Oster v. Lesniak

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Oster v. Lesniak

865 P.2d 1330, 125 Or. App. 578, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2249

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

Docket90-06-9824E; CA A75187

StatusPublished

This text of 865 P.2d 1330 (Oster v. Lesniak) 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

Oster v. Lesniak, 865 P.2d 1330, 125 Or. App. 578, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2249 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Decedent’s daughters, beneficiaries of one of decedent’s trusts, Trust B, object to the personal representative’s final accounting placing decedent’s vendor’s interest in a land sale contract in Trust A, which is reserved for ‘ ‘liquid’ ’ assets, instead of Trust B, which is for “other” assets, including real property. The trial court approved the final accounting. The daughters appeal.

Trust A is not ambiguous, as the daughters argue. It defines as Trust A assets, among other things, “all contracts for the sale of assets.” The vendor’s interest in a land sale contract is a contract for the sale of an asset. The trial court did not err.

On cross-appeal, decedent’s widow, who is the beneficiary of Trust A, contends that the trial court erred in holding that, in the event the contract purchaser breaches the contract, leading to its nullification, the property in issue will transfer to Trust B. The trial court’s ruling was based on a hypothetical state of facts and was premature.

Affirmed on appeal; on cross-appeal, remanded for entry of modified judgment deleting ruling regarding reversion of property to Trust B.

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

PER CURIAM

Decedent’s daughters, beneficiaries of one of decedent’s trusts, Trust B, object to the personal representative’s final accounting placing decedent’s vendor’s interest in a land sale contract in Trust A, which is reserved for ‘ ‘liquid’ ’ assets, instead of Trust B, which is for “other” assets, including real property. The trial court approved the final accounting. The daughters appeal.

Trust A is not ambiguous, as the daughters argue. It defines as Trust A assets, among other things, “all contracts for the sale of assets.” The vendor’s interest in a land sale contract is a contract for the sale of an asset. The trial court did not err.

On cross-appeal, decedent’s widow, who is the beneficiary of Trust A, contends that the trial court erred in holding that, in the event the contract purchaser breaches the contract, leading to its nullification, the property in issue will transfer to Trust B. The trial court’s ruling was based on a hypothetical state of facts and was premature.

Affirmed on appeal; on cross-appeal, remanded for entry of modified judgment deleting ruling regarding reversion of property to Trust B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 P.2d 1330, 125 Or. App. 578, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oster-v-lesniak-orctapp-1993.