Hammer v. Hammer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hammer v. Hammer

380 P.3d 1196, 280 Or. App. 175, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 957

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket161303305; A158067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 380 P.3d 1196 (Hammer v. Hammer) 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

Hammer v. Hammer, 380 P.3d 1196, 280 Or. App. 175, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this dispute over trustee fees, plaintiff appeals a general judgment that dismissed his petition for supplemental relief under ORS 28.080. We reject plaintiffs assignment of error without written discussion and write only to address defendant’s cross-appeal, in which defendant assigns error to the trial court’s award of attorney fees. The court awarded defendant attorney fees for services related to the supplemental-relief proceeding and not for services related to the underlying action for declaratory relief, which were requested by defendant because, in his view, he was the ultimate prevailing party in the matter. Defendant points out that the court incorrectly stated when defendant’s motions to disqualify a judge and for reconsideration were made. According to defendant, the court erred because the factual error served as the basis for its decision to not award fees for the part of the proceeding related to the declaratory relief action. We agree with defendant. Because the court based the attorney fee award on a “materially erroneous factual premise,” Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 233 Or App 210, 221, 225 P3d 101 (2010), we vacate the attorney fee award and remand for reconsideration. Id. at 221-22.

On appeal, affirmed; on cross-appeal, attorney fee award vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this dispute over trustee fees, plaintiff appeals a general judgment that dismissed his petition for supplemental relief under ORS 28.080. We reject plaintiffs assignment of error without written discussion and write only to address defendant’s cross-appeal, in which defendant assigns error to the trial court’s award of attorney fees. The court awarded defendant attorney fees for services related to the supplemental-relief proceeding and not for services related to the underlying action for declaratory relief, which were requested by defendant because, in his view, he was the ultimate prevailing party in the matter. Defendant points out that the court incorrectly stated when defendant’s motions to disqualify a judge and for reconsideration were made. According to defendant, the court erred because the factual error served as the basis for its decision to not award fees for the part of the proceeding related to the declaratory relief action. We agree with defendant. Because the court based the attorney fee award on a “materially erroneous factual premise,” Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 233 Or App 210, 221, 225 P3d 101 (2010), we vacate the attorney fee award and remand for reconsideration. Id. at 221-22.

On appeal, affirmed; on cross-appeal, attorney fee award vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 P.3d 1196, 280 Or. App. 175, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-hammer-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack