Bunch v. Pearson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that contract purchaser was not a tenant at sufferance under ORS 91.040 or a tenant at will under ORS 91.050
• holding that, “ [b]ecause defendant entered the property as an equitable owner under the land sale contract, her entry cannot be said to be unlawful or by force” for purposes of an FED action
• “Under ORS 105.105 to 105.168, the issue that is to be decided in FED cases is entitlement to possession.” (Footnote omitted.)
• “unlawful holding by force” requirement for forcible entry and detainer action refers only to landlord-tenant relationship
• only remedy available in an FED action is possession of premises
• “While this action might have been proper under ORS 105.005 as an action for ejectment, an FED action ‘is not a substitute for an action of trespass or ejectment.’ ” (Quoting Purcell v. Edmunds, 175 Or 68, 70, 151 P2d 629 (1944); footnote omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).