## Facts

- Dorris Jole (landlord) rented a residence to Fred and Betty Bredbenner (tenants) on a month-to-month basis for $550 per month.
- Between November 1981 and June 1984, the tenants missed several rent payments due to unemployment, accumulating about $4,400 in unpaid rent.
- In August 1984, Fred Bredbenner met with Jole and her husband to discuss repayment of the missed rent.
- Jole’s husband told Bredbenner that the tenants would need to pay at least $25 per month toward the arrearage, in addition to the regular monthly rent.
- Jole then sent the tenants a letter dated August 27, 1984, stating it set out “the terms we discussed and agreed on,” including:
  - Rent of $550 due “on or before the 23rd day of each and every month” (the original due date);
  - A minimum payment of $25 each month “to be deducted from the remaining balance,” with an effort to pay more and pay it off “as soon as possible”;
  - Beginning in October 1984, an effort to pay rent from the paycheck received on the 5th of each month; and
  - If payments were not made by the 23rd, a 72-hour notice to vacate would be served.
- For roughly the next six months, the tenants regularly paid $25 (and sometimes $50) per month toward the arrearage while also paying current rent.
- The tenants later informed Jole they were moving out, and Jole demanded full payment of the remaining arrearage plus interest.
- The tenants refused, claiming that as long as they continued making at least $25 monthly payments, the August 1984 agreement prevented Jole from requiring immediate payment of the full balance.
- Jole sued for the unpaid rent, statutory interest (including under ORS 82.010(2)(a)), costs, and attorney fees.
- The trial court dismissed Jole’s action, and she appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the August 27, 1984 letter and related discussions modify the tenants’ obligation on the accrued rent arrearage so that Jole could not demand immediate payment of the full balance while the tenants were making at least $25 monthly payments?
2. Did the tenants carry their burden to prove an enforceable modification that limited Jole’s right to collect the entire arrearage when demanded?

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded.
- The court concluded the record did not establish an enforceable agreement that required Jole to accept only installment payments and barred her from demanding the remaining arrearage in a lump sum.
- The court treated the August 27 letter’s “minimum” and “attempt” language as describing payment expectations and an accommodation, not a definite surrender of the landlord’s right to collect the full amount due.
- Because the asserted restriction on Jole’s collection rights was not proven, dismissal of her rent-collection action was improper, and the case had to proceed on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A party asserting that a contract has been modified bears the burden to prove the modification by the required evidentiary standard under Oregon law.
- A creditor’s willingness to accept partial payments on an accrued debt, without a clear agreement changing when the full debt may be collected, does not by itself prevent the creditor from later demanding the remaining balance.
- Payment-plan language framed as minimum monthly payments and efforts to pay more, without a definite term that limits collection or creates a right to pay only in installments, is generally insufficient to show a binding waiver of the right to collect the full amount due.

## Conclusion

Jole’s August 1984 letter and the tenants’ subsequent $25-to-$50 monthly payments did not clearly establish a binding modification that barred Jole from demanding immediate payment of the remaining rent arrearage; the Court of Appeals therefore reversed the dismissal of her action and remanded for further proceedings.


Jole v. Bredbenner, 768 P.2d 433 (1989)