Bauman v. Gittelsohn
Decision Date | 19 July 1983 |
Docket Number | No. CC-82-329,CC-82-329 |
Parties | Robert G. BAUMAN, W.C. Bauman, and Rita F. Bauman, dba Breakers Point Partnership, Appellants, v. Shirley GITTELSOHN and Maurice O. Georges, Respondents. ; CA A28899. . Submitted on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jeanyse R. Snow, and MacDonald, McCallister & Snow, Astoria, for the motion.
J. Michael Alexander, and Burt, Swanson, Lathen, Alexander & McCann, Salem, contra.
Before WARDEN, P.J., and WARREN and YOUNG, JJ.
Respondents move to dismiss the appeal because of lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal was timely filed on July 11, 1983, the last day for filing the appeal, ORS 19.026, and service was made on that day on respondents and on the Clatsop County Clerk. ORS 19.023(2)(b), Or Laws 1981, ch. 177, § 1, requires that service be made on the "clerk of the trial court." 1 Since January, 1983, the County Clerk has not been the Clerk of the Trial Court.
ORS 19.033(2) provides:
"The service and filing of the notice of appeal as provided in ORS 19.023, 19.026 and 19.029 is jurisdictional and may not be waived or extended." (Emphasis supplied.)
Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., 272 Or. 390, 538 P.2d 70 (1975), emphasizes that timely service and filing of the notice of appeal is mandatory.
Appeal dismissed. 2
I would deny the motion to dismiss, because failure to make timely service on the trial court clerk under ORS 19.023(2)(b) does not require dismissal of the appeal, absent a showing that the failure to comply is serious and prejudicial.
In Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., 272 Or. 390, 392, 538 P.2d 70 (1975), the court explained:
The appellate procedure statutes remain virtually as adopted in 1959 with the exception of 1981 amendments to ORS 19.023. The purpose of the 1981 amendments was to standardize the method for filing civil and criminal cases. The legislative history reveals no intent to affect the jurisdictional reach of the procedural requirements. See Senate Committee on Justice, March 31, 1981, at 5.
The notice of appeal in this case was filed on July 11, 1983, the last day for filing the appeal, and service was made that day on respondents and on the Clatsop County Clerk. The statute requires that service be made on the trial court clerk. ORS 19.023(2)(b). The trial court clerk was served on July 25, 1983, after an abortive attempt to do so on July 20, 1983, which failed due to no fault of appellant.
Prior cases involving procedural defects in the appellate filing process have produced no clear guideline for dismissal with the exception that filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., supra. Many defects in statutory requirements have been held not to require dismissal. Werline v. Webber, 54 Or.App. 415, 635 P.2d 15, rev. den. 292 Or. 450, 644 P.2d 1128 (1981) ( ); Northern Ins. Co. v. Conn Organ, 40 Or.App. 785, 596 P.2d 605, rev. den. 287 Or. 507 (1979) ( ); Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., supra ( ); Millard v. Mitchell Bros., 261 Or. 165, 492 P.2d 783 (1972) ( ); Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al., 230 Or. 204, 358 P.2d 1062, 368 P.2d 737 (1962) ( ).
In Stahl v. Krasowski, 281 Or. 33, 573 P.2d 309 (1978), the court found that the failure to state that the appeal was "taken from the judgment or some specified part thereof" was jurisdictional and the notice of appeal fatally defective. I would follow the spirit of Chief Justice Denecke's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Custom Harvesting Oregon, Inc. v. Smith Truck & Tractor, Inc., 80-4-377
... ... I am disturbed by the path this court is following. See, e.g., Bauman v. Gittlesohn, 64 Or.App. 849, 669 P.2d 1188 (1983). I agree with Judge Warren's dissent in Bauman, 64 Or.App. at 850, 669 P.2d 1188. I have no ... ...
-
Wood v. Ford Motor Co., s. A8011-06274
... ... Before GILLETTE, P.J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ ... PER CURIAM ... Appeal dismissed. See Bauman v. Gittelsohn, 64 Or.App. 849, 669 ... ...
- Bauman v. Gittelsohn
-
Goldstein v. Radakovich, A8209-05754
... ... See Bauman v. Gittelsohn, 64 Or.App. 849, 669 P.2d 1188, rev ... ...