In Oregon, stipulated agreements are court-enforced agreements that dictate the terms and conditions under which an eviction case can be dismissed. Stipulated agreements are court-enforced agreements that landlords and tenants enter into during the course of the eviction process instead of going to trial. If all the terms of the agreement are not met, the landlord can seek a swift judgment of eviction against the tenant. These types of agreements are often touted as a successful form of post-filing eviction diversion; however, very little is known about the terms and outcomes of these cases. We conclude that stipulated agreements are a costly option for tenants. They are costly to comply with, because landlords can include terms and conditions that they would otherwise not be able to get from the tenant through the eviction legal process. These terms can include repayment for more than the amount owed listed on the notice of termination; the costs of court fees; behavioral concessions; and more. They are also costly when the tenant is unable to comply with all the terms included in an agreement, because the landlord can quickly get a judgment of eviction issued for noncompliance.

To examine how court processes at the Multnomah County Circuit Court impact tenants, our team conducted a series of court observations at the downtown courthouse between October and December 2023. In particular, we examined how the court handled the increasing size of eviction dockets during this period, the availability of legal assistance and other onsite services for tenants, the court’s implementation of new rules from Oregon House Bill 2001 (HB 2001), and any changes HB 2001 had on eviction case outcomes in Multnomah County. From our court observations, we found that high-volume eviction dockets were handled in a way that was convenient for landlords and their legal representatives, but cumbersome for tenants. Because the vast majority of tenants were unrepresented, they faced difficulties navigating the court process, submitting court documents, negotiating stipulated agreements, and defending themselves at trial. While no mediation services were offered at the courthouse, interpretation services, free childcare, and limited legal assistance were available to tenants onsite.

Drawing on both our court observations and court record data, we found that HB 2001 had positive impacts for tenants in eviction court. While the number of eviction filings continued to rise after HB 2001 was implemented, the percentage of tenants who had their eviction case dismissed—rather than receiving a judgment of eviction—increased. In addition, the percentage of tenants who received a default judgment of eviction for failing to appear in court decreased.

Housing outcomes differ from judicial outcomes, which refers to the legal outcome of an eviction lawsuit. Researchers and policymakers often rely on judicial outcomes as a proxy for housing outcomes. Studies have relied on judgments of eviction to estimate tenant displacement during the eviction process. However, tenants can be displaced during the eviction process without a judgment of eviction being issued against them. Similarly, the dismissal of an eviction case is often assumed to mean that the tenant has remained in their home. In reality, some eviction cases are dismissed because the tenant has either already moved out or agreed to leave. Recognizing that judicial outcomes and housing outcomes are distinct allows us to measure them independently. By doing so, we can use both metrics to guide policy making and program evaluations that prioritize housing stability and retention. This report defines housing outcomes, describes the method we developed to determine housing outcomes using court records and case documents, and demonstrates how housing outcomes differ from judicial outcomes.