Howland v. Hitson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Howland v. Hitson

841 P.2d 705, 116 Or. App. 659, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2296

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 2, 1992

Docket9101537CV; CA A74350

StatusPublished

This text of 841 P.2d 705 (Howland v. Hitson) 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

Howland v. Hitson, 841 P.2d 705, 116 Or. App. 659, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2296 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff sellers brought this action on a land sale contract and, alternatively, on a claim for quantum meruit, contending that defendant buyers owed additional amounts under a provision of the contract that the balance would be increased by the amount of taxes and insurance premiums that plaintiffs paid. Defendants admitted the material allegations of the contract claim. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs pursuant to defendants’ offer and plaintiffs’ acceptance under ORCP 54E. Plaintiffs moved for attorney fees and, over defendants’ objection, the trial court allowed them. The ORCP 54E offer recited that attorney fees could be awarded pursuant to ORCP 68, if the trial court determined that plaintiffs were entitled to them. Defendants appeal, arguing that the fees were not within the contemplation of the attorney fees provision of the contract that allows for an award in actions brought “to enforce any of the provisions hereof.” Defendants offer elaborate but unpersuasive supporting particulars, none of which requires discussion, especially in the light of their admission of the allegations and stipulation to the judgment on the basis of the contract provision.

For similar reasons, we are unimpressed with defendants’ contention that the attorney fees provision is a nullity under the doctrine of merger by deed. See Soursby v. Hawkins, 307 Or 79, 763 P2d 725 (1988).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff sellers brought this action on a land sale contract and, alternatively, on a claim for quantum meruit, contending that defendant buyers owed additional amounts under a provision of the contract that the balance would be increased by the amount of taxes and insurance premiums that plaintiffs paid. Defendants admitted the material allegations of the contract claim. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs pursuant to defendants’ offer and plaintiffs’ acceptance under ORCP 54E. Plaintiffs moved for attorney fees and, over defendants’ objection, the trial court allowed them. The ORCP 54E offer recited that attorney fees could be awarded pursuant to ORCP 68, if the trial court determined that plaintiffs were entitled to them. Defendants appeal, arguing that the fees were not within the contemplation of the attorney fees provision of the contract that allows for an award in actions brought “to enforce any of the provisions hereof.” Defendants offer elaborate but unpersuasive supporting particulars, none of which requires discussion, especially in the light of their admission of the allegations and stipulation to the judgment on the basis of the contract provision.

For similar reasons, we are unimpressed with defendants’ contention that the attorney fees provision is a nullity under the doctrine of merger by deed. See Soursby v. Hawkins, 307 Or 79, 763 P2d 725 (1988).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 P.2d 705, 116 Or. App. 659, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howland-v-hitson-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack