{"meta":{"key":"s_or--pass-06","task":"S_OR","title":"SOR bounded precision correction to","parent_title":"Oregon debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-06","path":"/research/s_or--pass-06/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-26","tables":10,"claims":6,"sources":3,"review_status":"accepted_with_limits","review_complete":true,"sha256":"7879dd4737c3d9496de0da82c94c1c9ffc7b8d7d70b9cbc6965d8696ecbf04e8","headings":["1. Old → corrected patch table","S_OR-P5-C020 — replacement","Replacement for PASS-05 §3.7","S_OR-P5-C024 — replacement","Corrected security/claimant/remedy matrix row","Replacement for the affected PASS-05 narrative","S_OR-P5-C031 — replacement","Replacement for PASS-05 §2.8 / §5.2 RH discussion","S_OR-P5-S009 — corrected affected source cell","S_OR-P5-S007 — corrected ORS 697.762 usage","S_OR-P5-S012 — corrected source cell","Freshly read for PASS-06","Reused without rerunning","Access and provenance preserved","Not read or established"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-5.6 Sol","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_OR/pass-06","facets":{"geography":["us","us-or"],"debt_type":[],"stage":[],"subject":[]},"scope":"P5 C020operative/effective/contractapplicability, C024claim-inclusion-versus-court-award, C031joint-authority precision only.","pending_corrections":0},"markdown":"# S_OR PASS-06 — bounded precision correction to PASS-05\n\n**Fresh research session date:** October 25, 2026, Pacific time / October 26, 2026, UTC.\n**Mode/model:** Regular Chat, GPT-5.6 Sol Pro.\n**Scope:** Only the three requested PASS-05 precision points were checked. PASS-05 remains immutable except for the replacements below. Its bond amount, recovery examples, unresolved form/aggregate/priority questions, currentness limits, and all broader Oregon holds remain unchanged.\n\nThis is a researcher correction, not an independent review, component acceptance, Oregon-state acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication approval.\n\n## 1. Old → corrected patch table\n\n| Affected PASS-05 location | Old or imprecise treatment | Corrected treatment | Reason |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_OR-P5-C020; §3.7; S_OR-P5-S009; former-process coverage row** | “Former administrative bond-claim statutes were repealed effective January 1, 2010.” | **Section 27 states that the listed statutes are repealed. Section 28(1) makes that repeal operative on January 1, 2010. Section 31 separately makes the 2009 Act effective on passage. Section 29 separately states that the listed new provisions, amendments, and repeal apply to debt-management-service contracts entered into on or after the Act’s effective date.** No calendar approval/effective date, preexisting-contract disposition, or current historical-claim result is inferred. [Oregon Legislative Information System](https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | “Effective,” “operative,” and “applicable” are three distinct temporal concepts in the enrolled measure. |\n| **S_OR-P5-C024; §2.7; security/remedy matrix; Director-suit coverage row** | Wording could be read to make the impracticability finding a prerequisite to the Director including or seeking a damages claim. | **The Director may include a damages claim in the authorized suit on behalf of a person injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought an injunction or restraining order. The court—not the Director—may award appropriate relief if the court finds that private enforcement would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable.** The finding conditions the court’s award, not the Director’s inclusion of the claim. [OregonLaws+1](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762) | ORS 697.762(2) assigns two different acts to two different actors. |\n| **S_OR-P5-C031; §§2.8 and 5.2; agency-interpretation coverage row; S_OR-P5-S012** | Correctly reported the $3,000 consumer-payment order and separate $20,000 state penalty, but could imply a debt-management-only ORS 697 precedent. | **RH Law Group was a default mortgage-loan-modification matter involving both the Oregon Mortgage Lending Law and Debt Management Service Providers Law. The $3,000 payment order jointly invoked ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and ORS 697.718(1). The $20,000 penalty jointly invoked ORS 86A.992 and ORS 697.832 for specified mortgage and debt-management violations.** The amounts were not wrong; their joint statutory footing and procedural posture require clarification. [Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+3](https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf) | Prevents treating a mixed-law default order as a pure ORS 697 bond or recovery precedent. |\n\n# 2. Full replacement claim cells\n\n## S_OR-P5-C020 — replacement\n\n| Field | Replacement |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Claim ID** | **S_OR-P5-C020** |\n| **Precise assertion** | HB 2191 §27 states that ORS 697.772, 697.782, 697.792, 697.802, and 697.812, along with the other listed statutes, are repealed. Section 28(1) makes the §27 repeal **operative January 1, 2010**. Section 31 separately declares an emergency and provides that the 2009 Act **takes effect on passage**. Section 29 separately provides that the listed provisions, amendments, and repeal apply to a contract for debt-management services entered into on or after the Act’s effective date. |\n| **Sources and exact pinpoints** | **S_OR-P5-S009**, official enrolled HB 2191-B: §27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / zero-based PDF index 26; §29 and §31, printed p.28 / PDF index 27. Direct URL: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled. Official access overview: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191. [Oregon Legislative Information System+3](https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled) |\n| **Conditions, currentness, and limits** | The enrolled document establishes the three textual distinctions but does not supply a completed gubernatorial approval or filing date on printed p.28, so no calendar “effective-on-passage” date is inferred here. It also does not, by itself, resolve whether or how the former procedures govern a pre-effective-date contract, savings clause, accrued claim, later litigation, or other transitional circumstance. The prior warning remains bounded: the repealed administrative procedures must not be imported as the ordinary procedure for current-program contracts merely because they existed historically. This is not an adjudication of every historical contract or claim. |\n\n### Replacement for PASS-05 §3.7\n\n**Former administrative claim statutes — temporal qualification.** HB 2191 §27 states that the listed former administrative bond-claim statutes are repealed. Section 28(1) makes that repeal operative on January 1, 2010. Section 31 separately makes the Act effective on passage, while §29 states that the identified provisions, amendments, and repeal apply to debt-management-service contracts entered into on or after the Act’s effective date. Those clauses should not be collapsed into a statement that the repeal was simply “effective January 1, 2010.” The checked enrolled measure does not establish a calendar effective date from its uncompleted signature fields or decide the treatment of earlier contracts, accrued claims, savings issues, or later historical litigation. [Oregon Legislative Information System](https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n## S_OR-P5-C024 — replacement\n\n| Field | Replacement |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Claim ID** | **S_OR-P5-C024** |\n| **Precise assertion** | Under ORS 697.762(1), when the Director determines that a person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in an act or practice that the Director believes violates the enumerated debt-management provisions, the Director may bring a state circuit-court suit to enjoin the act or practice. Upon a proper showing, the court shall grant a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order and may appoint a receiver or conservator. Under subsection (2), the Director **may include** in that suit a damages claim on behalf of a person injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought injunctive relief. The court **may award appropriate relief** if the court finds that private enforcement, by class action or otherwise, would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable. |\n| **Sources and exact pinpoints** | **S_OR-P5-S007**, current-readable secondary reproduction of ORS 697.762(1)–(2): https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762, especially subsection (2). **S_OR-P5-S009**, official historical enactment, HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / zero-based PDF index 16: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled. [OregonLaws+1](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762) |\n| **Conditions, currentness, and limits** | The Director’s authority to include the claim is not textually conditioned on a prior impracticability finding. The court’s power to award appropriate relief is conditioned on the court making that finding. Injunctive relief still requires the subsection (1) statutory predicate and a proper showing; receiver or conservator appointment remains discretionary. This is a public-enforcement route distinct from the consumer’s private ORS 697.718 action. It does not itself produce an automatic judgment, restitution award, bond claim, surety payment, or consumer payout. The current-readable ORS page is secondary; the official 2009 enactment corroborates the wording but is not a complete current amendment chain. |\n\n### Corrected security/claimant/remedy matrix row\n\n| Route | Who invokes it | Required basis | Potential result | Bond relationship | Failure cases and limits |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Director injunction and included consumer-damages claim under ORS 697.762** | Director | For the suit: the Director determines that a person engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in an act or practice the Director believes violates the enumerated provisions. For damages inclusion: a person was injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought an injunction or restraining order. | Upon a proper showing, the court shall grant injunctive or restraining relief and may appoint a receiver or conservator. The Director may include a consumer-damages claim. The court may award appropriate relief only if it finds private enforcement so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable. | May coexist with a bond issue, but the statute does not automatically convert the suit, included claim, or award into bond payment. | The court’s impracticability finding is not a filing prerequisite for the Director to include the claim; it is a condition on the court awarding appropriate relief. No automatic suit, award, bond recovery, or receiver appointment. [OregonLaws+1](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762) |\n\n### Replacement for the affected PASS-05 narrative\n\nThe Director may include a damages claim in the authorized enforcement suit on behalf of a person injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought injunctive relief. The text does not require the Director first to obtain an impracticability finding before including that claim. The **court** may award appropriate relief if it finds that enforcing the person’s right through private civil litigation, including a class action, would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable. The included claim remains part of a public-enforcement suit and does not itself establish a private judgment, a covered bond loss, or surety payment. [OregonLaws+1](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762)\n\n## S_OR-P5-C031 — replacement\n\n| Field | Replacement |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Claim ID** | **S_OR-P5-C031** |\n| **Precise assertion** | In the July 21, 2011 **Final Order by Default** against RH Law Group, DFR addressed an unlicensed residential mortgage-loan-modification operation under both the Oregon Mortgage Lending Law and the Debt Management Service Providers Law. Conclusion 15 stated liability under ORS 697.718(1) for ascertainable consumer loss. The operative payment paragraph then ordered RH Law Group, **pursuant to both ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and ORS 697.718(1),** to pay $3,000 to the harmed Oregon consumer. A separate paragraph ordered a $20,000 civil penalty, **pursuant to both ORS 86A.992 and ORS 697.832,** for violations of ORS 86A.103(1), 86A.203(1), 86A.236(9), and 697.612(1). |\n| **Sources and exact pinpoints** | **S_OR-P5-S012**, RH Law Group, M-11-0040: caption, default posture, and invocation of both statutory schemes, printed p.1 / PDF index 0; mortgage-loan-modification facts, printed pp.2–3 / indices 1–2; Conclusions 13–15 and payment/penalty orders, printed p.4 / index 3; July 21, 2011 date and judicial-review notice, printed p.5 / index 4. Direct URL: https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf. [Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+5](https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf) |\n| **Conditions, currentness, and limits** | This is a precision correction, not a correction of the $3,000 or $20,000 amounts. It is a fact-specific administrative default order involving intertwined mortgage and debt-management violations. The order directs payment; it does not prove that RH Law Group actually paid the consumer or the state. It does not identify or adjudicate a surety, issued bond, bond coverage, aggregate limit, claim priority, bond payout, or insurer liability. No later appellate or judicial-review outcome was established. It is not a pure ORS 697 appellate precedent. |\n\n### Replacement for PASS-05 §2.8 / §5.2 RH discussion\n\n**RH Law Group — mixed mortgage and debt-management default order.** In its July 21, 2011 Final Order by Default, DFR found that RH Law Group had taken money to negotiate a residential mortgage modification without the required mortgage licenses or debt-management registration. Conclusion 15 invoked ORS 697.718(1), but the actual $3,000 consumer-payment paragraph jointly relied on ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and ORS 697.718(1). The separate $20,000 state penalty jointly relied on ORS 86A.992 and ORS 697.832 and covered specified violations under both statutory schemes. The order therefore supports the bounded proposition that DFR ordered separate consumer payment and state penalty in a mixed-law default mortgage-modification case. It does not establish actual payment, a surety obligation, bond coverage, or a universal ORS 697-only recovery rule. [Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+1](https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n# 3. Affected source cells and supplemental usage records\n\nThese are corrected usages of existing PASS-05 sources. They are not additional independent authorities.\n\n## S_OR-P5-S009 — corrected affected source cell\n\n| Field | Corrected entry |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Source ID** | **S_OR-P5-S009** |\n| **Title / issuer** | Enrolled HB 2191-B, Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 604 — Oregon Legislative Assembly |\n| **Direct literal URL** | https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled |\n| **Official access route** | https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191 |\n| **Corrected exact material** | §15, printed p.17 / zero-based PDF index 16: Director suit, injunction, receiver/conservator, included damages claim, and court impracticability finding. §27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / index 26: repeal and January 1, 2010 operative date. §29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27: contract applicability and effectiveness on passage. |\n| **Status and access** | **Fresh official targeted read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC.** Parsed text and the affected page images were inspected. OLIS identifies the measure as Chapter 604. The earlier history in which the direct route failed once and the overview’s Enrolled link later succeeded remains preserved. In this PASS-06 session, both the ordinary direct PDF URL and overview route were usable. [Oregon Legislative Information System+4](https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled) |\n| **Limits** | This remains official historical enacted material, not a complete current Chapter 697 amendment chain. No calendar gubernatorial approval, filing, or passage date was inferred from the blank signature fields. No preexisting-contract, savings, retroactivity, or current historical-claim determination was made. |\n\n## S_OR-P5-S007 — corrected ORS 697.762 usage\n\n| Field | Corrected entry |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Source ID** | **S_OR-P5-S007**, affected ORS 697.762 usage only |\n| **Title / issuer** | ORS 697.762, “Enjoining violations; attorney fees; damages” — current-readable secondary reproduction |\n| **Direct literal URL** | https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762 |\n| **Exact material** | ORS 697.762(1): Director’s predicate and suit authority; court’s injunction and receiver/conservator powers. ORS 697.762(2): Director may include an injured-person damages claim; court may award appropriate relief if it finds private enforcement impracticable because of burden or expense. |\n| **Status and access** | **Fresh secondary read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC.** The site is not the official Oregon Legislature codification. The current official Chapter 697 route remained historically blocked and was not repeatedly retried. The wording was corroborated against official HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / PDF index 16. [OregonLaws+1](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762) |\n| **Limits** | Not a complete current official amendment-chain authentication. No automatic damages award, bond liability, or consumer payment follows from the inclusion authority. |\n\n## S_OR-P5-S012 — corrected source cell\n\n| Field | Corrected entry |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Source ID** | **S_OR-P5-S012** |\n| **Title / issuer** | RH Law Group, M-11-0040, Final Order to Cease and Desist and Order Assessing Civil Penalty, Entered by Default — Oregon DCBS/Division of Finance and Corporate Securities |\n| **Direct literal URL** | https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf |\n| **Exact material** | Printed p.1 / PDF index 0: default posture and proceeding under both ORS chapter 86A and ORS 697.602 et seq. Printed pp.2–3 / indices 1–2: unlicensed mortgage-loan-modification facts and dual regulatory posture. Printed p.4 / index 3: Conclusion 15; $3,000 consumer-payment order under ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and 697.718(1); $20,000 state penalty under ORS 86A.992 and 697.832 for the listed mortgage and debt-management violations. Printed p.5 / index 4: July 21, 2011 date and judicial-review notice. |\n| **Status and access** | **Fresh official targeted read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC.** Relevant parsed text and page images were inspected. [Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+5](https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf) |\n| **Limits** | Administrative default order, not a contested appellate holding. It directs payment but does not establish that payment occurred. No bond, surety, bond claim, or payout was adjudicated. No later judicial-review or appellate status was established. |\n\n# 4. New PASS-06 precision claims\n\n| New claim ID | Precise assertion | Sources and pinpoints | Limits |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_OR-P6-C001** | In HB 2191, repeal, operability, effectiveness, and contract applicability are distinct: §27 states the repeal; §28(1) makes it operative January 1, 2010; §31 makes the Act effective on passage; and §29 applies the identified changes and repeal to contracts entered into on or after that effective date. | HB 2191 §27–§28(1), printed p.27 / PDF index 26; §29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27. [Oregon Legislative Information System](https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | No calendar effective date, preexisting-contract disposition, savings rule, or historical-claim result established. |\n| **S_OR-P6-C002** | ORS 697.762(2) permits the Director to include an injured-person damages claim in the authorized suit without first obtaining an impracticability finding; the court may award appropriate relief only if the court finds private enforcement would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable. | Current-readable ORS 697.762(2); HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / PDF index 16. [OregonLaws+1](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762) | Public-enforcement damages route only; no automatic award or bond payout. |\n| **S_OR-P6-C003** | The RH Law Group $3,000 consumer-payment order and $20,000 state penalty were jointly grounded in mortgage and debt-management authorities in a residential loan-modification default matter. | RH order, printed p.4 / PDF index 3; contextual findings and conclusions, printed pp.1–4 / indices 0–3; date, printed p.5 / index 4. [Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+4](https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf) | Amounts unchanged; no proof of actual payment, bond liability, or later appellate status. |\n\n# 5. Affected coverage-row replacements\n\n| PASS-05 coverage row | Corrected status | Corrected supporting claims | Exact remaining gap / next action |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Former administrative claims process** | **Answered as a historical transition, with temporal qualification** | S_OR-P5-C020; S_OR-P6-C001 | The former statutes are listed as repealed; repeal became operative January 1, 2010; the Act was effective on passage; and §29 supplies a contract-applicability clause. A dedicated historical-transition analysis would still be required for pre-effective-date contracts, accrued rights, savings, retroactivity, or historical litigation. The repealed process is not imported as the ordinary current-program procedure. |\n| **Director injunction / damages / receiver route** | **Corrected and answered in core** | S_OR-P5-C024; S_OR-P6-C002 | The Director may include the damages claim; the court’s impracticability finding conditions an award of appropriate relief. Full pleading, proof, remedy valuation, receiver distribution, attorney-fee, and bond-payment procedure remain outside PASS-06. |\n| **Agency interpretation of ascertainable loss — RH Law Group** | **Corrected as mixed-law, fact-specific default order** | S_OR-P5-C031; S_OR-P6-C003 | The $3,000 order jointly invoked ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and 697.718(1); the $20,000 penalty jointly invoked ORS 86A.992 and 697.832. It does not establish actual payment, surety liability, bond coverage, aggregate limits, claim priority, or later appellate status. |\n| **All three PASS-05 recovery examples** | **Unchanged; not recalculated in PASS-06** | Existing PASS-05 example assumptions and claims | No new arithmetic, coverage, priority, or payout conclusion is added. |\n| **All other PASS-05 coverage** | **Unchanged** | Existing PASS-05 claims | Current $25,000 rule; current official Chapter 697 authentication; complete bond form; statutory condition/private-action mismatch; aggregate/per-claim liability; priority; exhaustion; replenishment; cancellation tail; successor security; actual provider, registration, surety, bond, claims, payments, and capacity; limitations interplay; attorney-fee bond coverage; fees; funds; ORS chapter 717 overlap; bankruptcy; insurance; contract; collections; litigation; secured debt; sector; local; tribal; and all parent-state dimensions remain open exactly as previously recorded. |\n\n# 6. Researcher self-check\n\n## Freshly read for PASS-06\n\n- Official enrolled HB 2191:§27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / zero-based PDF index 26;§29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27;§15, printed p.17 / index 16.\n- Official OLIS HB 2191 overview and Enrolled link.\n- Current-readable ORS 697.762(1)–(2).\n- RH Law Group’s complete relevant order body:caption/default posture and dual statutory basis;mortgage-modification facts;Conclusions 13–15;$3,000 consumer-payment paragraph;$20,000 civil-penalty paragraph;date and judicial-review notice.\n- The affected PDF pages were visually inspected through the public PDF-rendering route.\n\n## Reused without rerunning\n\n- The remainder of PASS-05’s twelve source usages, thirty-four claims, forty coverage rows, matrices, and three recovery examples.\n- The current $25,000 OAR/DFR bond finding.\n- The unresolved ORS 697.642 condition-versus-697.718 private-action mismatch.\n- The missing complete Oregon-specific bond form.\n- All prior fee, funds, federal, money-transmission, provider, and currentness holds.\n\n## Access and provenance preserved\n\n- The earlier HB 2191 direct-route failure remains part of the saved access history; the later overview-linked Enrolled route worked.\n- During this PASS-06 session, the ordinary official PDF and overview routes both opened.\n- The historically blocked official current ORS Chapter 697 route was not repeatedly retried or circumvented.\n- The current ORS 697.762 text was read through a secondary reproduction and was not relabeled as official current codification.\n- No individual fetch timestamps were invented.\n\n## Not read or established\n\n- A complete current official Chapter 697 amendment chain.\n- The calendar approval, filing, or legal “passage” date of the 2009 Act.\n- Treatment of every contract entered before the Act’s effective date.\n- Savings, retroactivity, accrued-right, or historical-claim doctrine.\n- RH Law Group payment compliance, collection history, bond status, surety liability, or later appellate/judicial-review result.\n- Any named provider, current bond, claim, complaint, filing, private record, or surety account.\n- No calculations, applications, filings, contacts, account changes, purchases, Chrome control, other Chat, local writes, site changes, or publication actions occurred.\n\n**END S_OR PASS-06**\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Affected PASS-05 location","Old or imprecise treatment","Corrected treatment","Reason"],"index":0,"links":[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System"},{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"},{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+3"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System"}],[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+3"}]],"rows":[["Affected PASS-05 location","Old or imprecise treatment","Corrected treatment","Reason"],["S_OR-P5-C020; §3.7; S_OR-P5-S009; former-process coverage row","“Former administrative bond-claim statutes were repealed effective January 1, 2010.”","Section 27 states that the listed statutes are repealed. Section 28(1) makes that repeal operative on January 1, 2010. Section 31 separately makes the 2009 Act effective on passage. Section 29 separately states that the listed new provisions, amendments, and repeal apply to debt-management-service contracts entered into on or after the Act’s effective date. No calendar approval/effective date, preexisting-contract disposition, or current historical-claim result is inferred. \nOregon Legislative Information System","“Effective,” “operative,” and “applicable” are three distinct temporal concepts in the enrolled measure."],["S_OR-P5-C024; §2.7; security/remedy matrix; Director-suit coverage row","Wording could be read to make the impracticability finding a prerequisite to the Director including or seeking a damages claim.","The Director may include a damages claim in the authorized suit on behalf of a person injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought an injunction or restraining order. The court—not the Director—may award appropriate relief if the court finds that private enforcement would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable. The finding conditions the court’s award, not the Director’s inclusion of the claim. \nOregonLaws\n+1","ORS 697.762(2) assigns two different acts to two different actors."],["S_OR-P5-C031; §§2.8 and 5.2; agency-interpretation coverage row; S_OR-P5-S012","Correctly reported the $3,000 consumer-payment order and separate $20,000 state penalty, but could imply a debt-management-only ORS 697 precedent.","RH Law Group was a default mortgage-loan-modification matter involving both the Oregon Mortgage Lending Law and Debt Management Service Providers Law. The $3,000 payment order jointly invoked ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and ORS 697.718(1). The $20,000 penalty jointly invoked ORS 86A.992 and ORS 697.832 for specified mortgage and debt-management violations. The amounts were not wrong; their joint statutory footing and procedural posture require clarification. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+3","Prevents treating a mixed-law default order as a pure ORS 697 bond or recovery precedent."]]},{"headers":["Field","Replacement"],"index":1,"links":[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System\n+3"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System\n+3"}],[]],"rows":[["Field","Replacement"],["Claim ID","S_OR-P5-C020"],["Precise assertion","HB 2191 §27 states that ORS 697.772, 697.782, 697.792, 697.802, and 697.812, along with the other listed statutes, are repealed. Section 28(1) makes the §27 repeal operative January 1, 2010. Section 31 separately declares an emergency and provides that the 2009 Act takes effect on passage. Section 29 separately provides that the listed provisions, amendments, and repeal apply to a contract for debt-management services entered into on or after the Act’s effective date."],["Sources and exact pinpoints","S_OR-P5-S009, official enrolled HB 2191-B: §27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / zero-based PDF index 26; §29 and §31, printed p.28 / PDF index 27. Direct URL: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled. Official access overview: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191. \nOregon Legislative Information System\n+3"],["Conditions, currentness, and limits","The enrolled document establishes the three textual distinctions but does not supply a completed gubernatorial approval or filing date on printed p.28, so no calendar “effective-on-passage” date is inferred here. It also does not, by itself, resolve whether or how the former procedures govern a pre-effective-date contract, savings clause, accrued claim, later litigation, or other transitional circumstance. The prior warning remains bounded: the repealed administrative procedures must not be imported as the ordinary procedure for current-program contracts merely because they existed historically. This is not an adjudication of every historical contract or claim."]]},{"headers":["Field","Replacement"],"index":2,"links":[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],[]],"rows":[["Field","Replacement"],["Claim ID","S_OR-P5-C024"],["Precise assertion","Under ORS 697.762(1), when the Director determines that a person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in an act or practice that the Director believes violates the enumerated debt-management provisions, the Director may bring a state circuit-court suit to enjoin the act or practice. Upon a proper showing, the court shall grant a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order and may appoint a receiver or conservator. Under subsection (2), the Director may include in that suit a damages claim on behalf of a person injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought injunctive relief. The court may award appropriate relief if the court finds that private enforcement, by class action or otherwise, would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable."],["Sources and exact pinpoints","S_OR-P5-S007, current-readable secondary reproduction of ORS 697.762(1)–(2): https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762, especially subsection (2). S_OR-P5-S009, official historical enactment, HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / zero-based PDF index 16: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled. \nOregonLaws\n+1"],["Conditions, currentness, and limits","The Director’s authority to include the claim is not textually conditioned on a prior impracticability finding. The court’s power to award appropriate relief is conditioned on the court making that finding. Injunctive relief still requires the subsection (1) statutory predicate and a proper showing; receiver or conservator appointment remains discretionary. This is a public-enforcement route distinct from the consumer’s private ORS 697.718 action. It does not itself produce an automatic judgment, restitution award, bond claim, surety payment, or consumer payout. The current-readable ORS page is secondary; the official 2009 enactment corroborates the wording but is not a complete current amendment chain."]]},{"headers":["Route","Who invokes it","Required basis","Potential result","Bond relationship","Failure cases and limits"],"index":3,"links":[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}]],"rows":[["Route","Who invokes it","Required basis","Potential result","Bond relationship","Failure cases and limits"],["Director injunction and included consumer-damages claim under ORS 697.762","Director","For the suit: the Director determines that a person engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in an act or practice the Director believes violates the enumerated provisions. For damages inclusion: a person was injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought an injunction or restraining order.","Upon a proper showing, the court shall grant injunctive or restraining relief and may appoint a receiver or conservator. The Director may include a consumer-damages claim. The court may award appropriate relief only if it finds private enforcement so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable.","May coexist with a bond issue, but the statute does not automatically convert the suit, included claim, or award into bond payment.","The court’s impracticability finding is not a filing prerequisite for the Director to include the claim; it is a condition on the court awarding appropriate relief. No automatic suit, award, bond recovery, or receiver appointment. \nOregonLaws\n+1"]]},{"headers":["Field","Replacement"],"index":4,"links":[{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5"}],[]],"rows":[["Field","Replacement"],["Claim ID","S_OR-P5-C031"],["Precise assertion","In the July 21, 2011 Final Order by Default against RH Law Group, DFR addressed an unlicensed residential mortgage-loan-modification operation under both the Oregon Mortgage Lending Law and the Debt Management Service Providers Law. Conclusion 15 stated liability under ORS 697.718(1) for ascertainable consumer loss. The operative payment paragraph then ordered RH Law Group, pursuant to both ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and ORS 697.718(1), to pay $3,000 to the harmed Oregon consumer. A separate paragraph ordered a $20,000 civil penalty, pursuant to both ORS 86A.992 and ORS 697.832, for violations of ORS 86A.103(1), 86A.203(1), 86A.236(9), and 697.612(1)."],["Sources and exact pinpoints","S_OR-P5-S012, RH Law Group, M-11-0040: caption, default posture, and invocation of both statutory schemes, printed p.1 / PDF index 0; mortgage-loan-modification facts, printed pp.2–3 / indices 1–2; Conclusions 13–15 and payment/penalty orders, printed p.4 / index 3; July 21, 2011 date and judicial-review notice, printed p.5 / index 4. Direct URL: https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5"],["Conditions, currentness, and limits","This is a precision correction, not a correction of the $3,000 or $20,000 amounts. It is a fact-specific administrative default order involving intertwined mortgage and debt-management violations. The order directs payment; it does not prove that RH Law Group actually paid the consumer or the state. It does not identify or adjudicate a surety, issued bond, bond coverage, aggregate limit, claim priority, bond payout, or insurer liability. No later appellate or judicial-review outcome was established. It is not a pure ORS 697 appellate precedent."]]},{"headers":["Field","Corrected entry"],"index":5,"links":[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System\n+4"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System\n+4"}],[]],"rows":[["Field","Corrected entry"],["Source ID","S_OR-P5-S009"],["Title / issuer","Enrolled HB 2191-B, Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 604 — Oregon Legislative Assembly"],["Direct literal URL","https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled"],["Official access route","https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191"],["Corrected exact material","§15, printed p.17 / zero-based PDF index 16: Director suit, injunction, receiver/conservator, included damages claim, and court impracticability finding. §27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / index 26: repeal and January 1, 2010 operative date. §29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27: contract applicability and effectiveness on passage."],["Status and access","Fresh official targeted read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC. Parsed text and the affected page images were inspected. OLIS identifies the measure as Chapter 604. The earlier history in which the direct route failed once and the overview’s Enrolled link later succeeded remains preserved. In this PASS-06 session, both the ordinary direct PDF URL and overview route were usable. \nOregon Legislative Information System\n+4"],["Limits","This remains official historical enacted material, not a complete current Chapter 697 amendment chain. No calendar gubernatorial approval, filing, or passage date was inferred from the blank signature fields. No preexisting-contract, savings, retroactivity, or current historical-claim determination was made."]]},{"headers":["Field","Corrected entry"],"index":6,"links":[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],[]],"rows":[["Field","Corrected entry"],["Source ID","S_OR-P5-S007, affected ORS 697.762 usage only"],["Title / issuer","ORS 697.762, “Enjoining violations; attorney fees; damages” — current-readable secondary reproduction"],["Direct literal URL","https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762"],["Exact material","ORS 697.762(1): Director’s predicate and suit authority; court’s injunction and receiver/conservator powers. ORS 697.762(2): Director may include an injured-person damages claim; court may award appropriate relief if it finds private enforcement impracticable because of burden or expense."],["Status and access","Fresh secondary read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC. The site is not the official Oregon Legislature codification. The current official Chapter 697 route remained historically blocked and was not repeatedly retried. The wording was corroborated against official HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / PDF index 16. \nOregonLaws\n+1"],["Limits","Not a complete current official amendment-chain authentication. No automatic damages award, bond liability, or consumer payment follows from the inclusion authority."]]},{"headers":["Field","Corrected entry"],"index":7,"links":[{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5"}],[]],"rows":[["Field","Corrected entry"],["Source ID","S_OR-P5-S012"],["Title / issuer","RH Law Group, M-11-0040, Final Order to Cease and Desist and Order Assessing Civil Penalty, Entered by Default — Oregon DCBS/Division of Finance and Corporate Securities"],["Direct literal URL","https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf"],["Exact material","Printed p.1 / PDF index 0: default posture and proceeding under both ORS chapter 86A and ORS 697.602 et seq. Printed pp.2–3 / indices 1–2: unlicensed mortgage-loan-modification facts and dual regulatory posture. Printed p.4 / index 3: Conclusion 15; $3,000 consumer-payment order under ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and 697.718(1); $20,000 state penalty under ORS 86A.992 and 697.832 for the listed mortgage and debt-management violations. Printed p.5 / index 4: July 21, 2011 date and judicial-review notice."],["Status and access","Fresh official targeted read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC. Relevant parsed text and page images were inspected. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5"],["Limits","Administrative default order, not a contested appellate holding. It directs payment but does not establish that payment occurred. No bond, surety, bond claim, or payout was adjudicated. No later judicial-review or appellate status was established."]]},{"headers":["New claim ID","Precise assertion","Sources and pinpoints","Limits"],"index":8,"links":[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System"},{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"},{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+4"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"Oregon Legislative Information System"}],[{"href":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","text":"OregonLaws\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","text":"Oregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+4"}]],"rows":[["New claim ID","Precise assertion","Sources and pinpoints","Limits"],["S_OR-P6-C001","In HB 2191, repeal, operability, effectiveness, and contract applicability are distinct: §27 states the repeal; §28(1) makes it operative January 1, 2010; §31 makes the Act effective on passage; and §29 applies the identified changes and repeal to contracts entered into on or after that effective date.","HB 2191 §27–§28(1), printed p.27 / PDF index 26; §29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27. \nOregon Legislative Information System","No calendar effective date, preexisting-contract disposition, savings rule, or historical-claim result established."],["S_OR-P6-C002","ORS 697.762(2) permits the Director to include an injured-person damages claim in the authorized suit without first obtaining an impracticability finding; the court may award appropriate relief only if the court finds private enforcement would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable.","Current-readable ORS 697.762(2); HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / PDF index 16. \nOregonLaws\n+1","Public-enforcement damages route only; no automatic award or bond payout."],["S_OR-P6-C003","The RH Law Group $3,000 consumer-payment order and $20,000 state penalty were jointly grounded in mortgage and debt-management authorities in a residential loan-modification default matter.","RH order, printed p.4 / PDF index 3; contextual findings and conclusions, printed pp.1–4 / indices 0–3; date, printed p.5 / index 4. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+4","Amounts unchanged; no proof of actual payment, bond liability, or later appellate status."]]},{"headers":["PASS-05 coverage row","Corrected status","Corrected supporting claims","Exact remaining gap / next action"],"index":9,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["PASS-05 coverage row","Corrected status","Corrected supporting claims","Exact remaining gap / next action"],["Former administrative claims process","Answered as a historical transition, with temporal qualification","S_OR-P5-C020; S_OR-P6-C001","The former statutes are listed as repealed; repeal became operative January 1, 2010; the Act was effective on passage; and §29 supplies a contract-applicability clause. A dedicated historical-transition analysis would still be required for pre-effective-date contracts, accrued rights, savings, retroactivity, or historical litigation. The repealed process is not imported as the ordinary current-program procedure."],["Director injunction / damages / receiver route","Corrected and answered in core","S_OR-P5-C024; S_OR-P6-C002","The Director may include the damages claim; the court’s impracticability finding conditions an award of appropriate relief. Full pleading, proof, remedy valuation, receiver distribution, attorney-fee, and bond-payment procedure remain outside PASS-06."],["Agency interpretation of ascertainable loss — RH Law Group","Corrected as mixed-law, fact-specific default order","S_OR-P5-C031; S_OR-P6-C003","The $3,000 order jointly invoked ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and 697.718(1); the $20,000 penalty jointly invoked ORS 86A.992 and 697.832. It does not establish actual payment, surety liability, bond coverage, aggregate limits, claim priority, or later appellate status."],["All three PASS-05 recovery examples","Unchanged; not recalculated in PASS-06","Existing PASS-05 example assumptions and claims","No new arithmetic, coverage, priority, or payout conclusion is added."],["All other PASS-05 coverage","Unchanged","Existing PASS-05 claims","Current $25,000 rule; current official Chapter 697 authentication; complete bond form; statutory condition/private-action mismatch; aggregate/per-claim liability; priority; exhaustion; replenishment; cancellation tail; successor security; actual provider, registration, surety, bond, claims, payments, and capacity; limitations interplay; attorney-fee bond coverage; fees; funds; ORS chapter 717 overlap; bankruptcy; insurance; contract; collections; litigation; secured debt; sector; local; tribal; and all parent-state dimensions remain open exactly as previously recorded."]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_OR-P5-C020","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OR-P5-C020","Precise assertion":"HB 2191 §27 states that ORS 697.772, 697.782, 697.792, 697.802, and 697.812, along with the other listed statutes, are repealed. Section 28(1) makes the §27 repeal operative January 1, 2010. Section 31 separately declares an emergency and provides that the 2009 Act takes effect on passage. Section 29 separately provides that the listed provisions, amendments, and repeal apply to a contract for debt-management services entered into on or after the Act’s effective date.","Sources and exact pinpoints":"S_OR-P5-S009, official enrolled HB 2191-B: §27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / zero-based PDF index 26; §29 and §31, printed p.28 / PDF index 27. Direct URL: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled. Official access overview: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191. \nOregon Legislative Information System\n+3","Conditions, currentness, and limits":"The enrolled document establishes the three textual distinctions but does not supply a completed gubernatorial approval or filing date on printed p.28, so no calendar “effective-on-passage” date is inferred here. It also does not, by itself, resolve whether or how the former procedures govern a pre-effective-date contract, savings clause, accrued claim, later litigation, or other transitional circumstance. The prior warning remains bounded: the repealed administrative procedures must not be imported as the ordinary procedure for current-program contracts merely because they existed historically. This is not an adjudication of every historical contract or claim."},"original_vertical_table_index":1,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"claim_id":"S_OR-P5-C024","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OR-P5-C024","Precise assertion":"Under ORS 697.762(1), when the Director determines that a person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in an act or practice that the Director believes violates the enumerated debt-management provisions, the Director may bring a state circuit-court suit to enjoin the act or practice. Upon a proper showing, the court shall grant a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order and may appoint a receiver or conservator. Under subsection (2), the Director may include in that suit a damages claim on behalf of a person injured by the act or practice against which the Director sought injunctive relief. The court may award appropriate relief if the court finds that private enforcement, by class action or otherwise, would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable.","Sources and exact pinpoints":"S_OR-P5-S007, current-readable secondary reproduction of ORS 697.762(1)–(2): https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762, especially subsection (2). S_OR-P5-S009, official historical enactment, HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / zero-based PDF index 16: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled. \nOregonLaws\n+1","Conditions, currentness, and limits":"The Director’s authority to include the claim is not textually conditioned on a prior impracticability finding. The court’s power to award appropriate relief is conditioned on the court making that finding. Injunctive relief still requires the subsection (1) statutory predicate and a proper showing; receiver or conservator appointment remains discretionary. This is a public-enforcement route distinct from the consumer’s private ORS 697.718 action. It does not itself produce an automatic judgment, restitution award, bond claim, surety payment, or consumer payout. The current-readable ORS page is secondary; the official 2009 enactment corroborates the wording but is not a complete current amendment chain."},"original_vertical_table_index":2,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"claim_id":"S_OR-P5-C031","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OR-P5-C031","Precise assertion":"In the July 21, 2011 Final Order by Default against RH Law Group, DFR addressed an unlicensed residential mortgage-loan-modification operation under both the Oregon Mortgage Lending Law and the Debt Management Service Providers Law. Conclusion 15 stated liability under ORS 697.718(1) for ascertainable consumer loss. The operative payment paragraph then ordered RH Law Group, pursuant to both ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and ORS 697.718(1), to pay $3,000 to the harmed Oregon consumer. A separate paragraph ordered a $20,000 civil penalty, pursuant to both ORS 86A.992 and ORS 697.832, for violations of ORS 86A.103(1), 86A.203(1), 86A.236(9), and 697.612(1).","Sources and exact pinpoints":"S_OR-P5-S012, RH Law Group, M-11-0040: caption, default posture, and invocation of both statutory schemes, printed p.1 / PDF index 0; mortgage-loan-modification facts, printed pp.2–3 / indices 1–2; Conclusions 13–15 and payment/penalty orders, printed p.4 / index 3; July 21, 2011 date and judicial-review notice, printed p.5 / index 4. Direct URL: https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5","Conditions, currentness, and limits":"This is a precision correction, not a correction of the $3,000 or $20,000 amounts. It is a fact-specific administrative default order involving intertwined mortgage and debt-management violations. The order directs payment; it does not prove that RH Law Group actually paid the consumer or the state. It does not identify or adjudicate a surety, issued bond, bond coverage, aggregate limit, claim priority, bond payout, or insurer liability. No later appellate or judicial-review outcome was established. It is not a pure ORS 697 appellate precedent."},"original_vertical_table_index":4,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"claim_id":"S_OR-P6-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"New claim ID":"S_OR-P6-C001","Precise assertion":"In HB 2191, repeal, operability, effectiveness, and contract applicability are distinct: §27 states the repeal; §28(1) makes it operative January 1, 2010; §31 makes the Act effective on passage; and §29 applies the identified changes and repeal to contracts entered into on or after that effective date.","Sources and pinpoints":"HB 2191 §27–§28(1), printed p.27 / PDF index 26; §29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27. \nOregon Legislative Information System","Limits":"No calendar effective date, preexisting-contract disposition, savings rule, or historical-claim result established."},"original_table_index":8,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"claim_id":"S_OR-P6-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"New claim ID":"S_OR-P6-C002","Precise assertion":"ORS 697.762(2) permits the Director to include an injured-person damages claim in the authorized suit without first obtaining an impracticability finding; the court may award appropriate relief only if the court finds private enforcement would be so burdensome or expensive as to be impracticable.","Sources and pinpoints":"Current-readable ORS 697.762(2); HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / PDF index 16. \nOregonLaws\n+1","Limits":"Public-enforcement damages route only; no automatic award or bond payout."},"original_table_index":8,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"claim_id":"S_OR-P6-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"New claim ID":"S_OR-P6-C003","Precise assertion":"The RH Law Group $3,000 consumer-payment order and $20,000 state penalty were jointly grounded in mortgage and debt-management authorities in a residential loan-modification default matter.","Sources and pinpoints":"RH order, printed p.4 / PDF index 3; contextual findings and conclusions, printed pp.1–4 / indices 0–3; date, printed p.5 / index 4. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+4","Limits":"Amounts unchanged; no proof of actual payment, bond liability, or later appellate status."},"original_table_index":8,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_OR-P5-S009","urls":["https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled","https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OR-P5-S009","Title / issuer":"Enrolled HB 2191-B, Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 604 — Oregon Legislative Assembly","Direct literal URL":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2191/Enrolled","Official access route":"https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2009R1/Measures/Overview/HB2191","Corrected exact material":"§15, printed p.17 / zero-based PDF index 16: Director suit, injunction, receiver/conservator, included damages claim, and court impracticability finding. §27 and §28(1), printed p.27 / index 26: repeal and January 1, 2010 operative date. §29 and §31, printed p.28 / index 27: contract applicability and effectiveness on passage.","Status and access":"Fresh official targeted read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC. Parsed text and the affected page images were inspected. OLIS identifies the measure as Chapter 604. The earlier history in which the direct route failed once and the overview’s Enrolled link later succeeded remains preserved. In this PASS-06 session, both the ordinary direct PDF URL and overview route were usable. \nOregon Legislative Information System\n+4","Limits":"This remains official historical enacted material, not a complete current Chapter 697 amendment chain. No calendar gubernatorial approval, filing, or passage date was inferred from the blank signature fields. No preexisting-contract, savings, retroactivity, or current historical-claim determination was made."},"original_vertical_table_index":5,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"source_id":"S_OR-P5-S007","urls":["https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OR-P5-S007, affected ORS 697.762 usage only","Title / issuer":"ORS 697.762, “Enjoining violations; attorney fees; damages” — current-readable secondary reproduction","Direct literal URL":"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_697.762","Exact material":"ORS 697.762(1): Director’s predicate and suit authority; court’s injunction and receiver/conservator powers. ORS 697.762(2): Director may include an injured-person damages claim; court may award appropriate relief if it finds private enforcement impracticable because of burden or expense.","Status and access":"Fresh secondary read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC. The site is not the official Oregon Legislature codification. The current official Chapter 697 route remained historically blocked and was not repeatedly retried. The wording was corroborated against official HB 2191 §15, printed p.17 / PDF index 16. \nOregonLaws\n+1","Limits":"Not a complete current official amendment-chain authentication. No automatic damages award, bond liability, or consumer payment follows from the inclusion authority."},"original_vertical_table_index":6,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"source_id":"S_OR-P5-S012","urls":["https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OR-P5-S012","Title / issuer":"RH Law Group, M-11-0040, Final Order to Cease and Desist and Order Assessing Civil Penalty, Entered by Default — Oregon DCBS/Division of Finance and Corporate Securities","Direct literal URL":"https://dfr.oregon.gov/AdminOrders/enf-orders2011/M-11-0040.pdf","Exact material":"Printed p.1 / PDF index 0: default posture and proceeding under both ORS chapter 86A and ORS 697.602 et seq. Printed pp.2–3 / indices 1–2: unlicensed mortgage-loan-modification facts and dual regulatory posture. Printed p.4 / index 3: Conclusion 15; $3,000 consumer-payment order under ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and 697.718(1); $20,000 state penalty under ORS 86A.992 and 697.832 for the listed mortgage and debt-management violations. Printed p.5 / index 4: July 21, 2011 date and judicial-review notice.","Status and access":"Fresh official targeted read on October 25 Pacific / October 26 UTC. Relevant parsed text and page images were inspected. \nOregon Division of Financial Regulation\n+5","Limits":"Administrative default order, not a contested appellate holding. It directs payment but does not establish that payment occurred. No bond, surety, bond claim, or payout was adjudicated. No later judicial-review or appellate status was established."},"original_vertical_table_index":7,"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_precision_correction_checked_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false}],"coverage":[{"topic":"Former administrative claims process","researcher_record":{"PASS-05 coverage row":"Former administrative claims process","Corrected status":"Answered as a historical transition, with temporal qualification","Corrected supporting claims":"S_OR-P5-C020; S_OR-P6-C001","Exact remaining gap / next action":"The former statutes are listed as repealed; repeal became operative January 1, 2010; the Act was effective on passage; and §29 supplies a contract-applicability clause. A dedicated historical-transition analysis would still be required for pre-effective-date contracts, accrued rights, savings, retroactivity, or historical litigation. The repealed process is not imported as the ordinary current-program procedure."},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_precision_patch_checked_all_broader_holds_retained","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"topic":"Director injunction / damages / receiver route","researcher_record":{"PASS-05 coverage row":"Director injunction / damages / receiver route","Corrected status":"Corrected and answered in core","Corrected supporting claims":"S_OR-P5-C024; S_OR-P6-C002","Exact remaining gap / next action":"The Director may include the damages claim; the court’s impracticability finding conditions an award of appropriate relief. Full pleading, proof, remedy valuation, receiver distribution, attorney-fee, and bond-payment procedure remain outside PASS-06."},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_precision_patch_checked_all_broader_holds_retained","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"topic":"Agency interpretation of ascertainable loss — RH Law Group","researcher_record":{"PASS-05 coverage row":"Agency interpretation of ascertainable loss — RH Law Group","Corrected status":"Corrected as mixed-law, fact-specific default order","Corrected supporting claims":"S_OR-P5-C031; S_OR-P6-C003","Exact remaining gap / next action":"The $3,000 order jointly invoked ORS 86A.224(2)(c) and 697.718(1); the $20,000 penalty jointly invoked ORS 86A.992 and 697.832. It does not establish actual payment, surety liability, bond coverage, aggregate limits, claim priority, or later appellate status."},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_precision_patch_checked_all_broader_holds_retained","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"topic":"All three PASS-05 recovery examples","researcher_record":{"PASS-05 coverage row":"All three PASS-05 recovery examples","Corrected status":"Unchanged; not recalculated in PASS-06","Corrected supporting claims":"Existing PASS-05 example assumptions and claims","Exact remaining gap / next action":"No new arithmetic, coverage, priority, or payout conclusion is added."},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_precision_patch_checked_all_broader_holds_retained","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false},{"topic":"All other PASS-05 coverage","researcher_record":{"PASS-05 coverage row":"All other PASS-05 coverage","Corrected status":"Unchanged","Corrected supporting claims":"Existing PASS-05 claims","Exact remaining gap / next action":"Current $25,000 rule; current official Chapter 697 authentication; complete bond form; statutory condition/private-action mismatch; aggregate/per-claim liability; priority; exhaustion; replenishment; cancellation tail; successor security; actual provider, registration, surety, bond, claims, payments, and capacity; limitations interplay; attorney-fee bond coverage; fees; funds; ORS chapter 717 overlap; bankruptcy; insurance; contract; collections; litigation; secured debt; sector; local; tribal; and all parent-state dimensions remain open exactly as previously recorded."},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_precision_patch_checked_all_broader_holds_retained","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]","parent_assignment_complete":false}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[]}