Blandau v. Rennick

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Blandau v. Rennick

940 P.2d 242, 148 Or. App. 268, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 646

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 28, 1997

Docket94-CV-414; CA A90655

StatusPublished

This text of 940 P.2d 242 (Blandau v. Rennick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blandau v. Rennick, 940 P.2d 242, 148 Or. App. 268, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 646 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

HASELTON, J.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this case in which we concluded that the trial court did not err in denying specific performance of a partnership dissolution agreement, because the partnership was dissolved before the agreement took effect. Blandau v. Rennick, 147 Or App 203, 935 P2d 457 (1997). We grant reconsideration, modify our opinion and otherwise adhere to the result.

Plaintiff raises several issues in her motion for reconsideration. We address only one and reject the others. Plaintiff points out that in our opinion, we stated that “[t]he agreement could be enforceable against the heirs and assigns only if, or when, the condition precedent to its formation occurred.” 147 Or App at 215 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff argues that the release on the loan obligation was only a condition precedent to performance of the agreement’s provisions. We agree and modify that portion of our opinion to state that “[t]he agreement could be enforceable against the heirs and assigns only if, or when, the condition precedent to the performance of those provisions occurred.”

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HASELTON, J.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this case in which we concluded that the trial court did not err in denying specific performance of a partnership dissolution agreement, because the partnership was dissolved before the agreement took effect. Blandau v. Rennick, 147 Or App 203, 935 P2d 457 (1997). We grant reconsideration, modify our opinion and otherwise adhere to the result.

Plaintiff raises several issues in her motion for reconsideration. We address only one and reject the others. Plaintiff points out that in our opinion, we stated that “[t]he agreement could be enforceable against the heirs and assigns only if, or when, the condition precedent to its formation occurred.” 147 Or App at 215 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff argues that the release on the loan obligation was only a condition precedent to performance of the agreement’s provisions. We agree and modify that portion of our opinion to state that “[t]he agreement could be enforceable against the heirs and assigns only if, or when, the condition precedent to the performance of those provisions occurred.”

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 P.2d 242, 148 Or. App. 268, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blandau-v-rennick-orctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack