Mattiza v. Foster

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Mattiza v. Foster

762 P.2d 1067, 93 Or. App. 619

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided October 26, 1988·No. 87-01-21, 356-L; CA A46889·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is an action to impose a constructive trust on a gift made by plaintiffs ward to defendant on the ground that defendant had procured the gift by the exercise of undue influence. The trial court found for defendant and awarded attorney fees pursuant to ORS 20.105.

On the merits we affirm. We deny respondent’s motions for a penalty, ORS 19.160, and an attorney fee on appeal, ORS 20.105.

Affirmed; motions for penalty and attorney fee denied.

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

PER CURIAM

This is an action to impose a constructive trust on a gift made by plaintiffs ward to defendant on the ground that defendant had procured the gift by the exercise of undue influence. The trial court found for defendant and awarded attorney fees pursuant to ORS 20.105.

On the merits we affirm. We deny respondent’s motions for a penalty, ORS 19.160, and an attorney fee on appeal, ORS 20.105.

Affirmed; motions for penalty and attorney fee denied.

Mattiza v. Foster, 762 P.2d 1067, 93 Or. App. 619 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

762 P.2d 1067 (Mattiza v. Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related