Rodgers v. Canby Post No. 122

427 P.3d 237, 294 Or. App. 256
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedSeptember 26, 2018
DocketA165526
StatusPublished

This text of 427 P.3d 237 (Rodgers v. Canby Post No. 122) 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
Rodgers v. Canby Post No. 122, 427 P.3d 237, 294 Or. App. 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*257Plaintiff appeals a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees and costs following plaintiff's acceptance of defendant's ORCP 54 E offer of compromise. The parties do not dispute that they had achieved a compromise as to fees and costs that was submitted to the trial court. However, the trial court appears not to have recognized that the judgment submitted by plaintiff reflected their compromise, even though the judgment so indicated and the fact of the compromise was otherwise communicated to the court in waiving hearing on the matter. Instead, the court awarded fees and costs at a level lower than what the parties had agreed.

In these circumstances, a stipulated agreement entered into the record constitutes a binding contract that "leaves nothing for the court to do but to enter what the parties have agreed upon." Benavente v. Thayer , 285 Or. App. 148, 156, 395 P.3d 914 (2017) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court should have entered judgment in accordance with the parties' agreement. Therefore, the supplemental judgment must be remanded for the entry of such a judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Benavente v. Thayer
395 P.3d 914 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 P.3d 237, 294 Or. App. 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-canby-post-no-122-orctapp-2018.