Queirolo v. Builders Board

675 P.2d 508, 66 Or. App. 743
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 25, 1984
Docket7976-104; CA A27372
StatusPublished

This text of 675 P.2d 508 (Queirolo v. Builders Board) 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
Queirolo v. Builders Board, 675 P.2d 508, 66 Or. App. 743 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

NEWMAN, J.

Petitioners appeal from an order of the Builders Board that dismissed their claim against respondent Reum on his builder’s bond because it was not timely filed. ORS 701.145. We affirm.1

ORS 701.145 provides that claims against builders may be filed in the form that the Board prescribes. See OAR 812-11-055;2 ORS 701.235. The Board rules also require that “a claim for breach of contract * * * relating to a structure which was previously existing * * * must be received by the Agency no later than one year following the date on which * * * the work was substantially completed.” OAR 812-11-052(2)(a); see ORS 701.235.

The Board found that respondent Reum, the contractor, substantially completed the work on September 10,1980, but that petitioners’ claim was not filed until March 10,1982. The board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8) (c). Petitioners filed their claim too late.

Petitioners argue that their attorney’s letter to the Board dated August 27,1981, complied with ORS 701.1553 and gave timely notice of their claim to the Board.4 That letter, however, did not substantially comply with the form of statement of claim that the Board required. See OAR 812-11-055. ORS 701.155, moreover, did not govern or provide a substitute for filing the Statement of Claim with the Board, but presupposed that it already had been filed. The Board did not [746]*746consider the attorney’s letter a Statement of Claim. It was not required to do so. OAR 812-11-050(2)(b).5

Affirmed.

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

Related

Langfus, Inc. v. Queirolo
668 P.2d 1245 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 P.2d 508, 66 Or. App. 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queirolo-v-builders-board-orctapp-1984.