When a lot in an Oregon planned community sells, state law requires the association to furnish specific financial and governance information to the requesting owner or their designee. Unlike Washington or Florida, Oregon has no single statute titled "resale certificate." The disclosure is assembled from four separate sections of ORS Chapter 94, each covering a different slice of what a buyer, title company, or lender needs to see before closing.
That structural difference is the first thing to understand about Oregon. It is not a gap in the law — it is the law's actual shape.
No Single Resale-Certificate Statute
Washington's WUCIOA (RCW 64.90.640) and Florida's estoppel statutes (Fla. Stat. §720.30851 and §718.116) each enumerate a resale disclosure in one place: a single section listing every required item in sequence. Oregon does not have an equivalent section. ORS Chapter 94 — the Oregon Planned Community Act — imposes the underlying disclosure duties across four statutes that were not drafted as a unified resale package:
| Statute | What It Governs |
|---|---|
| ORS 94.670 | Association records, financial-statement maintenance, and the furnishing duty (the closest thing to a "delivery deadline" clause) |
| ORS 94.580 | Contents of the declaration, including alienation and use restrictions |
| ORS 94.595 | Reserve accounts, the maintenance plan, and deferred-maintenance disclosure |
| ORS 94.675 | Insurance on common property |
A resale disclosure package assembled correctly under Oregon law has to pull from all four. A preparer working from a single-statute mental model — the kind that works fine in Washington — will miss items that live in ORS 94.580 or ORS 94.675 rather than the more obviously-named 94.670.
Scope: Planned Communities Only
ORS Chapter 94 applies to planned communities. It does not apply to condominiums. Oregon condominiums are organized under a separate statute, ORS Chapter 100 (the Oregon Condominium Act), with its own governance and disclosure framework. A resale disclosure assembled under ORS 94.670 does not satisfy a condominium association's obligations, and a condominium disclosure does not satisfy a planned community's. Anyone requesting resale documents for an Oregon common-interest property should confirm which chapter governs before assuming the checklist below applies.
The 10-Business-Day Furnishing Duty
Under ORS 94.670(11), the association must furnish the documents described in subsection (10) — the declaration, bylaws, recorded plat, rules and regulations, most recent annual financial statement, current operating budget, and reserve study information — within 10 business days of a written request.
The unit of measure matters. Like Florida's estoppel statute and Texas's HOA Act, Oregon counts in business days, not calendar days. A request made on a Thursday is not due until the second following Thursday if a weekend and a holiday both fall inside the window. Boards and title companies accustomed to Washington's or California's calendar-day clocks should not assume the Oregon deadline behaves the same way.
What Must Be Disclosed
The 11 items below are drawn from the four governing statutes. Each is grouped by subject rather than by statute, because a buyer evaluating a purchase does not care which section of ORS Chapter 94 a given fact lives in — only whether it is disclosed.
Financial Status
| Disclosure | Statute Reference | What It Requires |
|---|---|---|
| Unpaid Assessments | ORS 94.670(8)(a) | Written statement of unpaid regular and special assessments, fines, interest, and late charges against the lot |
| Approved Special Assessments | ORS 94.670(8)(a) | Special assessments included in the assessment statement |
| Operating Budget | ORS 94.670(10)(c) | Current operating budget of the association |
| Annual Financial Statement | ORS 94.670(10)(b) | Most recent annual financial statement maintained for duplication |
| Balance Sheet | ORS 94.670(4)(a) | Annual financial statement — balance sheet and income/expense statement |
Reserves and Maintenance
| Disclosure | Statute Reference | What It Requires |
|---|---|---|
| Reserve Study Status | ORS 94.670(10)(d) | Reserve study, as described in ORS 94.595, if one has been prepared |
| Maintenance Plan / Deferred Maintenance | ORS 94.595(4) | The association's maintenance plan, reviewed and updated as necessary by the board |
Oregon's reserve duty is annual, and lighter-touch than Washington's: ORS 94.595(3) requires the board to determine the reserve account requirements each year "by conducting a reserve study or reviewing and updating an existing study" — no professional-preparer requirement, and Class II planned communities created on or after January 1, 2002 are exempt entirely (ORS 94.570(2)). ORS 100.175 carries the same annual cadence for condominiums. If no study exists, the maintenance plan under ORS 94.595(4) may be the only documented deferred-maintenance record a buyer sees. A non-exempt board that has done neither has a compliance gap to disclose, not merely an empty section — which is itself a signal worth noticing at closing.
Governance and Restrictions
| Disclosure | Statute Reference | What It Requires |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Documents | ORS 94.670(10)(a) | Declaration, bylaws, recorded plat, and rules and regulations |
| Restrictions on Alienation | ORS 94.580(2)(l) | Restrictions on transfer of lots stated in the declaration |
| Use Restrictions | ORS 94.580(2)(o) | Restrictions on use, maintenance, or occupancy of lots stated in the declaration |
Insurance
| Disclosure | Statute Reference | What It Requires |
|---|---|---|
| Insurance Coverage | ORS 94.675(1)(a) | Hazard and public liability insurance maintained on common property |
What Was Deliberately Left Out — and Why
Two items appear in some multi-state resale-certificate checklists but have no statutory basis in Oregon's ORS Chapter 94:
Pending litigation. ORS 94.670(9)(b) actually excludes litigation files from an owner's general records-inspection right. There is no separate resale-disclosure item requiring the association to state whether it is a party to a lawsuit. A buyer seeking that information obtains it through other means — typically a title search or direct inquiry to the association's counsel — not through the ORS Chapter 94 disclosure package.
Code violations. Oregon imposes no ORS Chapter 94 obligation to disclose known health or building code violations against the property as part of the resale package, unlike Florida's per-parcel violation disclosure under §720.30851(1)(g).
Both omissions matter for accuracy. A disclosure template that includes a "pending litigation" line for Oregon and leaves it blank is not being cautious — it is asserting a disclosure obligation the statute does not create.
No Statutory Fee Cap
Oregon sets no dollar limit on what an association may charge to prepare a resale disclosure package. The statute permits a reasonable cost of production — the same standard California uses, and a meaningfully different one from the fixed-dollar caps set by neighboring and comparison states:
| State | Fee Structure |
|---|---|
| Oregon | Reasonable cost of production — no statutory cap |
| Washington (WUCIOA) | $275 cap, RCW 64.90.640(2) |
| California | Actual cost of preparation — no statutory cap |
| Florida | $299 DBPR-adjusted cap ($250 statutory base) |
| Texas (HOA) | $375 cap, Tex. Prop. Code §207.003 |
| Nevada | $213.84 NRED-adjusted cap ($185 statutory base) |
"Reasonable cost" is not the same as "unlimited." An association that charges a fee wildly disproportionate to its actual preparation cost exposes itself to a dispute over reasonableness — but there is no bright-line number to point to the way there is in Washington or Texas.
No HOA-Specific Buyer Cancellation Right
Oregon does not grant a buyer a cancellation right tied to receipt of the ORS Chapter 94 resale disclosure package. This is a meaningful difference from Washington (five business days under WUCIOA), Florida (condo resales carry a seven-day window under §718.503(2)(d)), and Nevada (five calendar days under NRS 116.4109(2)).
An earlier version of Oregon compliance guidance — including an earlier version of this compliance profile — asserted a five-day cancellation right tied to ORS 94.670(9). That citation was incorrect. ORS 94.670(9) is a records-examination clause, not a buyer-cancellation provision. Oregon's general residential property-disclosure rescission right exists separately in state real estate law and is not conditioned on, or triggered by, the ORS Chapter 94 disclosures addressed in this article. Getting this distinction right matters: telling a buyer they have a cancellation window that does not exist is worse than telling them the truth that Oregon does not provide one under this statute.
Why Manual Preparation Fails in Oregon
The same failure modes that affect hand-prepared resale certificates elsewhere are compounded in Oregon by the four-statute structure.
Statute-hopping. A preparer has to know that alienability and use restrictions live in ORS 94.580, not 94.670; that insurance lives in ORS 94.675; and that the reserve study reference in 94.670(10)(d) points back to 94.595 for the actual maintenance-plan requirement. A single-statute mental model — reasonable to have if you learned resale certificates in Washington or Florida — produces an incomplete Oregon package.
A reserve duty satisfied several ways. Where Washington requires a professionally prepared study on a fixed cycle, Oregon's ORS 94.595(3) lets the board satisfy its annual determination by conducting a study or by reviewing and updating an existing one — and exempts Class II planned communities created on or after January 1, 2002. Disclosing the reserve status accurately therefore requires knowing which of those postures the association actually holds: current study, annual review of an older study, exemption, or a compliance gap.
Business-day miscounting. The 10-business-day clock under ORS 94.670(11) is easy to miscalculate by hand, particularly around holidays, and the consequence of missing it is not merely awkward — it is a statutory furnishing failure.
No dollar-figure guardrail on fees. Without a hard cap to check against, an association has to independently justify that its charge reflects a reasonable cost of production. That justification does not happen by default; someone has to document it.
What a System-Generated Disclosure Changes
When the resale disclosure package is generated directly from the association's system of record, each of the four-statute assembly problems is resolved by construction rather than by memory.
All four statutes mapped to one workflow. The system knows that alienability restraints live in ORS 94.580 and insurance lives in ORS 94.675, so the preparer never has to remember which statute governs which fact. See fund accounting for how reserve and operating balances stay correctly segregated in the underlying ledger those disclosures draw from.
Honest "no reserve study" disclosure. If no professional reserve study exists, the package states that fact rather than fabricating a status. The maintenance plan under ORS 94.595(4), where one exists, is pulled from the actual fixed-asset and reserve-component records — not re-typed from a document someone remembers seeing once.
Deadline tracking in business days. The 10-business-day clock under ORS 94.670(11) is calculated correctly, including holiday exclusions, rather than approximated by hand.
Immutable artifact. The generated package is content-hashed (SHA-256) and preserved as an institutional record, so the exact data disclosed — and when — can be reproduced and verified later.
How Oregon Compares
| Feature | Oregon | Washington (WUCIOA) | Florida |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory structure | 4 statutes, no single resale-cert section | 1 statute (RCW 64.90.640) | 2 statutes (§720.30851 HOA / §718.116 condo) |
| Delivery deadline | 10 business days | 10 calendar days | 10 business days |
| Standard fee cap | None — reasonable cost | $275 | $299 DBPR-adjusted |
| Buyer cancellation right | None under Ch. 94 | 5 business days | 7 days (condo resale) |
| Certificate validity period | Not specified | Not specified | 30 days (35 mail) |
| Required item count | 11 | 20 (condo) / 26 (WUCIOA) | 19 |
| Reserve study mandated | Annual determination by study or review — ORS 94.595(3); Class II communities formed on or after 1/1/2002 exempt | Yes (WUCIOA) | Yes, SIRS (condos 3+ stories) |
For a full walkthrough of how Washington's single-statute structure operates, see Washington Resale Certificates. For Florida's estoppel-terminology and validity-window differences, see Florida HOA & Condo Resale Certificates.
What to Look for in an Oregon Resale Disclosure
Whether you are a board member preparing one, a title officer reviewing one, or a buyer receiving one, these are the signals that matter:
- Does it cite all four statutes? A package that only references ORS 94.670 is likely missing the ORS 94.580 restriction disclosures or the ORS 94.675 insurance summary.
- Is the reserve study status honest? The complete answers are: a current study, an annual review of an existing study (ORS 94.595(3)), a Class II post-2002 exemption (ORS 94.570(2)), or an acknowledged gap. A vague or missing answer is not one of them.
- Is the maintenance plan current? ORS 94.595(4) requires the board to review and update it as necessary — a plan that has not been touched in years is a red flag, not a compliant disclosure.
- Was the 10-business-day clock calculated correctly? Confirm the deadline accounts for weekends and holidays, not just calendar subtraction.
- Is the fee justified? Without a statutory cap, ask what the charge is based on.
- Does it correctly state there is no HOA-specific cancellation right? A package asserting a fabricated cancellation window under ORS 94.670(9) is wrong on the law.
- Is this a planned community or a condominium? Confirm the correct chapter (94 vs. 100) governs before relying on any ORS Chapter 94 checklist.
What This Means in Practice
Oregon's resale disclosure regime is not lighter than Washington's or Florida's because it asks for less information — it asks for a similar set of financial, reserve, governance, and insurance facts. It is harder to comply with by hand because the obligations are scattered across four statutes that were never consolidated into a single resale-certificate section. A board or preparer who does not know to look in ORS 94.580 for alienability restrictions, or in ORS 94.675 for insurance, will produce a disclosure that looks complete and is not.
See how CommunityPay generates Oregon resale disclosures from the system of record
How CommunityPay generates statute-compliant resale certificates across every state we cover
Request an Oregon resale disclosure package
Oregon HOA Disclosure Requirements: the statutory gap in more depth
Compare reserve study requirements across Washington, Oregon, and California
See these principles in action on the CommunityPay Platform →