DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in Oregon: what the law says

Since 2025 Oregon has a statute written for this: you give a squatter 24 hours’ written notice, and then you file an ordinary eviction case. A judge signs the judgment and the sheriff carries it out — nobody in Oregon is put out of a building on your word alone. The catch is in the definition. A "squatter" in Oregon is someone with no rental agreement, so if the person inside produces a lease, the whole case moves into landlord-tenant law and the fast route closes. Being inside a building you have no right to be in is a crime here, and an Oregon officer may arrest for it without a warrant. Every answer below is quoted from the statute it came from.

Every answer on this page is quoted from the statute it came from and linked to the source, so you can read the law yourself. Last checked against the statutes on 2026-07-14.

What to do now — this part is ours, not the law

There is no 30-day rule. Nobody becomes a tenant by standing in your house long enough — not in thirty days, not in ninety. They are not a tenant on day one and they are not a tenant on day ninety. What time does change is how hard they are to remove, and how much of your money it takes. That is a reason to move today, not a deadline you have already missed.

If someone is in the property right now

  1. Do not go in, and do not change the locks. It is the first thing everyone wants to do and it is how the owner becomes the defendant. Read that question above before you touch anything.
  2. Call the police non-emergency line. Ask them to look at it as a criminal trespass rather than a landlord–tenant dispute. Those are different outcomes and the words matter.
  3. Have your proof of ownership in your hand when they arrive — the deed, a recent tax bill, your ID. The officer's whole decision turns on whether he believes you own it.
  4. Photograph everything, and write down every date. When you last saw it empty. When you found them. What was said. Who you called, and when.
  5. Call a lawyer the same day. Not next week. The clock on every route above has already started.
The full checklist — what to record and what to ask →

If it has not happened yet

Everything on this page gets easier the earlier you do it. Photograph the property empty, keep the utility bills, and write down who is allowed inside — before you lock up and walk away. None of that is expensive. All of it is worth more than it looks at 2am.

The checklist for leaving a property vacant →

Is a squatter a tenant — and what rights do they have?

No. Since 2025 Oregon’s code has a definition written for exactly this: a squatter is someone in your building with no rental agreement. But that definition turns on the lease — and a lease is the first thing a squatter produces. If a court believes the paper in their hand, they are a tenant and this route closes.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

If a trespasser counts as a tenant, the owner is routed into housing court and every fast option closes.

1 · ORS 90.100(47) — "Squatter" defined (2025 Edition), as enacted by HB 3522 (Or. Laws 2025 ch. 356 § 6)

“(47)(a) "Squatter" means a person occupying a dwelling unit, or occupying any other property and using it for dwelling purposes, who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit. (b) "Squatter" does not include a tenant who holds over as described in ORS 90.427 (11).”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14 and checked word for word against the enrolled Act (OLIS, § 6). The two texts agree. READ THE SECOND LIMB AS IT IS WRITTEN: it says "not authorized by the tenant" — the TENANT, not the owner. We print the words the Legislature enacted and draw no conclusion from them; what that limb does where there is no tenant is a question for a court, and it is not ours to answer. Note the carve-out in (b): a tenant who holds over is NOT a squatter, and is dealt with under ORS chapter 90 like any other tenant. And note what the first limb hangs on — a rental agreement.

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 90.100(51)(a)(A), (c) — "Tenant" defined (2025 Edition)

“(51) "Tenant": (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection: (A) Means a person, including a roomer, entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others, including a dwelling unit owned, operated or controlled by a public housing authority. … (c) Does not mean a guest or temporary occupant.”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14. The ellipsis skips paragraph (51)(a)(B) (a minor, as provided in ORS 109.697) and paragraph (b) (manufactured dwellings and floating homes), neither of which bears on a vacant house. The two definitions are two sides of one line, and the line is a rental agreement.

Read it at the source →

3 · ORS 91.140 — Eviction of squatter (2025 Edition) [2025 c.356 §2]

“An owner or landlord, as defined in ORS 90.100, of a premises may take possession pursuant to ORS 105.100 to 105.168 of the premises from a squatter, as defined in ORS 90.100, after giving the person 24 hours’ written notice of the termination of the occupancy. The notice must specify the date and time by which the person must vacate and state that the cause of the termination is the person’s status as a squatter. The notice does not create a right of occupancy or tenancy for the squatter.”

Read on the Oregon Legislature’s own server in the 2025 Edition of the ORS on 2026-07-14. The source note the Legislature prints against this section is "[2025 c.356 §2]" — that is HB 3522, section 2.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can I just change the locks?

No — and a sheriff is the only person who can put them out. If you change the locks yourself, the person you removed can sue you to get the house back and collect damages on top, and you become the defendant in a case a judge decides afterwards. The only route Oregon’s new squatter law opens to you is filing an eviction case.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

Lawful in a handful of states, a crime in most. Getting this wrong turns the victim into the defendant.

1 · ORS 105.105 — Entry to be lawful and peaceable only (2025 Edition)

“No person shall enter upon any land, tenement or other real property unless the right of entry is given by law. When the right of entry is given by law the entry shall be made in a peaceable manner and without force.”

Note who this section is addressed to. It does not say "no landlord" — it says "no person", and it is the opening section of the same chapter that contains the eviction procedure. What follows in that chapter is the "right of entry given by law".

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 91.140 — where the statute sends the owner (2025 Edition)

“An owner or landlord, as defined in ORS 90.100, of a premises may take possession pursuant to ORS 105.100 to 105.168 of the premises from a squatter, as defined in ORS 90.100, after giving the person 24 hours’ written notice of the termination of the occupancy.”

ORS 105.100 to 105.168 is a court case: a complaint, a summons, a first appearance before a judge, and a judgment. That is what "may take possession pursuant to" those sections means. The 24-hour notice starts the case; it does not end it.

Read it at the source →

3 · ORS 105.161(1)(c)–(d) — service and enforcement of the writ of execution (2025 Edition)

“Immediately following the service of the writ and the eviction trespass notice, the sheriff shall return possession of the premises to the plaintiff by removing the defendant or any other person subject to the judgment; and (d) Following the sheriff’s removal of the defendant and return of possession of the premises to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be responsible for removing, storing and disposing of any personal property left by the defendant on the premises, as provided by ORS 105.165.”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14. Read the sequence: the SHERIFF removes the person, and only THEN does the owner deal with the belongings — under ORS 105.165, which is its own procedure. Removing someone’s property yourself is not a step in it.

Read it at the source →

4 · ORS 90.375 — Effect of unlawful ouster or exclusion; willful diminution of services (2025 Edition)

“If a landlord unlawfully removes or excludes the tenant from the premises, seriously attempts or seriously threatens unlawfully to remove or exclude the tenant from the premises or willfully diminishes or seriously attempts or seriously threatens unlawfully to diminish services to the tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of heat, running water, hot water, electric or other essential service, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to recover possession or may terminate the rental agreement and recover an amount up to two months’ periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained by the tenant, whichever is greater.”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14. AND READ ITS SCOPE. This section speaks of a LANDLORD and a TENANT, and Oregon’s new definition says a squatter is not a tenant — so an owner who reasons "she is not my tenant, this does not apply to me" has found the trap, not the exit. The person you put out will claim a rental agreement; that claim is what makes them a tenant for the purpose of this section, and a court decides it afterwards, with you as the defendant. We looked for an Oregon appellate decision resolving whether § 90.375 reaches a person who was never a tenant and found none we could fetch. Untested is not the same as permitted. DeedProof does not advise on this and never will.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

If police do act, what is the charge — and can they arrest for it?

Yes — the power is there on the face of the statutes, and it does not depend on which trespass charge the officer picks. Being in a building without permission is criminal trespass; in a dwelling it is the higher grade, elsewhere the lower, and both are misdemeanors. Oregon lets an officer arrest without a warrant on probable cause for any misdemeanor. What is left for him to decide is whether the person inside had permission — and that is the next question.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

A charge that only supports a citation does not remove anyone from a house. This is the link that killed the previous market.

1 · ORS 164.205 — "Enter or remain unlawfully" defined (2025 Edition)

“To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public and when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so”

This is paragraph (a) of the definition; the remaining paragraphs cover premises that ARE open to the public and motor vehicles, and do not bear on a vacant house. Every trespass charge in Oregon runs through this phrase, and the phrase runs through permission.

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 164.255(1)(a), (3) — criminal trespass in the first degree (2025 Edition)

“A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person: (a) Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling; … (3) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.”

The ellipsis skips paragraphs (1)(b)–(d) (a merchant’s trespass notice, railroad property, and premises condemned as unfit) and subsection (2), none of which bears on a vacant house. And read the definition this charge depends on: ORS 164.205 defines "dwelling" as "a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present." Whether a house nobody has slept in for six months is a "dwelling" on the night an officer arrives is a real question, and it is not ours to answer. Read the next link before assuming it decides anything.

Read it at the source →

3 · ORS 164.245 — criminal trespass in the second degree (2025 Edition)

“A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises. Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor.”

THIS IS THE LINK THAT KILLED THE PREVIOUS MARKET, AND IT DOES NOT BREAK HERE. Elsewhere the argument is about whether the grade is high enough to support an arrest at all; in Oregon both grades are misdemeanors, and the next link reaches "a misdemeanor" without qualification. So the officer’s power does not turn on winning the "is it a dwelling?" argument at the door.

Read it at the source →

4 · ORS 133.310(1) — authority of peace officer to arrest without warrant (2025 Edition)

“A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any of the following: (a) A felony. (b) A misdemeanor. (c) An unclassified offense for which the maximum penalty allowed by law is equal to or greater than the maximum penalty allowed for a Class C misdemeanor. (d) Any other crime committed in the officer’s presence.”

Note what is NOT in paragraph (b): no "in the officer’s presence" condition, and no exception for the lowest grade of misdemeanor. That condition appears in paragraph (d), and paragraph (d) is about "any other crime". Note also what the power still runs on — "probable cause to believe", which is the officer’s judgment about the very thing a forged lease is designed to cloud. These are the provisions, in order. We have drawn no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Permission — whether the officer at the door believes the person inside had it, and whether the paper in their hand is real. Everything in Oregon turns on that: the crime, the 2025 squatter law, the eviction form. All of it asks whether you gave permission. None of it gives anyone a way to check that you are the person who could have.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 2 provisions

Every other question here is downstream of this one. The whole encounter, in one decision, made in a doorway in the dark.

1 · ORS 164.205 — the words every Oregon trespass charge hinges on (2025 Edition)

“To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public and when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so”

The civil side hinges on the same fact from the other end. ORS 90.100(47)(a) defines a squatter as a person "who is not so entitled under a rental agreement or who is not authorized by the tenant to occupy that dwelling unit" — so the occupant’s answer is a rental agreement, and a forged rental agreement is a rental agreement until somebody establishes that it is not.

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 105.126(1) — the eviction complaint form, as amended by Enrolled HB 3522 § 4

“Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises, because: ______ 24-hour notice for squatter. Section 2 of this 2025 Act.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read the enrolled text of HB 3522 in full, section by section, on the Legislature’s own OLIS server, and ORS 91.140, 105.105, 105.115, 105.130, 133.310, 164.205, 164.245 and 164.255 in the 2025 Edition on oregonlegislature.gov. We looked for any provision telling an officer, a court clerk or a judge how to establish that the person serving the 24-hour notice or signing the complaint actually owns the building — a deed check, a recorder’s lookup, a registry, a required attachment, anything. We found no such provision: the form requires a copy of the NOTICE to be attached, and nothing that evidences title. Confirm against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

Twenty-four hours’ written notice, then an eviction case in the circuit court. A judge decides it, the court issues the removal order, and the sheriff carries it out. Nobody leaves on your word alone, and the four days the person gets to pack run after the judgment, not before.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

The route sets the real cost. A summary track is weeks; a full civil suit is months.

1 · ORS 91.140 — Eviction of squatter (2025 Edition) [2025 c.356 §2]

“An owner or landlord, as defined in ORS 90.100, of a premises may take possession pursuant to ORS 105.100 to 105.168 of the premises from a squatter, as defined in ORS 90.100, after giving the person 24 hours’ written notice of the termination of the occupancy. The notice must specify the date and time by which the person must vacate and state that the cause of the termination is the person’s status as a squatter. The notice does not create a right of occupancy or tenancy for the squatter.”

This section is new. It was section 2 of HB 3522, which the enrolled Act records as "Passed by House April 3, 2025" and "Passed by Senate June 11, 2025", and it appears in the 2025 Edition of the ORS as printed above. Before it, the eviction chapter had no cause of action that fitted a person who moved into an empty house without breaking anything.

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 105.115(1)(h) — unlawful holding by force, added by Enrolled HB 3522 § 3

“When the person is a squatter who remains in possession of a premises after the expiration of a notice given under section 2 of this 2025 Act.”

Quoted from the enrolled Act, where paragraph (h) is printed in boldface as new text. "Section 2 of this 2025 Act" is now ORS 91.140, and the Legislature prints the codified cross-reference accordingly.

Read it at the source →

3 · ORS 105.135(2)(a) — the clerk calculates the first appearance (2025 Edition)

“The clerk shall calculate the first appearance, which shall be: (A) Seven days after the judicial day next following payment of the filing fees; or (B) If the claim for possession is brought under ORS 90.392 or 90.394 for nonpayment as defined in ORS 90.395, 15 days after the judicial day next following payment of the filing fees.”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14. Subparagraph (B) — the fifteen-day track — is for nonpayment of rent, which is a tenant’s case, not a squatter’s. Subsection (2)(b) lets the clerk delay the first appearance by up to seven more days where a judge is unavailable.

Read it at the source →

4 · ORS 105.151 — enforcement of a judgment of restitution (2025 Edition)

“Issuance by the clerk of the court and service upon the defendant of a notice of restitution that shall give the defendant four days to move out of the premises, including removal of all personal property”

This is the first of the two steps the section requires; the second is the issuance of a writ of execution, served and enforced by the sheriff under ORS 105.161. The four days run from service of the notice of restitution, not from the judgment.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long does it take, and what does it cost?

Weeks, if nobody fights you: 24 hours’ notice, a first appearance seven days after you file, and four days to move out after the judgment. The statute sets $88 to file — but that is the cost of starting the case, not of finishing it, and the sheriff’s fees and your own lawyer are not in the statute. What blows both numbers up is a lease: if the person inside is held to be a tenant, the case moves into landlord-tenant law, where the notices are longer and a court can throw your complaint out at any time.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The two numbers every owner wants, and the one nobody warns them about: you do not get it back.

1 · ORS 105.130(2)(a), (3), (6) — filing fees, as amended by Enrolled HB 3522 § 5

“(2) Upon filing a complaint in the case of a dwelling unit to which ORS chapter 90 applies, the clerk shall: (a) Collect a filing fee of $88; … (3) The court shall collect a filing fee of $88 from a defendant that demands a trial under this section. … (6) An action brought under ORS 105.110 by a person entitled to possession of premises on the basis of circumstances described in ORS 105.115 (1)(d), (e), (f) or (h) is subject to the filing fees and other court or sheriff fees applicable to an action concerning a dwelling unit that is subject to ORS chapter 90.”

Quoted from the enrolled Act, where the insertion of "(h)" — the squatter cause — into subsection (6) is printed in boldface. This is the ONLY dollar figure on this page, and it is here because it appears verbatim in the text of the law. It is not the cost of the case: it is the cost of starting it. Sheriff fees and your own lawyer are not in the statute and are not printed here.

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 105.135(2)(a)(A) — seven days to the first appearance (2025 Edition)

“Seven days after the judicial day next following payment of the filing fees”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14. This is the date of the FIRST APPEARANCE, not of the removal — a defendant who appears and contests gets a trial, and the sheriff comes only after a judgment, a four-day notice to move out, and a court order.

Read it at the source →

3 · ORS 105.115(2)(b)–(c), (3) — where a dwelling unit is subject to ORS chapter 90

“(b) A landlord may not file an action for the return of possession of a dwelling unit based upon a cause of unlawful holding by force as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection until after the expiration of a rental agreement for a fixed term tenancy or after the expiration of the time period provided in a notice terminating the tenancy. (c) The court may dismiss a claim for possession at any time if the complaint does not comply with this subsection. (3) In an action under subsection (2) of this section, ORS chapter 90 shall be applied to determine the rights of the parties, including: (a) Whether and in what amount rent is due; (b) Whether a tenancy or rental agreement has been validly terminated; and (c) Whether the tenant is entitled to remedies for retaliatory conduct by the landlord as provided by ORS 90.385 and 90.765.”

READ THIS AS THE PRICE OF GETTING THE DEFINITION WRONG. The 24-hour squatter notice is only good against a squatter. If the person inside is held to be a tenant — and Oregon’s definition of a squatter turns on the absence of a rental agreement — then chapter 90 governs, the notice periods there are measured in weeks rather than hours, and this subsection lets the court dismiss the case you already filed. That is the difference between the two magnitudes in the table, and it is why the paper in their hand matters more here than almost anywhere.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can a sheriff remove them on the owner's affidavit alone, with no court?

No. Oregon rewrote this law in 2025 and chose the courthouse: the owner gives 24 hours’ notice and then files an eviction case. There is no affidavit anywhere in it, and no sworn page an owner can hand a deputy. The sheriff acts on a writ issued after a judgment, and on nothing else.

›Read the law — 2 provisions

Where a state has passed this, it hands the owner the whole mechanism for free. This field tracks the existential risk.

1 · ORS 91.140 — Eviction of squatter (2025 Edition) [2025 c.356 §2]

“An owner or landlord, as defined in ORS 90.100, of a premises may take possession pursuant to ORS 105.100 to 105.168 of the premises from a squatter, as defined in ORS 90.100, after giving the person 24 hours’ written notice of the termination of the occupancy.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read the enrolled text of Enrolled HB 3522 (Or. Laws 2025 ch. 356) in full — every section, front to back — on the Legislature’s own OLIS server, and ORS 91.140 in the 2025 Edition. We looked for any provision letting a sheriff, a deputy or any peace officer put a person out of a building on the owner’s sworn statement without a judgment: an affidavit, a verified complaint acted on by an officer, an administrative removal, anything of the shape Florida (§ 82.036) and Texas (Prop. Code ch. 24B) enacted. We found no such provision. HB 3522 is the vehicle in which one would have been written, and it was written fifteen months ago. Confirm against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

2 · ORS 105.151 — a judgment first, then four days, then the writ (2025 Edition)

“Issuance by the clerk of the court and service upon the defendant of a notice of restitution that shall give the defendant four days to move out of the premises, including removal of all personal property”

The section is headed "Enforcement of judgment of restitution" and it describes what follows a judgment: a notice of restitution giving four days, and after those four days a writ of execution issued by the clerk and served by the sheriff. ORS 105.161(1)(c) then makes the removal the sheriff’s act, on the writ. There is no step in that sequence at which the owner’s own sworn word does the work.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long before they can claim they own it?

Ten years — and Oregon asks for more than time. The person has to have genuinely believed the house was theirs the day they walked in, and to have kept believing it for the whole ten years. They have to prove it, and the bar is high.

›Read the law

The thing an owner of an empty building actually fears. Pure state statute.

ORS 105.620(1) — acquiring title by adverse possession (2025 Edition)

“(1) A person may acquire fee simple title to real property by adverse possession only if: (a) The person and the predecessors in interest of the person have maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile and continuous possession of the property for a period of 10 years; (b) At the time the person claiming by adverse possession or the person's predecessors in interest, first entered into possession of the property, the person entering into possession had the honest belief that the person was the actual owner of the property and that belief: (A) By the person and the person's predecessor in interest, continued throughout the vesting period; (B) Had an objective basis; and (C) Was reasonable under the particular circumstances; and (c) The person proves each of the elements set out in this section by clear and convincing evidence.”

Read in the 2025 Edition on the Legislature’s own server on 2026-07-14. READ THE WORDS RATHER THAN THE YEARS: paragraph (1)(b) is the whole answer, and it is a state-of-mind requirement fixed at the moment of entry — an "honest belief" of actual ownership that had an "objective basis", was "reasonable", and lasted the entire vesting period, every element proved by "clear and convincing evidence". We do not say who can or cannot satisfy it. That is for a court, on evidence.

Read it at the source →

Your deed proves you own it. It does not prove you never rented it.

That is the officer’s real question, and the lease in their hand does not contradict your deed. You can swear it is a forgery — but a statement you write the morning after, against a lease dated last year, is worth very little. The version that counts has to already exist.

How DeedProof verifies owners and files the affidavit in advance →

› Every source on this page (6)

ORS 90.375 — Effect of unlawful ouster or exclusion; willful diminution of services (2025 Edition)ORS 91.140 — Eviction of squatter (2025 Edition) [2025 c.356 §2]ORS 105.620(1) — acquiring title by adverse possession (2025 Edition)ORS 164.205 — the words every Oregon trespass charge hinges on (2025 Edition)ORS 133.310(1) — authority of peace officer to arrest without warrant (2025 Edition)ORS 105.115(2)(b)–(c), (3) — where a dwelling unit is subject to ORS chapter 90

DeedProof is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. We cite primary sources; we do not interpret them for your situation. Laws change — confirm current requirements with the relevant government office or a licensed attorney.