Case Background
From September 27, 2022, to August 1, 2023, the plaintiff lived at 3750 SE 162nd Avenue in Portland, Oregon. During this period, the defendant served as the plaintiff’s landlord. Under Oregon law (ORS 90.100 and ORS 90.320), the landlord was responsible for maintaining the rental property in a habitable condition. However, the plaintiff alleged that the property suffered from persistent safety and health hazards throughout the tenancy.
Cause
Multiple issues plagued the premises. Electrical systems were faulty—outdoor lighting was insufficient, and some outlets were loose or damaged. Structural deficiencies included unsealed wall penetrations near sinks and moisture intrusion in bedrooms and hallways. Appliances were also in disrepair; the kitchen sink was not secured at the backsplash, and the bathroom mirror was duct-taped into its frame. Plumbing problems further worsened the situation, with a loose toilet base and poorly sealed pipes. A broken lock on the sliding door compromised security. Most critically, the plaintiff claimed rodent infestation posed an ongoing health hazard. According to the complaint, the landlord knew or should have known about these unsafe conditions and failed to address them.
Injury
The plaintiff alleged that these conditions caused significant health issues. These included asthma flare-ups, nausea, diarrhea, skin irritations, vertigo, insomnia, and throat and respiratory symptoms. The plaintiff also reported acrid smells and emotional distress. These health problems disrupted their daily life and contributed to a sense of physical and mental discomfort throughout the tenancy.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed the fair rental value of the unit was $1,075 per month—conditioned on it being safe and habitable. Due to the landlord’s noncompliance, the plaintiff sought economic damages for diminished rental value. Additionally, the plaintiff pursued non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and disruption of daily life. Total claimed damages included up to $11,825 in economic losses and up to $63,175 in non-economic damages. The plaintiff also requested attorney’s fees, court costs, post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court deemed just.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Paulette Twiss
Counsel for Plaintiff: Michael Fuller | Emily C. Templeton
Defendant(s): Eastmont Villa LLC
Counsel for Defendants: Gregory P. Fry | Mark G. Passannante | Robert S. Phed
Claims
The complaint asserted one primary cause of action: failure to maintain the premises in a habitable condition, in violation of ORS 90.320. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit under ORS 90.360, which permits recovery for noncompliant rental conditions. A jury trial was requested. The plaintiff also reserved the right to amend the complaint, add further claims or parties, and seek punitive damages based on future evidence.
Defense
The defendant admitted that plaintiff resided at the stated property and acknowledged a general duty to maintain the premises in a habitable condition. However, the defendant denied key allegations regarding habitability violations, including inadequate lighting, water intrusion, and faulty plumbing or appliances. They argued that any maintenance issues, such as rodent presence, lock defects, or deteriorated fixtures, were minor, promptly addressed upon notice, or insufficient to render the dwelling uninhabitable. The defendant also contended that rent was paid primarily by a public agency under an agreement that required and confirmed the unit passed regular inspections.
The defendant raised four affirmative defenses: (1) lack of timely notice of the conditions, (2) damage caused by third parties, (3) expiration of the statute of limitations for some claims, and (4) plaintiff’s lack of financial loss due to rent assistance covering most or all payments. Based on these defenses, the defendant requested dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and an award of attorney fees and costs.
Jury Verdict
In Twiss v. Eastmont Villa LLC, a jury found that the defendant failed to maintain the plaintiff’s rental unit in a habitable condition during her tenancy. As a result, the jury awarded plaintiff Paulette Twiss the maximum allowable damages under the law—$63,175 in non-economic damages and $1,075 in economic damages—for a total verdict of $64,250. The verdict was signed and entered on December 17, 2024.
Court Documents
Court Documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com