Benson v. Harrell
Decision Date | 09 March 2011 |
Docket Number | 062440; A140873. |
Citation | 251 P.3d 203,241 Or.App. 362 |
Parties | Elizabeth D. BENSON and Virgene F. Blair, Plaintiffs–Respondents,v.Joseph F. HARRELL, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Matthew J. Andersen argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
James D. Huffman, St. Helens, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Virgene F. Blair.No appearance for respondent Elizabeth D. Benson.Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge, and LANDAU, Judge pro tempore.ORTEGA, P.J.
This appeal arises from a civil case in which plaintiffs, Benson and Blair, alleged that defendant had breached an agreement to purchase a truck from them. The case was sent to mandatory court-annexed arbitration, where defendant eventually prevailed and was awarded attorney fees. Accordingly, the trial court entered a general judgment pursuant to which plaintiffs were to pay defendant the sum of $4,635.50. After defendant began collection proceedings, Blair filed a motion seeking to have the judgment against her set aside, arguing for the first time that she had been mistakenly named as a plaintiff in the case by Woodard, the attorney who filed the complaint, and contending that she should never have been a plaintiff because she could not have obtained relief. The trial court ultimately granted Blair's motion, entering a general judgment setting aside the prior judgment against Blair and dismissing her as a party to the case. Defendant now appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in setting aside the judgment. We agree with defendant and, accordingly, reverse and remand.
In 2006, plaintiffs' complaint was filed in circuit court alleging that defendant had breached a contract relating to his purchase of a truck from Benson and Blair. According to the complaint, defendant agreed to pay Benson and Blair each a sum of money and did pay Blair but failed to pay Benson. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that defendant had falsely altered a bill of sale to show that the truck was paid for and presented that bill of sale to the Department of Motor Vehicles and, thereby, obtained clear title to the truck. Plaintiffs sought either a return of the truck or payment of the amount they alleged was still owed. In addition, they sought attorney fees and costs. Defendant answered and admitted to having purchased the truck from Blair, but denied any agreement to pay Benson. Defendant also sought attorney fees and costs in the event that he prevailed against plaintiffs.
As noted, the case was sent to mandatory arbitration. Blair submitted to a deposition before the hearing and testified during the hearing itself. Afterward, the arbitrator entered an award denying both plaintiffs any recovery, finding defendant to be the prevailing party, and awarding defendant his costs and attorney fees pursuant to ORS 20.082. The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the arbitration award.
The deposition testimony reflected that, at the beginning of the deposition, defendant's attorney gave Blair a copy of the complaint “that [her] attorney filed” and asked her to look it over, stating, “I'd like you to read that and if there's anything in there you don't feel is accurate, I'd like you to point it out to me.” Blair indicated that, with the possible exception of a discrepancy in the amounts owed to her and Benson, the complaint was accurate.
The court held hearings on the motions and heard testimony from Blair and Woodard and arguments from counsel. Blair testified that she had not hired Woodard as her attorney, had not intended to be a plaintiff in the case, and did not understand that she was one until after her bank account was garnished. According to Woodard, however, although he did not have a written retainer agreement with her, he had believed Blair to be his client and had named her as a plaintiff because he thought her to be a necessary party to the case. He also stated that he had represented Blair during her deposition and had met with her to prepare for trial, but that the majority of his communications were with Benson “because she had a cell phone.”
After the hearings, the trial court issued a letter opinion with factual findings and conclusions based on the exhibits that had been filed, along with the testimony at the hearing. The court found as follows:
“The Court finds counsel * * * Woodard, attorney for * * * Benson, believed he was representing * * * Blair.
“The Court also finds * * * Blair did not ever sign a retainer agreement with * * * Woodard, attorney for * * * Benson.
“At all material times herein, during the course of this suit, * * * Woodard treated * * * Blair like a client, except he communicated indirectly with * * * Blair through * * * Benson.
“The Court finds the initial lawsuit in this case filed by * * * Woodard named * * * Blair as a plaintiff.
“The Court finds at the arbitration of this case, between * * * Benson, * * * Blair, and [defendant], wherein * * * Woodard represented, at least in his own mind, * * * Blair and * * * Benson against [defendant] and his counsel * * * [,] Blair acted like a party at all times.
“The Court finds that * * * Blair did not have any actual loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract by [defendant].
“The Court also finds any replevin action requested by * * * Woodard, was a general replevin simply stating ‘plaintiffs pray for the following relief: (a) for the return of their vehicle or, in the alternative, for the payment of the sum owing plus interest;’ However, * * * Blair could not have kept the vehicle if returned. It would have gone to * * * Benson.
“The Court also finds [the a]rbitrator * * * believed * * * Blair was a party apparently based upon his review of the pleadings and the testimony at the arbitration.
“ The Court cannot discern any possibility of damages that could have been recovered by * * * Blair, nor could * * * Blair have received the vehicle in replevin, and as such she was not entitled to any incidental damages or attorney fees and was in fact, on a legal basis only, a mere witness.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Much v. Doe
...276 Or. 827, 831, 556 P.2d 658 (1976) (noting trial court took oral testimony at hearing on motion to set aside); Benson v. Harrell , 241 Or. App. 362, 366, 251 P.3d 203 (2011) (noting trial court heard testimony from multiple witnesses at hearing on ORCP 71 B motion to set aside); Knox v. ......
-
Benavente v. Thayer
...that we review for legal error, even if we view the plaintiff's motion to rescind as an ORCP 71 motion. See, e.g., Benson v. Harrell, 241 Or.App. 362, 368, 251 P.3d 203, rev. den., 350 Or. 571, 258 P.3d 526 (2011) (whether a party demonstrates mistake in an ORCP 71 motion is an issue that w......
-
Much v. Doe
...556 P2d 658 (1976) (noting trial court took oral testimony at hearing on motion to set aside); Benson v. Harrell, 241 Or App 362, 366, 251 P3d 203 (2011) (noting trial court heard testimony from multiple witnesses at hearing on ORCP 71 B motion to set aside); Knox v. GenxPage 663Clothing, I......
-
Union Lumber Co. v. Miller, 100746539
...“violence to the regular disposition of litigation.” National Mortgage Co., 173 Or.App. at 24, 20 P.3d 216; see also Benson v. Harrell, 241 Or.App. 362, 369, 251 P.3d 203, rev. den.,350 Or. 571, 258 P.3d 526 (2011) (stating that test for evaluating whether to set aside judgment because of m......