it does not let a tenant block all legitimate access as a standing practice. If a tenant unreasonably refuses lawful access, the landlord has its own remedy under ORS 90.322(7) – injunctive relief to compel access or termination for cause under ORS 90.392, plus actual damages. The two subsections are mirror images: subsection (8) protects the tenant against abusive entries, and subsection (7) protects the landlord against a tenant who uses the denial right to obstruct every reasonable visit. The balance the statute strikes is that a single noticed entry can be refused, but a pattern of unreasonable refusals cannot.

For a landlord, the practical lesson is to confirm access rather than assume the notice alone settles it. Reaching out before the entry to verify the tenant will allow it, and offering an easy way to reschedule, both reduce the odds of arriving to a posted denial and wasting a contractor’s trip. When a tenant does refuse, the right response is to reschedule and document the refusal, not to enter anyway – entering over a properly asserted denial converts a lawful, well-noticed visit into exactly the unlawful entry that triggers the tenant’s minimum-damages remedy. The reschedule contact this form captures gives the tenant an alternative to a flat refusal and gives the landlord a clean record of good-faith coordination.

The clearest situation in which an Oregon landlord may enter without notice or consent is a genuine emergency. ORS 90.322 lets the landlord enter the unit or any portion under the tenant’s exclusive control, without consent, without notice, and at any time, in case of an emergency – a fire, a flood, a gas leak, a burst pipe, or any other immediate threat to life, safety, or the property itself – because waiting to give notice could turn a containable problem into a catastrophe. This is a true exception to both the notice rule and the denial right; a tenant cannot post a denial that blocks emergency entry.

The exception comes with a follow-up duty that landlords often forget. If the landlord makes an emergency entry in the tenant’s absence, the landlord must give the tenant actual notice within 24 hours after the entry, and that after-the-fact notice must state the fact of the entry, the date and time, the nature of the emergency, and the names of the persons who entered. Skipping that notice turns an otherwise-justified emergency entry into a violation, so the disciplined practice is to document the emergency contemporaneously and deliver the written after-notice the same day.

It helps to hold a bright line between a true emergency and mere urgency. A burst pipe actively flooding the unit, a gas smell, a fire alarm, or a report of a medical crisis behind a locked door are emergencies that justify immediate entry. A lease violation the landlord is eager to confront, a repair the tenant has been slow to schedule, or a desire to beat a deadline are urgent to the landlord but are not emergencies, and using the emergency label to cover them is the kind of overreach the remedy in ORS 90.322(8) exists to deter. Scope matters as well: an emergency justifies the entry needed to address the emergency, not a general search of the unit, so a landlord who enters to stop a flood should deal with the water and leave.

The mirror image of the 24-hour rule is what happens when the tenant invites the entry. When a tenant requests a repair in writing, ORS 90.322 lets the landlord or the landlord’s agent enter on demand, without further notice, to make the requested repairs until they are completed. The tenant has asked for the work, so the statute does not require the landlord to give 24-hour notice for each visit to do it; the request itself supplies the authorization.

That authorization is deliberately limited so it cannot become an open-ended pass. The tenant’s written request expires after seven days – unless the repairs are in progress and the landlord or the landlord’s agent is making a reasonable effort to complete them in a timely manner. In other words, a repair that is actively underway can continue past the seventh day, but a request the landlord sat on does not authorize an entry weeks later. Once the authorization lapses, the ordinary rule returns: any further entry needs fresh 24-hour actual notice at a reasonable time.

The practical discipline is to treat the seven-day window as a real deadline. If a tenant asks for a repair and the landlord schedules promptly, the no-further-notice rule covers the visits needed to finish the job. If scheduling slips past a week and the work has not begun, the cleanest course is to send a new 24-hour notice rather than rely on a stale request. Keeping the written request on file, alongside the dates work was performed, gives the landlord a clean record that the entries fell inside the authorization the tenant actually gave.

Showings deserve their own treatment because they put the landlord’s legitimate business needs in the sharpest tension with the tenant’s right to be left in peaceful possession – and because the denial right makes them riskier in Oregon than in states where notice alone clears the way. When a lease is ending, the landlord may reasonably need to show the unit to prospective tenants; when the property is for sale, to prospective buyers, and a buyer’s lender or appraiser may need access too. All are legitimate purposes under ORS 90.322, but every one brings outsiders into an occupied home, so generous notice and reasonable scheduling matter most here.

Because the tenant can deny consent to any single noticed entry, a string of poorly-coordinated showings is the surest way to provoke a posted refusal or, worse, a harassment claim if the landlord pushes through anyway. The protection for both sides is the same: give 24-hour actual notice for each showing, schedule at reasonable times, group showings into defined windows rather than scattering them, and offer the tenant a way to reschedule around real commitments. A tenant who feels respected during a marketing period is far less likely to deny access or to claim harassment, and the landlord keeps the dated notices that show every showing was properly announced.

The lease shapes the mechanics but cannot rewrite the floor. The landlord and tenant can agree, as ORS 90.322 allows, to the contrary about a specific entry – a one-off arrangement for a particular showing or inspection, ideally memorialized in a text or email confirming the date, time, and purpose. What the lease cannot do is sign away the general protection: a clause purporting to let the landlord enter for showings or “any time” without notice, or to strip the tenant of the denial right, does not override the statute. A broad, buried boilerplate waiver is not the specific, agreed exception the statute contemplates, and relying on one as a shield for short-notice or unwanted entries simply sets up an ORS 90.322(8) claim. The smarter drafting choice is a clause that tracks the statute – 24-hour actual notice, reasonable times, an emergency carve-out, and a stated delivery channel – which gives the landlord everything a normal operation needs while signaling good faith.

This is the heart of Oregon entry law, and Oregon makes it cleaner than most states by housing the remedy in the same section as the duty. ORS 90.322(1) states the obligation; ORS 90.322(8) supplies the dedicated remedy for breaking it. A tenant does not have to cross-reference a separate remedies chapter to find the consequence of an abusive entry – it sits a few subsections below the rule it enforces. The remedies below are presented roughly in the order an Oregon tenant in possession would consider them, starting with the statute written for exactly this problem.

ORS 90.322(8) – the dedicated entry remedy

This is the primary, purpose-built remedy. ORS 90.322(8) provides that if the landlord makes an unlawful entry, a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner, or repeated demands for entry that are otherwise lawful but have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the conduct from recurring or may terminate the rental agreement under ORS 90.360(1). In addition, the tenant may recover actual damages not less than an amount equal to one week’s rent in a week-to-week tenancy or one month’s rent in all other cases. That minimum-damages floor is the teeth of the rule: even a tenant who cannot prove a large out-of-pocket loss recovers at least one month’s rent for a qualifying abuse, which is what makes a careless landlord pay attention. The section reaches all three failure modes – the entry with no right, the entry made the wrong way, and the campaign of harassing demands – and gives the tenant a real choice between stopping the conduct and exiting the lease.

It is worth unpacking each of the three triggers, because they are not the same wrong. An unlawful entry is the clearest: the landlord enters with no right at all – no 24-hour actual notice, or an entry over a properly posted denial, or an entry for no legitimate purpose. A lawful entry in an unreasonable manner is subtler: the landlord may have had the right to enter and even gave notice, but carried out the entry in a way that crossed the line – showing up far outside the noticed window, bringing strangers the tenant was never told about, lingering or searching beyond the stated purpose, or entering at a time the tenant had specifically flagged as off-limits. And repeated harassing demands capture the landlord who never quite enters unlawfully but wears the tenant down with a barrage of entry requests; here the harm is cumulative, so no single demand has to be unlawful for the pattern to qualify. A landlord aiming to stay clear of all three should give real notice, enter only as announced, and ask no more often than the task requires.

The choice the statute hands the tenant – injunction or termination, with damages on top – is a meaningful one. A tenant who wants to stay in the home but stop the conduct will reach for the injunction, which orders the landlord to prevent the behavior from recurring and leaves the tenancy intact. A tenant who has lost trust or simply wants out will terminate under ORS 90.360(1), ending the rent obligation going forward. In either path the minimum-damages floor attaches, so the remedy is not all-or-nothing: the tenant can both fix the future (by injunction or exit) and be compensated for the past (by at least the floor amount). For a landlord, the lesson is that a single serious over-entry is not a costless mistake to be apologized away – it can hand the tenant both a court order and a guaranteed minimum recovery.

ORS 90.375 – unlawful ouster, exclusion, or utility shutoff

A lockout or a service shutoff is a different and heavier wrong, and it is governed by its own statute. ORS 90.375 covers an unlawful ouster, an exclusion of the tenant from the premises, and a willful diminution of services by interrupting an essential service such as heat, running water, hot water, or electricity. For that conduct the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to recover possession or may terminate the rental agreement, and may recover up to two months’ periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained, whichever is greater – and the tenant need not terminate or recover possession first to sue for those damages. The key point is to keep this separate from ORS 90.322(8): entering on short notice is an over-entry under 90.322(8), but changing the locks or cutting the power is an ouster under 90.375, with the larger penalty. Treating a lockout as a mere notice dispute badly understates the tenant’s rights.

The line between the two statutes is worth drawing precisely, because the same frustrated landlord can drift from one to the other. The entry rule in ORS 90.322 governs the landlord’s right to go into an occupied unit and the manner of doing so; its remedy in subsection (8) addresses entries that are unlawful, unreasonable, or harassing while the tenancy continues. ORS 90.375 governs the opposite move – the landlord trying to take the unit away from the tenant by force or self-help, whether by changing the locks, removing the tenant’s belongings, or shutting off a service to make the home uninhabitable until the tenant leaves. The remedies track the seriousness: a one-month-rent floor for an abusive entry, but up to two months’ rent or double actual damages for an ouster, because being shut out of one’s home is a graver injury than being intruded upon. A landlord tempted to “encourage” a problem tenant to leave by cutting the heat or the water is not bending the entry rule; it is committing the more expensive wrong, and an Oregon court will treat it that way.

ORS 90.385 – retaliation

Entry can also become unlawful because of why it happens. ORS 90.385 bars a landlord from retaliating – by raising rent, cutting services, serving a termination notice, or bringing or threatening a possession action – after a protected tenant action, such as a good-faith complaint about the tenancy, a complaint to a governmental agency about a building, health, or housing code violation, organizing or joining a tenants’ union, or otherwise asserting a legal right. A landlord who weaponizes entry or repeated demands for entry to punish such an action runs into this statute, whose remedies run through ORS 90.375 – up to two months’ rent or twice actual damages – and retaliation is also a defense to an action for possession. Retaliation is a connected, distinct protection; the dedicated remedy for the entry itself remains ORS 90.322(8).

Constructive eviction

If a landlord’s entry conduct goes so far that it renders the premises untenantable, the tenant may treat it as a constructive eviction. The critical condition is that the tenant must actually vacate the premises within a reasonable time to claim it; a tenant who stays put cannot rely on the doctrine. A tenant who does leave because the home has been made unusable is relieved of further rent. Constructive eviction is therefore a powerful but demanding remedy – it ends the lease and the rent obligation, but only for a tenant willing to move out – and it commonly travels with an ORS 90.322(8) claim for the entries that caused the problem.

Breach of quiet enjoyment

Every Oregon lease carries an implied common-law covenant of quiet enjoyment, and a landlord whose entries substantially interfere with the tenant’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the home can breach it. Oregon has long recognized the covenant – Wolf v. Eppenstein, 71 Or 1, 140 P 751 (1914) – and the courts describe it as broken by an act or omission that renders the premises substantially unsuitable for their leased purpose or seriously interferes with their beneficial enjoyment. This is a common-law covenant, not a code section, so it should be described as such rather than pinned to a statute. In practice a quiet-enjoyment theory overlaps heavily with the ORS 90.322(8) remedy; for an Oregon over-entry, the statute is the cleaner hook, with quiet enjoyment as the background principle an abusive entry violates.

Common-law trespass

A landlord who enters a unit the tenant lawfully possesses, with no right of access and without legal process, can also be liable to the tenant in common-law trespass. Possession, not title, founds a trespass action, which is exactly why a tenant in possession can sue a landlord who holds title but has entered unlawfully. Trespass is a doctrinal backstop that runs alongside the statutory remedy; in most Oregon entry disputes the ORS 90.322(8) claim does the heavy lifting, with trespass available as an additional common-law theory for an entry made with no right at all.

Oregon’s great advantage over many states is that the entry duty and the tenant’s remedy for an abusive entry live in the same code section – ORS 90.322. A landlord does not have to read the entry rule in one chapter and hunt for the consequence in another; subsection (1) sets the duty and subsection (8) supplies the remedy. The table below collects the authorities that actually govern entry in Oregon and the consequences of getting it wrong, so a landlord can see at a glance where each rule comes from and avoid the common error of treating a lockout or a retaliation problem as an ordinary notice dispute.

Read together, these authorities tell a coherent story – and the key to using them correctly is keeping each in its own lane. The ordinary over-entry, where a landlord enters without the full 24-hour notice, enters at an unreasonable hour, or keeps demanding entry to harass, is an ORS 90.322(8) problem, with its built-in minimum damages of one month’s rent. A lockout or a utility shutoff is a different and heavier wrong under ORS 90.375, carrying up to two months’ rent or twice actual damages; treating it as a mere notice dispute badly understates it. Retaliation through entry is governed by ORS 90.385, which channels its remedy through ORS 90.375. And on the common-law side, trespass, breach of quiet enjoyment, and constructive eviction supplement the statute rather than replace it. A landlord who matches the conduct to the right statute, and a tenant who points to the right remedy, both avoid the citation errors that plague generic landlord-tenant content.

None of this substitutes for advice on a specific situation. The authorities here describe the general shape of Oregon entry law, but the outcome of any real dispute turns on the exact lease language, the facts of the entries, and how a particular court reads them. The official ORS text on the Oregon Legislature portal is the best free starting point for both sides, and a qualified Oregon landlord-tenant attorney is the right resource when an actual conflict is on the table. Used alongside disciplined, well-documented notice, this form gives an Oregon landlord a clean, defensible record for every entry – the most reliable protection the law actually allows.

An Oregon Notice to Enter is the written notice a landlord or property manager gives a tenant before entering the rental unit. Unlike states that leave entry to the lease, Oregon codifies the rule in ORS 90.322: the landlord must give at least 24 hours of actual notice and may enter only at a reasonable time. That single statute drives almost everything about how access works in an Oregon tenancy, and it protects the tenant’s possession of the home while still letting the landlord do legitimate repairs, inspections, and showings. The detailed walkthrough of the rule, its exceptions, and the tenant’s remedies is in the sections above and below; this is the short orientation.

The two pillars are actual notice and reasonable timing, and Oregon’s signature feature is that proper notice does not by itself clear the way – the tenant may still deny consent to a given entry, including by posting a written denial on the main entrance. Two exceptions complete the picture: a genuine emergency allows immediate entry (with actual notice within 24 hours after if the tenant was absent), and a tenant’s written repair request authorizes entry on demand for up to seven days. The fuller treatment of each, including what counts as a reasonable time and how showings interact with the denial right, appears in the sections above.

What an Oregon landlord is really managing is risk, and the statute spells out the consequence of getting it wrong in the same place as the duty. ORS 90.322(8) lets a tenant facing an unlawful or harassing entry obtain an injunction or terminate and recover actual damages of at least one month’s rent; a lockout or utility shutoff is the heavier wrong under ORS 90.375. This form is built to produce the centerpiece of a clean compliance record – a dated, signed notice of intent for every entry. Pair a disciplined entry practice with thorough tenant screening and a documented screening process so your Oregon tenancies are well-run from application through move-out.

• ORS 90.322 requires at least 24 hours of actual notice before entry.
• Enter only at reasonable times – not conflicting with the tenant’s reasonable, specific plans.
• The tenant may deny consent even after notice, including by posting a written denial on the main entrance.
• A genuine emergency allows immediate entry; if the tenant was absent, give actual notice within 24 hours after.
• A tenant-requested repair needs no further notice, but that authorization expires after 7 days.

• Personal delivery so the tenant receives actual notice.
• Posting on the door, alone or combined with email, where the tenant will see it.
• Email or text where the lease permits electronic notice the tenant actually receives.
• Certified mail for a documented record when timing allows the full 24 hours.

• Giving less than 24 hours, or notice the tenant never actually receives.
• Entering at an unreasonable time that conflicts with the tenant’s stated plans.
• Entering over the tenant’s refusal – including a written denial posted on the door.
• Relying on a 7-day-old repair authorization as if it were still open-ended.
• Treating a broad lease boilerplate clause as a valid waiver of ORS 90.322.

• Default to at least 24 hours of actual notice and a reasonable, daytime entry time.
• Confirm access ahead of time, since the tenant may deny consent to a given entry.
• State the exact purpose, time window, and persons entering on the notice.
• Keep every signed notice on file for the life of the tenancy.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.