Wheatley v. Safley

758 P.2d 377, 92 Or. App. 233
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided July 27, 1988·No. 85-CV 0595-WE; CA A46822·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*235 JOSEPH, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment that disposes of all claims except a counterclaim which includes a claim for attorney fees as damages arising from a previous action between the same parties. The issue is whether the judgment is a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.

The action is for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Defendants counterclaimed, purportedly pursuant to ORS 20.105, 1 for attorney fees incurred in the present case and in an earlier case between the same parties. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims; plaintiffs appealed from that judgment. Neither the judgment being appealed nor any other judgment in the case disposes of defendants’ claim for attorney fees. Defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment is not final within the meaning of ORS 19.010, 2 because it does not dispose of that counterclaim.

Generally, subject to exceptions not relevant here, an appeal may only be taken from a judgment which determines all claims in an action. ORS 19.010(1); ORCP 67A; ORCP *236 67B; 3 Industrial Leasing Corp. v. Van Dyke, 285 Or 375, 591 P2d 352 (1979). It follows that a document purporting to be a judgment that does not dispose of all claims in an action is not subject to appeal. That simple and straightforward analysis is complicated by the provisions of ORS 19.033(1) 4 to the effect that, notwithstanding the filing of a notice of appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction “for the purpose of allowance and taxation of attorney fees, costs and disbursements or expenses pursuant to rule or statute.” The statute implies, but does not make explicit, that a judgment adjudicating fewer than all claims may be appealed if the only remaining claim or claims are solely for attorney fees, costs, disbursements or expenses.

We need not now decide whether ORS 20.105 can support a “claim” for attorney fees. In fact, a counterclaim was pleaded, but it was not decided. We need only decide whether the appealed judgment lacks finality.

We conclude that the purported claim for attorney fees under ORS 20.105, based on an allegation that “the party wilfully disobeyed a court order or acted in bad faith, wantonly or soley for oppressive reasons,” is not a claim over which the trial court retains jurisdiction once a notice of appeal has been filed. Although ORS 19.033(1) requires only that a fee claim must be “pursuant to rule or statute,” other provisions of law limit the type of fee claims to which the statute applies.

The last sentence of ORS 19.033(1) provides that, if the trial court allows attorney fees, costs, disbursements or *237 expenses after a notice of appeal has been filed, “any necessary modification of the appeal shall be pursuant to rules of the appellate court.” Under that authority, the appellate courts have adopted ORAP 2.07, 5 which takes as its starting point ORCP 68C, which is the rule for claiming and determining attorney fees and costs and which specifically excepts from its provisions fees “claimed as damages arising prior to the action * * *.” ORCP 68C(1)(B). Thus, to the extent that defendants’ counterclaim includes a claim for attorney fees as damages arising from a separate action, it falls outside the scope of ORCP 68C.

Adjudication of the claim in this instance could not rest on a statement filed pursuant to ORCP 68C(4)(a). As a consequence, purported adjudication of the claim could not be appealed simply by filing an amended notice of appeal, as ORAP 2.07 provides. Therefore, the portion of the counterclaim requesting fees as damages in the earlier case is not the type of fee claim contemplated by ORS 19.033(1), ORAP 2.07 and ORCP 68C. A judgment reflecting disposition of that claim must be entered before this court can have jurisdiction over an appeal.

*238 Appeal dismissed.

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

Wheatley v. Safley, 758 P.2d 377, 92 Or. App. 233 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

758 P.2d 377 (Wheatley v. Safley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brennan v. La Tourelle Apartments
56 P.3d 423 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2002)
Propp v. Long
831 P.2d 685 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1992)
Swagerty v. Joe Romania Chevrolet, Inc.
770 P.2d 967 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)