Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC

Opinion

No. 852 September 2, 2026 741

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Charles RINGO,

individually, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

EQUITY TRUST COMPANY, FBO Charles Ringo #200276790, Plaintiff,

v.

COLQUHOUN DESIGN STUDIO, LLC, and Jennifer Cohoon, Defendants-Respondents. Deschutes County Circuit Court 23CV48069; A186670

Wells B. Ashby, Judge. Argued and submitted June 3, 2026. Charles Ringo argued the cause and filed the briefs pro se.

No appearance for respondents. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge.

O’CONNOR, J. Portion of judgment awarding attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

742 Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC

O’CONNOR, J. In this breach of contract case, plaintiff appeals from a general judgment and money award for defendants on their counterclaims against plaintiff.1 Plaintiff raises a single assignment of error, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his exceptions to the arbitrator’s award and adhering to the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees to defendants. We conclude that the trial court erred because defendants failed to plead the facts necessary to establish the right to attorney fees under ORS 20.082. Therefore, the portion of the judgment awarding attorney fees is reversed. We otherwise affirm.

In this nonprecedential opinion, we discuss the facts and procedural history only as necessary for the parties to understand our resolution of plaintiff’s assignment of error. We review a trial court’s allowance or denial of attorney fees for legal error. Rymer v. Zwingli, 240 Or App 687, 691, 247 P3d 1246, rev den, 350 Or 716 (2011).

Plaintiff alleged in a complaint that defendant did not perform on a contract as required.2 Defendants filed an answer and pleaded two counterclaims. In their second counterclaim , defendants alleged breach of contract. Specifically, they alleged that the parties entered into a contract and that plaintiff failed to pay defendants the amount plaintiff owed under the agreement. Defendants did not assert a claim for attorney fees as part of that counterclaim.

The case was subsequently referred to arbitration and the arbitrator ruled in favor of defendants. The 1 We struck defendants’ initial answering brief because it contained fabricated authority. Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or App 301, 303, 582 P3d 695 (2025). We gave defendants leave to file a replacement answering brief. Id. at 307. Defendants filed an answering brief after the due date. In two deficiency notices, we informed defendants that we would not accept the answering brief unless they filed a motion for relief from default and a motion for extension of time. Defendants did not do so; they did not respond at all. Accordingly, we decide the case without considering the answering brief and without oral argument from defendants. ORAP 5.60.

2 Plaintiff-appellant did not designate a transcript of the trial court proceedings as part of the record. ORS 19.365(5) provides that “[i]f the record on appeal is not sufficient to allow the appellate court to review an assignment of error, the appellate court may decline to review the assignment of error and may dismiss the appeal if there are no other assignments of error that may be reviewed.” Here, a review of the transcript is not necessary to resolve the claims that plaintiff raises on appeal.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 352 Or App 741 (2026) 743

arbitrator filed a second amended arbitration award with the trial court that awarded defendants attorney fees under ORS 20.082. Plaintiff filed exceptions to the award of attorney fees and defendants filed a response. The trial court heard argument on the exceptions and issued a judgment in favor of defendants and awarded attorney fees pursuant to the arbitration award. Plaintiff filed this appeal.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees was improper because defendants’ answer and counterclaims did not seek attorney fees under ORS 20.082 and did not allege facts that would provide the basis for fees. Specifically, plaintiff argues that defendants did not allege that the contract at issue lacked an attorney fee provision, as required by ORS 20.082. We agree. Because that issue is dispositive, we do not discuss plaintiff ’s remaining arguments concerning why the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees was improper.

ORCP 68 C(2)(a) provides that: “A party seeking attorney fees shall allege the facts, statute or rule that provides a basis for the award offees in a pleading filed by that party. Attorney fees may be sought before the substantive right to recover fees accrues. No attorney fees shall be awarded unless a right to recover fees is alleged as provided in this paragraph or in paragraph C(2)(b) of this rule.”

Thus, under ORCP 68 C(2)(a), a party does not need to allege the statutory basis for attorney fees in their pleading if they have alleged facts that provide the basis for attorney fees. Page and Page, 103 Or App 431, 434, 797 P2d 408 (1990). When a party who seeks fees adequately alleged the factual basis for fees, “the parties have fairly been alerted that attorney fees would be sought, and no prejudice would result.” Id. However, “[i]f the source [of attorney fees] is a statute, the allegations must include all facts that must be proved to meet the statutory criteria for an award.” Rymer, 240 Or App at 692.

“The requirements of ORCP 68 C(2)(a) are mandatory .” Parrott v. Orlova, 241 Or App 653, 655, 250 P3d 973 (2011). There is no exception to ORCP 68 C(2)(a) for cases that went through arbitration. Although UTCR 13.210(2)

744 Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC

recognizes that an arbitrator may award attorney fees, they may do so only “where allowed under applicable law.” Consistent with ORCP 68 C(2)(a), a party must still comply with the mandatory pleading requirements for attorney fees to be “allowed under applicable law.”

In this case, the source of attorney fees identified by the arbitrator and affirmed by the trial court is ORS 20.082, which provides for when a court shall allow reasonable attorney fees in a contract action. The facts that must be established for attorney fees to be awarded under ORS 20.082 are: “(1) a claim based on contract, (2) a request for an award of [$10,000] or less as damages, [and] (3) an absence of an attorney-fee provision in the contract at issue[.]” Rymer, 240 Or App at 694.3 In this case, defendants did not request attorney fees in their counterclaim for breach of contract, and they did not plead the facts necessary to establish the right to attorney fees under ORS 20.082 because they did not plead that the contract at issue lacked an attorney fee provision. Thus, ORCP 68 C(2)(a) prohibited defendants from recovering attorney fees under ORS 20.082. The trial court erred when it adhered to the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees to defendants.

In Petersen v. Fielder, 185 Or App 164, 169, 58 P3d 841 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 255 (2003), we rejected the defendant ’s contention that the provisions of ORCP 68 C(4) applied to an award of cost in an arbitration proceeding because UTCR 13.040(2) provides that after a case is assigned to an arbitrator, arbitration rules apply except where an arbitration rule states that the ORCP applies. In that case, the defendant’s argument was focused on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirement for proof of service of the cost bill under ORCP 68 C(4). Peterson does not apply here because it concerns an arbitrator’s authority over the process of determining attorney fees when a case is in arbitration. Foust v. American Standard Ins. Co., 189 Or App 125, 134, 74 P3d 1111 (2003) (explaining that in Petersen we held “that 3 A plaintiff seeking attorney fees under ORS 20.082 must make a written demand for payment no less than 20 days before the commencement of the action. ORS 20.082(3). That provision is not at issue in this case.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 352 Or App 741 (2026) 745

arbitrators have considerable discretion in determining the procedure for setting costs and attorney fees”) (emphasis added). As we recognized in Foust, an arbitrator must still comply with the law when determining and awarding attorney fees. Id. Here, because defendants failed to adequately allege facts that would have entitled them to attorney fees under ORS 20.082, ORCP 68 C(2)(a) foreclosed the attorney fee award to defendants on their second counterclaim.

Portion of judgment awarding attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.