Moore v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Moore v. Taylor

672 P.2d 373, 65 Or. App. 702, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4103

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 23, 1983

Docket16575; A26471

StatusPublished

This text of 672 P.2d 373 (Moore v. Taylor) 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

Moore v. Taylor, 672 P.2d 373, 65 Or. App. 702, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4103 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The Moores sued Taylor for negligently allowing destruction of a mobile home that they had purchased from him. Columbia River Banking Corporation (CRBC) was the holder of a promissory note made by the Moores and secured by a security agreement on the mobile home. It obtained a judgment against the Moores on the note. The Moores filed bankruptcy, and their debt to CRBC was discharged in the bankruptcy. CRBC was allowed to intervene in the Moores’ suit by stipulation of the parties.

Defendant Taylor then moved to dismiss CRBC’s complaint in intervention for failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed CRBC’s claim on the ground that it was not the real party in interest. Although under Commercial Securities, Inc., v. Mast, 145 Or 394, 28 P2d 635 (1934), CRBC could have pleaded a claim against Taylor for destruction of the collateral, it did not. Instead, it attempted to plead an action on a note evidencing a debt that had been discharged. There is no such cause of action, and the trial court should have dismissed for failure to state a claim. The trial court reached the right result.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

The Moores sued Taylor for negligently allowing destruction of a mobile home that they had purchased from him. Columbia River Banking Corporation (CRBC) was the holder of a promissory note made by the Moores and secured by a security agreement on the mobile home. It obtained a judgment against the Moores on the note. The Moores filed bankruptcy, and their debt to CRBC was discharged in the bankruptcy. CRBC was allowed to intervene in the Moores’ suit by stipulation of the parties.

Defendant Taylor then moved to dismiss CRBC’s complaint in intervention for failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed CRBC’s claim on the ground that it was not the real party in interest. Although under Commercial Securities, Inc., v. Mast, 145 Or 394, 28 P2d 635 (1934), CRBC could have pleaded a claim against Taylor for destruction of the collateral, it did not. Instead, it attempted to plead an action on a note evidencing a debt that had been discharged. There is no such cause of action, and the trial court should have dismissed for failure to state a claim. The trial court reached the right result.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 P.2d 373, 65 Or. App. 702, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-taylor-orctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack