Jones v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Jones v. Jones

860 P.2d 303, 123 Or. App. 445, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1665

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 6, 1993

Docket9112-07996; CA A75755

StatusPublished

This text of 860 P.2d 303 (Jones v. Jones) 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

Jones v. Jones, 860 P.2d 303, 123 Or. App. 445, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1665 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

WARREN, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment entered against her in this quiet title action. We reverse.

Defendant¹ is the former wife of Terry Jones (Jones). Plaintiff is Jones’ current wife. Plaintiff alleges that, in 1987, she acquired “all of [Jones’] right, title and interest” in real property that he owned in Lake Oswego. In December, 1988, defendant registered a judgment that she had obtained against Jones for spousal support arrearages relating to the dissolution of their marriage. Plaintiff now seeks to remove the cloud on the title created by defendant’s judgment lien.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that, because of the transfer of ownership of the property to her in 1987, as a matter of law, Jones had no interest in the real property to which the lien could attach when it was filed in 1988. She asserted that the validity of that transfer was decided in a bankruptcy case involving Jones,² and therefore defendant is precluded from relitigating that issue in this action. Defendant argued that the bankruptcy court did not determine the same issue involved in this case, which is the priority of interests as between plaintiff and defendant. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted summary judgment.

Defendant’s main argument is that issue preclusion does not bar her from asserting the validity of her lien, because the bankruptcy court did not decide that issue. We agree. The memorandum issued by the bankruptcy court does not explicitly decide whether Jones transferred his property interest to plaintiff in 1987 and, thus, whether Jones had any interest in the property to which defendant’s judgment lien could attach. It appears that the bankruptcy court did not need to decide whether a transfer had been made, but that it merely decided whether Jones was entitled to the relief he sought, assuming that the transfer had been made. Because plaintiff has not shown that the issue here was decided in the [448]*448earlier bankruptcy proceeding, defendant is not precluded from litigating it in this case.

Plaintiff does not argue that she is entitled to summary judgment on any basis other than issue preclusion. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

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

WARREN, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment entered against her in this quiet title action. We reverse.

Defendant¹ is the former wife of Terry Jones (Jones). Plaintiff is Jones’ current wife. Plaintiff alleges that, in 1987, she acquired “all of [Jones’] right, title and interest” in real property that he owned in Lake Oswego. In December, 1988, defendant registered a judgment that she had obtained against Jones for spousal support arrearages relating to the dissolution of their marriage. Plaintiff now seeks to remove the cloud on the title created by defendant’s judgment lien.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that, because of the transfer of ownership of the property to her in 1987, as a matter of law, Jones had no interest in the real property to which the lien could attach when it was filed in 1988. She asserted that the validity of that transfer was decided in a bankruptcy case involving Jones,² and therefore defendant is precluded from relitigating that issue in this action. Defendant argued that the bankruptcy court did not determine the same issue involved in this case, which is the priority of interests as between plaintiff and defendant. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted summary judgment.

Defendant’s main argument is that issue preclusion does not bar her from asserting the validity of her lien, because the bankruptcy court did not decide that issue. We agree. The memorandum issued by the bankruptcy court does not explicitly decide whether Jones transferred his property interest to plaintiff in 1987 and, thus, whether Jones had any interest in the property to which defendant’s judgment lien could attach. It appears that the bankruptcy court did not need to decide whether a transfer had been made, but that it merely decided whether Jones was entitled to the relief he sought, assuming that the transfer had been made. Because plaintiff has not shown that the issue here was decided in the [448]*448earlier bankruptcy proceeding, defendant is not precluded from litigating it in this case.

Plaintiff does not argue that she is entitled to summary judgment on any basis other than issue preclusion. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 P.2d 303, 123 Or. App. 445, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack