I lost a case, now my client is homeless

Last week I got a call from a disabled tenant who was facing eviction. She said she had trial the next day and couldn't afford a lawyer.

I agreed to represent her pro bono.

When we got to court in the morning, there were no available jurors, so the case was tried before a recently-appointed judge.

At trial, the landlord showed pictures of drugs that were found in my client's apartment unit during an inspection. The landlord argued that drug possession constitutes an extremely outrageous act, warranting a 24-hour eviction.

My client took the stand and explained that the drugs in the apartment unit were not hers. She testified that while she was away, her sister (who lived in the same apartment building) had gone into her apartment unit without her permission and used drugs. My client offered a urinalysis test result into evidence, proving that she was not using drugs.

Though the judge found my client to be a credible witness, she ruled in favor of the landlord. The judge said that my client's sister was "someone in the tenant's control", and thus, my client should be evicted because her sister had possessed drugs in her apartment unit.

I filed a motion to stay and an appeal later the same day on the following issues:

• whether the repeated unlawful entry by a non-resident into a tenant’s dwelling unit without the tenant’s permission, knowledge, or consent constitutes “someone in the tenant’s control” under ORS 90.396(1)(f)
• whether the definition of “possession” under ORS 90.396(1)(f) applies to the mere presence of a controlled substance in a dwelling unit
• whether possession of a small, personal amount of a controlled substance remains an “act that is outrageous in the extreme” under ORS 90.396(1)(f), after Oregon voters passed Measure 110 on November 3, 2020, reducing the penalties for possession of controlled substances, and making Oregon the first state to decriminalized the personal possession of controlled substances

Court of Appeals Case No. A179741