Norris v. R & T Mfg., LLC

• Decision Date: 08 October 2014
• Docket Number: A153039.,101116202
• Citation: 266 Or.App. 123,338 P.3d 717
• Parties: Kenneth R. NORRIS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. R & T MANUFACTURING, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

266 Or.App. 123
338 P.3d 717

Kenneth R. NORRIS, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
R & T MANUFACTURING, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendant–Respondent.

101116202
A153039.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted May 07, 2014.
Decided Oct. 8, 2014.

338 P.3d 717

Conrad E. Yunker argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Conrad E. Yunker, P.C., Gary Abbott Parks, and Northwest WageLaw, LLC.

Helen C. Tompkins and Tompkins Law Office, LLC, filed the brief for respondent.

Before DUNCAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and LAGESEN, Judge.

Opinion

DUNCAN, P.J.

266 Or.App. 124

Plaintiff Kenneth Norris, who prevailed at trial on his claim against defendant R & T Manufacturing under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), ORS 95.200 to 95.310, appeals from a supplemental judgment

338 P.3d 718

disallowing his request for attorney fees. We affirm.

The underlying facts are described in Norris v. R & T Manufacturing, 265 Or.App. 672, 338 P.3d 150, 2014 WL 4922989 (2014) (Norris I ). In summary, plaintiff was previously awarded a judgment against Action Accessories, LLC (Action), in a statutory wage claim, but was unable to collect on the judgment. Plaintiff brought his claim under UFTA, asserting that property had been transferred from Action to defendant to avoid Action's debt to plaintiff. Plaintiff prevailed in his claim against defendant under UFTA, and the trial court entered judgment that included a monetary award of $64,170. We recently affirmed the trial court's judgment in Norris I.

This appeal relates only to plaintiff's entitlement to attorney fees on the UFTA claim. In his complaint, plaintiff sought “attorney fees for having to take this action to collect on judgments against Action and/or pursuant to ORS 20.105.” After trial, plaintiff filed a petition pursuant to ORCP 68 in which he requested attorney fees of $105,300. As the legal authority for the award of fees, plaintiff cited several cases, which, he contended, provide for recovery of attorney fees for legal action taken to collect on a judgment. The trial court denied the request for attorney fees in a supplemental judgment, concluding, “I am without authority to make such an award because ORS 95.230(1) does not expressly provide for the recovery of attorney fees and * * * [plaintiff] is not otherwise entitled to recover attorney fees.” Plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked authority to award fees.

We review the trial court's determination that it lacked authority to award fees for errors of law. Olson v. Howard, 237 Or.App. 256, 264, 239 P.3d 510 (2010). Oregon courts adhere to the “American rule” of attorney fees, under which courts generally will not award attorney fees to the

266 Or.App. 125

prevailing party absent statutory or contractual authorization. Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or. 1, 803 P.2d 723 (1990) ; see also Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, 350 Or. 81, 88, 249...