Warkentin v. Shirey

481 P.3d 444, 309 Or. App. 314
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 10, 2021
DocketA167535
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 481 P.3d 444 (Warkentin v. Shirey) 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
Warkentin v. Shirey, 481 P.3d 444, 309 Or. App. 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed December 29, 2020; reconsideration allowed, former opinion (308 Or App 1, 480 P3d 289) modified and adhered to as modified February 10, 2021

In the Matter of the Estate of Lois Irene Gould, Deceased. Bradley R. WARKENTIN, former Personal Representative, Appellant, v. Corina SHIREY, Personal Representative, Petitioner-Respondent. Deschutes County Circuit Court 17PB08036; A167535 481 P3d 444

Walter Randolph Miller, Jr., Judge. Anthony V. Albertazzi, for petition. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. Cite as 309 Or App 314 (2021) 315

PER CURIAM Respondent seeks reconsideration of our opinion in Warkentin v. Shirey, 308 Or App 1, 480 P3d 289 (2020), in which we affirmed the probate court’s removal of respon- dent as personal representative pursuant to ORS 113.195(4), and its substitution of petitioner to that position. In respon- dent’s petition for reconsideration, he requests that we mod- ify the opinion pursuant to ORAP 6.25(1)(a) for a “claim of factual error in the decision.” Specifically, he requests that we remove the line “Respondent was the decedent’s neigh- bor” because that factual assertion “is not contained in the record.”1 We agree with respondent that that fact is not sup- ported by the record. Accordingly, we allow consideration and modify the opinion to delete the following sentence: “Respondent was the decedent’s neighbor.” Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

1 Respondent also requests that we modify a typographical error on the cover page. That error has been corrected.

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

Related

Maloney v. Bryant
Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024
Warkentin v. Shirey
480 P.3d 289 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 P.3d 444, 309 Or. App. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warkentin-v-shirey-orctapp-2021.