Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

S_OR PASS-07 — Oregon mandatory agreement, disclosure, and consent component

Fresh research-access date: October 25, 2026, Pacific time / October 26, 2026, UTC. Mode/model actually used: Regular Chat, GPT-5.6 Sol Pro. Pass boundary: This pass addresses only Oregon’s pre-agreement analysis, written agreement, disclosures, signatures, electronic records, delivery, retention, cancellation and termination clauses, amendments and related contract boundaries. It does not rerun Oregon fees, consumer funds, bonds, federal debt-relief timing, provider registration, or prior corrections.

This is a focused researcher record, not an independent review, component acceptance, Oregon-state acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication approval.

Currentness limitation

The complete current official OAR Division 910 display and current DFR operational materials were freshly read. The ordinary official current ORS Chapter 697 route remained inaccessible; it was not repeatedly retried or circumvented. The readable ORS 697.652 and 697.707 reproductions state that their underlying official source was last accessed May 10, 2025 and that their compilation combines the 2023 ORS with 2024-session changes despite an “early 2026” label. The official 2009 enrolled enactment corroborates the core agreement and disclosure wording, but is not a complete current amendment chain. Oregon Secretary of State+2

The same limitation applies to the Oregon electronic-transactions and automatic-renewal statutes used here: current-readable secondary text was examined, but the ordinary official chapter routes were not recovered. Federal E-SIGN sections were freshly read from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel’s display, which stated currency through Public Law 119-120, October 7, 2026. OregonLaws+2

Executive determinations

1. The required onboarding package is not merely “a contract.” A covered, nonexempt provider generally needs: a completed written budget analysis; a feasibility and advantageousness determination; a written budget document given to the consumer; a signed disclosure document; a written agreement signed and dated by both sides; and a legible copy delivered as soon as practicable. Services cannot begin without the written agreement, and a fee described in ORS 697.692 cannot be charged or received before the ORS 697.707 disclosures. Oregon Secretary of State+2
2. Both the budget package and signed disclosures precede contract entry. OAR 441-910-0145 forbids entering the agreement until the analysis is completed and services are determined feasible and advantageous. OAR 441-910-0200 requires retention of disclosure documents signed before contract entry. The reviewed text does not prescribe which of those two precontract steps must occur first. Oregon Secretary of State
3. Most agreement clauses are written broadly, not only for traditional custodial DMPs. The statute expressly makes the “reasonable amount” clause conditional on provider custody and the quarterly statement clause dependent on funds held. But the debt schedule, access, completion estimate, cancellation, provider-termination, and creditor-notification clauses are not textually limited to a particular model. DFR’s webpage groups several of those provisions under companies doing “more than just credit repair,” which is operational guidance narrower than the literal statutory text. OregonLaws+1
4. Credit improvement has a special reduced-content budget rule and additional credit-report disclosures, but the previously identified credit-only conflict remains. OAR 441-910-0145(2) requires a reduced credit-improvement budget, while ORS 697.692(1)(f) describes the fee branch as one where the provider “does not conduct” a budget analysis. This pass does not resolve that tension by silence or by treating DFR’s webpage as an amendment. Oregon Secretary of State+1
5. A noncustodial label triggers additional disclosures; it does not itself prove a valid noncustodial account. Any provider that does not hold consumer funds directly or indirectly must make the six additional ORS 697.707(4) statements. Actual account ownership, provider access, administrator authority, and custody remain fact-dependent and preserved from PASS-03. OregonLaws
6. Electronic execution is possible but not automatic. An electronic symbol or process can satisfy writing and signature requirements when the parties agreed to transact electronically, the signature is attributable to the signer, required records are retainable and reproducible, and—where the special consumer rule applies—the consumer gives informed affirmative electronic consent that demonstrates access to the format. “Sent by email” or “clicked a box” is not, standing alone, a complete legal analysis. OregonLaws+3
7. Chapter 697 does not provide a general amendment, assignment, or automatic-renewal procedure. A new debt cannot be serviced while omitted from the agreement’s required debt list; the safest supported inference is that the written agreement must first be amended or replaced. The exact amendment form, re-signature procedure, assignment rules, and successor obligations were not specified in the reviewed Chapter 697 text. A separate Oregon automatic-renewal law may conditionally apply to a personal/family/household paid subscription or continuous-service arrangement, but that characterization has not been established for any actual program. OregonLaws+3
8. No current DFR model agreement or complete state disclosure form was recovered. DFR requires applicants to upload their own sample agreement, disclosures, and budget worksheet. The public forms page did not list a DMSP model contract, and the dynamic NMLS checklist did not expose readable contract text through the public route. Submission of a sample is not the same thing as state approval of every clause. Oregon Secretary of State+2

A. Substantive findings

1. Prerequisites before agreement, services, and money

1.1 Best-supported state sequence

The following is the most precise sequence supported by the current official rules, current DFR guidance, readable statutory text, and historical enactment. The event numbers establish sequence, not elapsed days.

Important sequence distinction

The state texts establish different predicates:

• Before agreement: analysis completed; feasibility and advantageousness determined; separate budget analysis given; disclosure documents signed.
• Before service: written agreement entered.
• Before an ORS 697.692 fee: required disclosures made.
• After execution: legible signed-and-dated copy given as soon as practicable.

They do not establish that every possible fee must wait until after the agreement solely by virtue of ORS 697.707; that question remains part of the preserved fee analysis. Likewise, the early cancellation period is not an expressly stated Oregon service standstill. Oregon Secretary of State+2

1.2 General budget-analysis contents

For a general debt-management agreement, OAR 441-910-0145 requires, at minimum:

• consumer name and address;
• number of dependents;
• all wages, salary, and other income;
• federal withholding exemptions;
• payroll deductions and net pay;
• housing costs or specified home liens and liabilities;
• other fixed periodic payments;
• reasonable and necessary living expenses;
• complete creditor list, including accounts inside and outside the proposed service;
• garnishments and judgments;
• periodic amount available for the plan; and
• anticipated near-term economic changes.

The analysis must be written or readily reducible to writing. The provider may not enter the agreement until the analysis is complete and the services are determined feasible and advantageous. Oregon Secretary of State

1.3 Credit-improvement budget

For an agreement to improve or preserve credit history, record, or rating, the rule prescribes a reduced minimum set:

• name and address;
• income;
• housing costs or specified home liens and liabilities;
• fixed periodic payments;
• complete creditor list, including covered and uncovered accounts; and
• anticipated near-term economic changes.

The reduced list is not an exemption from all precontract analysis. It remains in direct tension with the fee-branch wording previously preserved from PASS-01, and this pass does not announce which text controls the unresolved credit-only architecture. Oregon Secretary of State+1

1.4 Suitability, feasibility, and ability

The provider may not merely complete a worksheet mechanically. The rule requires a determination that the services are feasible and advantageous; “advantageous” means a more favorable or beneficial position considering suitability and ability to pay. The statute separately prohibits offering services without evaluating advantageousness and prohibits performing services without a good-faith belief, formed after that evaluation, that the consumer can or will comply with the agreement. Oregon Secretary of State+1

The reviewed clauses do not prescribe:

• a mandatory numerical residual-income ratio;
• a minimum monthly surplus;
• a maximum debt-to-income ratio;
• an automated underwriting score;
• a mandated oral counseling duration;
• a provider committee approval; or
• a regulator-approved suitability formula.

An actual program’s internal policy cannot be treated as Oregon law without additional authority.

1.5 Model distinctions

2. Mandatory agreement and disclosure matrix

2.1 Written agreement clauses

2.2 Required disclosure document

2.3 Model/application matrix

3. Delivery, signature, acceptance, electronic consent, language, and retention

3.1 Formation and copies

The agreement must be written, signed, and dated by the consumer and provider. The provider must give the consumer a legible copy as soon as practicable after execution. The reviewed Chapter 697 text does not prescribe:

• wet ink;
• notarization;
• witness signatures;
• initials beside each clause;
• duplicate originals;
• a particular paper size;
• a regulator form number; or
• a fixed post-signature delivery deadline.

An electronic process may satisfy the writing and signature requirements, but only through the separate electronic-transactions framework and other applicable substantive law. OregonLaws+2

3.2 Oregon UETA baseline

Under the current-readable Oregon UETA text:

• an electronic signature is a sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and adopted with intent to sign;
• electronic form alone does not defeat validity;
• a writing requirement can be met electronically;
• a signature requirement can be met electronically;
• UETA applies only where each party agreed to transact electronically;
• a party may refuse future electronic transactions; and
• attribution depends on whether the electronic act was actually the person’s act, judged from security procedures and surrounding circumstances. OregonLaws+3

Accordingly, an enforceable workflow should preserve evidence of:

• the version presented;
• the signer’s intent;
• the identity/security process;
• the timestamp or event record;
• each party’s signature and date;
• the completed, unaltered final document;
• delivery of a retainable copy; and
• any consent to electronic records.

The statute does not mandate a particular commercial e-signature vendor.

3.3 Special consumer electronic-consent conditions

When the transaction is primarily personal, family, or household and a law requires information to be delivered in writing, ORS 84.070 requires affirmative consent that has not been withdrawn. Before consent, the consumer must receive clear and conspicuous information about:

• the paper-record option;
• the right and procedure to withdraw consent;
• conditions, consequences, or fees associated with withdrawal;
• whether consent covers one transaction or categories of records;
• electronic-contact update procedures;
• how to request paper copies and any fee;
• hardware and software requirements; and
• a process that reasonably demonstrates access to the format used.

Material technology changes can require updated requirements and renewed access demonstration. The electronic record must be retainable and accurately reproducible. OregonLaws+1

Oregon’s Chapter 697 “consumer” definition is broader than the personal/family/household definition used by ORS 84.070. Therefore, an individual business-purpose debtor may fall within Chapter 697 while not necessarily receiving the special ORS 84.070 consumer-consent package. General UETA consent, attribution, retention, and other-law requirements still require analysis. Actual debt purpose remains unknown.

3.4 Retainability and delivery

Where parties have agreed to transact electronically, an electronic writing satisfies delivery only if it is capable of retention at receipt. A sender cannot inhibit printing or storage; a record so inhibited is unenforceable against the recipient. Retained electronic records must accurately reflect the final information and remain accessible for later reference. OregonLaws+1

A transient web page that disappears after signing, a link that expires before the consumer can save it, or a “view only” interface that blocks printing and storage is therefore materially different from providing a downloadable, retainable final agreement and disclosure package.

3.5 Federal E-SIGN

For transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, federal E-SIGN likewise recognizes electronic contracts and signatures, does not compel electronic use, preserves substantive disclosure content and timing, and requires affirmative informed consumer consent and accessible record retention for federally required written consumer disclosures. Federal law also permits a state’s qualifying UETA adoption to supersede §7001 as to state law. U.S. Code+1

This pass does not decide which individual Oregon or federal requirement is governed exclusively by UETA, E-SIGN, or both. The operationally safe conclusion is not “email is always valid,” but that a compliant process should satisfy the more specific applicable consent, delivery, attribution, and retention conditions.

3.6 Primary-residence notices

Neither Oregon UETA nor federal E-SIGN authorizes electronic delivery of notices of default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, eviction, or right to cure under a credit agreement secured by an individual’s primary residence. This restriction concerns those notices; it does not categorically prohibit electronic execution of a loan-modification services agreement itself. OregonLaws+1

3.7 Cancellation by email or fax

ORS 697.652 specifically states that consumer cancellation is immediately effective if sent by email or fax. That specific state clause should not be transformed into a separate receipt calculation under general UETA rules or into a requirement that the provider first acknowledge receipt. The saved ten-calendar-day notice branch remains distinct from this effectiveness wording. OregonLaws

3.8 Record retention

OAR 441-910-0200 requires registrants to retain, for fee-paying consumers who signed a contract:

• disclosure documents signed before contract entry;
• all written agreements;
• written fee-withdrawal authorizations;
• cancellation notices from either side;
• budget analyses;
• creditor correspondence or call notes; and
• consumer correspondence.

Records may be written or readily reducible to writing, and the rule generally uses a three-year period after the last entry. ORS 697.672 independently requires consumer records and disbursement records. Oregon Secretary of State+1

Electronic retention can satisfy a legal retention requirement if the final information is accurately preserved and remains accessible. That does not authorize deletion merely because a contract was canceled or a provider changed systems. OregonLaws

3.9 Language, readability, and form

The reviewed Chapter 697 provisions expressly require a legible agreement copy. The complete current Division 910 display did not reveal a general:

• minimum font size;
• mandated typeface;
• English-only rule;
• translation requirement;
• Spanish-language mirror-contract rule;
• prescribed page order;
• boldface requirement; or
• universal plain-language formula.

That bounded finding does not rule out separate mortgage, language-access, disability-access, advertising, UTPA, federal, or contract doctrines. The automatic-renewal overlay, if applicable, has its own “clear and conspicuous” presentation standard. OregonLaws+1

4. Cancellation, termination, waiver, amendments, renewal, assignment, and prohibited terms

4.1 Consumer cancellation

Early branch

The agreement must allow cancellation before midnight of the third business day after agreement entry. The provider must refund all fees the consumer paid before that cancellation. No calendar calculation is made because the actual signing date, holidays, and applicable business-day facts are not supplied. OregonLaws

Later branch

The agreement must allow cancellation during the remaining term, for any reason, after ten calendar days’ written notice. Mailing makes cancellation effective on the mailing date; email or fax makes it immediately effective. If the provider then holds consumer funds directly or indirectly, it must return the current held and unexpended balance. OregonLaws

The accepted prior money-state distinction remains:

• starting receipts of $1,000 minus $400 already remitted means $600 presently held;
• a distinct scenario stating that $1,000 is already the current held and unexpended balance has a $1,000 return base;
• the historical $400 is not deducted twice; and
• no fee deduction is inserted without additional lawful facts.

This pass does not reopen that arithmetic.

4.2 Provider termination

A provider may cancel without the consumer’s written authorization only under the agreement clause triggered when scheduled periodic payments have been missed for more than 60 days. Otherwise, the provider may not cancel without consumer written authorization. OregonLaws+1

The reviewed agreement statutes do not expressly establish:

• automatic forfeiture of consumer money;
• blanket retention of all prior fees;
• immediate account closure;
• cancellation upon one missed payment;
• unilateral termination for convenience;
• transfer to another provider;
• creditor notification deadlines after provider termination; or
• a universal provider-termination return deadline.

Continuing funds, records, and accounting obligations remain as preserved from PASS-03.

4.3 Void waivers and prohibited clauses

ORS 697.652(4) makes void and unenforceable a consumer waiver—or agreement provision purporting to waive or violate—ORS 697.602 through 697.842. The provider may not induce a waiver, and the person claiming an exemption bears the burden of proof. This does not make every disputed contract term void; the invalidity attaches to a term that purports to waive or violate the identified statutory scheme. OregonLaws

ORS 697.662 separately prohibits:

• blank spaces at or after signature;
• unauthorized payment or security for fees;
• oversized wage assignments, mortgages, purchase-money interests, or other security for provider charges;
• a confession of judgment or power of attorney to confess judgment or appear for the consumer in court;
• a release of an obligation the provider must perform;
• later charges or reserves for liquidated damages;
• misleading statements; and
• provider cancellation outside the authorized branch. OregonLaws

Thus, clauses such as “consumer releases provider from all Chapter 697 duties,” “provider may fill in debts and fees after signature,” or “provider may terminate at any time and keep the account balance as liquidated damages” conflict with the reviewed provisions.

4.4 Adding debts or changing services

Oregon requires the agreement to list every debt for which the provider will perform services and forbids a separate contract for each debt. One agreement may specify different services for different debts. OregonLaws+1

The best-supported inference is:

Before beginning services on a newly added debt, the existing written agreement must be brought into conformity—through a written amendment or replacement agreement—so the new debt, creditor, approximate total, service, fees, calculation, and schedule are accurately included.

No reviewed Chapter 697 provision specifies:

• whether an amendment requires both signatures;
• whether the complete agreement must be reissued;
• whether a revised budget analysis is always required;
• whether adding a debt restarts cancellation rights;
• whether the amendment creates a new “agreement entered” date;
• whether a creditor can be added through a portal click;
• or whether a purely clerical creditor correction requires formal amendment.

Because the original service cannot lawfully proceed without a compliant written agreement, an oral side agreement or post-signature blank completion is not a safe substitute.

4.5 Fee or payment changes

A contract must itemize fees and explain their calculation, while the disclosure must identify each service’s amount and the maximum total. A provider therefore cannot silently impose a new fee or calculation inconsistent with those documents. OregonLaws+1

The reviewed texts do not prescribe a standalone fee-amendment form. A material fee change would at minimum require the written agreement and disclosures to remain accurate before the changed charge is requested or received. This is a document-consistency conclusion, not a finding that every fee increase is substantively lawful or that consumer consent cures an unlawful amount.

4.6 Assignment and successor provider

No general Chapter 697 clause was located that expressly:

• authorizes assignment of the agreement;
• prohibits all assignments;
• permits automatic transfer upon sale;
• substitutes a successor provider;
• transfers a registration;
• transfers a trust account;
• transfers the bond;
• or releases the original provider.

An assignment clause cannot waive Chapter 697 rights, convert an unregistered assignee into an authorized provider, or alter mandatory consumer protections. Actual assignment enforceability, notice, consent, successor liability, servicing transfer, and funds movement remain unresolved contract and regulatory issues.

4.7 Automatic renewal and continuous service

Chapter 697 requires a completion estimate and cancellation provisions but does not supply a specific automatic-renewal procedure. A separate Oregon statute defines automatic renewal and continuous service for paid subscription or purchasing arrangements involving personal, family, or household consumers. If an actual DMS agreement fits those definitions and no exemption applies, that law may require:

• clear and conspicuous offer terms;
• affirmative consent before a recurring card or third-party payment-account charge;
• a retainable acknowledgment with cancellation information;
• an easy-to-use cancellation mechanism; and
• clear and conspicuous, retainable notice before implementing a material change. OregonLaws+2

The checked exemption list does not expressly name registered debt-management service providers, although specified banks, credit unions, insurance-regulated persons, service-contract sellers, consumer-finance companies, utilities, and satellite providers are exempt. OregonLaws

This remains a conditional overlay, not a finding that every Oregon DMS agreement is a subscription or continuous-service agreement. The official current Chapter 646A route was not authenticated, and no DMS-specific controlling application was located.

5. Public forms, regulator interpretations, and decisions

5.1 Current application materials

OAR 441-910-0010 requires an applicant to submit through NMLS:

• copies of disclosure documents, agreements, or contracts consumers will sign;
• a sample budget analysis meeting OAR 441-910-0145; and
• a proposed fee schedule.

DFR’s current page similarly instructs applicants to upload a sample agreement, disclosures, and budget worksheet. These are applicant-created documents submitted for registration review; neither source states that submission constitutes permanent approval of every clause, later amendment, marketing statement, e-sign workflow, or actual consumer transaction. Oregon Secretary of State+1

5.2 Public model documents

The checked DFR forms page did not list a public DMSP model agreement, disclosure packet, cancellation form, electronic-consent form, or budget template. The NMLS Oregon checklist route did not return readable checklist contents through the public web tool. Oregon Division of Financial Regulation

The supported conclusion is only:

No complete current public model agreement or disclosure form was recovered through the checked official routes.

It is not a claim that no internal, NMLS-rendered, archived, or separately indexed form exists.

5.3 Persels & Associates, LLC v. DCBS

The Oregon Court of Appeals described the regulatory framework as requiring a preagreement advantageousness analysis, a written agreement meeting statutory requirements, compliance with fee restrictions, records, and disclosures. The court affirmed the agency’s conclusion that a debt-settlement law firm was not protected by the narrow incidental-attorney exemption. Justia Law

The holding does not decide:

• whether a particular agreement clause is sufficient;
• electronic signature validity;
• cancellation timing;
• amendments;
• automatic renewal;
• assignment;
• disclosure format; or
• whether DFR approved any model contract.

The opinion was accessed through a Justia reproduction rather than an official OJD-hosted opinion.

5.4 Daniel March / Litigation Practice Group final order

In the 2025 final administrative order, DFR found that four consumers did not receive the required separate budget analysis before entering agreements. The provider’s standard agreement contemplated a credit-report analysis only after signing; DFR did not treat that later activity as satisfying the precontract budget requirement. The order is a formal agency adjudication, but its appellate status was not checked. Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+1

This supports the bounded proposition that a later post-signing credit review does not substitute for the separate preagreement budget analysis. It does not approve every other clause in the respondent’s contract.

5.5 Trimarche / GST Factoring consent order

The 2021 consent order identified agreement and disclosure deficiencies including missing:

• fee itemization and calculation;
• account examination/statement rights;
• provider-termination clause;
• completion estimate;
• cancellation and refund terms;
• separate budget analysis;
• maximum-fee disclosure;
• canceled-debt tax warning; and
• credit-report rights.

It is a fact-specific consent order, not a controlling judicial interpretation or state-approved model form. Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+1

5.6 Premier Legal Service default order

A 2025 default order similarly addressed a mortgage-modification operation that lacked a compliant written agreement and separate preagreement budget analysis. It is a default administrative order involving mixed mortgage and debt-management issues, not a contested appellate holding. Oregon Division of Financial Regulation+1

5.7 No controlling e-signature or amendment case located

The targeted review did not locate a controlling published Oregon appellate decision specifically resolving:

• electronic execution of an ORS 697.652 agreement;
• whether an amendment restarts cancellation rights;
• adding debts after execution;
• DMSP automatic renewal;
• assignment to a successor provider;
• the DFR webpage’s credit-repair carveouts;
• or the credit-only budget conflict.

That is a bounded search result, not proof that no unpublished, trial-level, later, or poorly indexed authority exists.

6. Bounded contract, notice, and boundary examples

These examples use event order rather than calendar arithmetic. They do not establish actual provider authorization, actual assent, fee earning, federal compliance, or a valid consumer contract.

Example 1 — Compliant paper-sequence boundary

Assumed events

• Consumer provides complete financial and creditor information.
• Provider prepares the applicable budget.
• Provider determines services are feasible and advantageous and believes consumer can comply.
• Provider gives the separate budget document and required disclosure document.
• Consumer signs the disclosure under the read-and-understand statement.
• Provider and consumer sign and date a fully completed written agreement.
• Provider promptly gives a legible copy.
• Provider then begins described services.

Result

The order satisfies the principal Oregon document sequence on the assumed facts.

Failure variants

• Agreement signed before budget: preagreement analysis requirement fails.
• Budget delivered after signing: later delivery does not cure the original sequencing violation established in the March order.
• Disclosure unsigned until after contract: inconsistent with OAR 441-910-0200’s signed-before-contract record requirement.
• Provider begins negotiating before agreement: conflicts with ORS 697.652(1).
• Fee disclosed but not earned: disclosure alone does not authorize collection. Oregon Secretary of State+2

Example 2 — Electronic agreement workflow

Assumptions

• Transaction is for personal/family/household services.
• Consumer receives clear e-record consent disclosures.
• Consumer is told about paper records, withdrawal, covered record categories, contact-update process, paper-copy procedure and fee, and system requirements.
• Consumer electronically demonstrates access to the PDF format.
• Provider displays the final agreement with no blank fields.
• Consumer and provider execute attributable electronic signatures and dates.
• Consumer can immediately download and retain the final signed budget, disclosure, and agreement.
• Provider preserves the final records accurately and accessibly.

Result

Electronic form is not disqualifying on those assumptions.

Failure variants

• A typed name pasted by provider without evidence of consumer intent does not establish attribution.
• An expiring portal page that cannot be saved may fail retainability.
• Checking “I agree” before seeing the required consumer e-record disclosures does not satisfy the stated sequence.
• A general email-consent clause cannot waive Chapter 697 content or timing.
• Electronic execution does not authorize email delivery of a primary-residence foreclosure/default/right-to-cure notice. OregonLaws+4

Example 3 — Noncustodial settlement disclosures

Inputs

• Provider claims it never holds funds.
• Consumer establishes an account in consumer’s name.
• Provider proposes to withdraw its fee only when separately authorized.
• No actual administrator agreement or access matrix is supplied.

Required document result

The disclosure must state:

• no guaranteed result or forced creditor acceptance;
• provider does not make scheduled creditor payments;
• collection and lawsuits may continue;
• nonpayment likely harms credit;
• consumer makes regular deposits into the designated consumer-owned account; and
• provider fee withdrawals require specific authorization with no provider custody, control, or separate/additional access.

Remaining hold

The disclosure does not prove the facts are true. If an affiliate or administrator controls deposits, creditor payments, freezes, or fee transfers for the provider, the actual architecture may not be noncustodial. OregonLaws

Example 4 — Cancellation delivery and current balance

Early branch

• Consumer invokes cancellation within the statutory early period.
• Agreement must provide for refund of all fees paid before cancellation.
• No actual signing date is supplied, so no business-day date is calculated.

Later branch

• Consumer gives the separately required ten-calendar-day written notice.
• Mailing is effective on mailing; email or fax is immediately effective.
• Return base is consumer money currently held and unexpended.

Preserved balance cases

• Starting receipts $1,000 less $400 already remitted → current held balance $600.
• Separate case: stated current held balance $1,000 after a prior $400 remittance → return base $1,000.
• The $400 is not deducted twice.
• No earned-fee offset is assumed. OregonLaws

Example 5 — Adding a new debt

Starting agreement

Agreement lists:

• Debt A and creditor A;
• Debt B and creditor B;
• services and fee calculations for A and B;
• payment schedule.

Later event

Consumer asks provider to negotiate Debt C.

Supported boundary

Provider may not simply start work on C while the written agreement lists only A and B. Because every serviced debt and corresponding creditor must be identified, the agreement must first be conformed through a written amendment or replacement.

Unresolved mechanics

The reviewed law does not state whether:

• both signatures are always required on the amendment;
• a revised budget is mandatory;
• cancellation rights restart;
• the amendment date becomes the new agreement-entry date; or
• a portal acceptance is sufficient.

A separate contract only for Debt C would conflict with OAR 441-910-0094’s one-contract rule unless the actual facts fit another recognized contracting arrangement. OregonLaws+1

Example 6 — Prohibited waiver and blank-field clause

Proposed terms

• “Provider may insert additional creditors and fees after signature.”
• “Consumer releases provider from all statutory duties.”
• “Provider may terminate at any time and retain all account funds as liquidated damages.”
• “Consumer grants provider power to confess judgment.”

Result

The reviewed provisions directly undermine those terms:

• no blank spaces at or after signature;
• no release of provider obligations;
• no later charges or liquidated-damages reserve;
• no confession of judgment or specified judicial power of attorney;
• no provider cancellation outside the authorized branch; and
• no waiver of Chapter 697 protections.

The invalidity is tied to the particular statutory violation; it is not a declaration that every unrelated contract provision is void. OregonLaws+1

B. Source table

C. Claim table

D. Component coverage and gap table

E. Researcher self-check

Freshly read or inspected

• Complete current displayed OAR Chapter 441, Division 910.
• Exact current rules governing:advantageousness;applicant sample agreements and disclosures;one-contract/multiple-debt treatment;loan-modification conditions;general and credit-improvement budgets;disclosure of passed-through charges;contract, disclosure, budget, authorization, cancellation, and correspondence retention.
• Current DFR debt-management application and agreement/disclosure guidance.
• Current DFR public forms page.
• Current-readable ORS 697.652, 697.707, and the necessary related Chapter 697 sections.
• Official HB 2191:§5 printed pp.5–8 / PDF indices 4–7;§11 printed pp.13–14 / indices 12–13.
• The affected HB 2191 pages were visually inspected. Bracketed deleted text was not treated as operative.
• Current-readable Oregon UETA sections governing electronic signatures, party agreement, retainability, attribution, retention, consumer consent, and special notices.
• Current OLRC E-SIGN provisions through Public Law 119-120, October 7, 2026.
• Current-readable Oregon automatic-renewal provisions.
• Persels.
• Daniel March final order.
• Trimarche consent order.
• Premier Legal Service default order.
• Relevant agency-order PDF pages were visually inspected.

Explicit reuse without rerunning

• PASS-01 classification, registration, exemptions, fee structures, and currentness holds.
• PASS-02’s two separate later-cancellation money states.
• PASS-03 consumer-funds findings and unresolved account facts.
• PASS-04’s accepted-with-limits P3 source and order corrections.
• PASS-05’s separately reviewed bond component.
• PASS-06 was not assumed accepted or used to resolve this agreement component.
• Previously verified TSR/CROA wording was not rerun.

Failed, inaccessible, or not substantively read

• Official current ORS Chapter 697 direct text.
• Official current ORS Chapter 84 direct text.
• Official current ORS Chapter 646A direct text.
• Complete dynamic NMLS Oregon DMSP checklist.
• Any private or provider-specific contract, budget, disclosure, signature log, consent screen, amendment, cancellation, or account record.

These failures were not treated as proof that no current amendment, form, rule, interpretation, or document exists.

Not established

• A complete official post-2009 Chapter 697 amendment chain.
• Exact treatment of pre-effective-date contracts under HB 2191 §§28, 29, and 31.
• Resolution of the credit-only budget conflict.
• A public state-approved model agreement.
• A universal amendment, assignment, or renewal rule.
• Actual electronic consent or signer attribution.
• Actual service commencement, fee earning, cancellation delivery, provider termination, or return of money.
• Actual SettleADebt legal entity, registration, agreement, disclosures, bond, account architecture, or federal coverage.
• Full UTPA, tort, arbitration, civil procedure, limitations, bankruptcy, collection, secured-debt, sector, local, tribal, country, or parent-state analysis.
• No application, filing, contact, opinion request, purchase, account change, private-data access, Chrome control, other Chat, local write, site action, or publication action occurred.

END S_OR PASS-07