Bergstrom v. Buchholz Industries, Inc., 202826
Decision Date | 16 March 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 202826,202826 |
Parties | Marvin W. BERGSTROM, Respondent, v. BUCHHOLZ INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant. ; CA 18168. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Howard R. Hedrick, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Dana R. Taylor, Portland.
Charles H. Combs, Oregon City, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before BUTTLER, P. J., and WARDEN and WARREN, JJ.
This is a forcible entry and detainer action (FED), based upon defendant's alleged nonpayment of rent for commercial premises. In its second amended answer, filed on the day scheduled for trial, defendant denied nonpayment of rent, alleged affirmative defenses and also alleged a counterclaim for breach of the lease agreement, seeking damages in excess of the $3,000 jurisdictional limitation of the district court. ORS 46.060. Contemporaneously with the filing of its second amended answer and counterclaim, defendant filed a motion to transfer the case to circuit court and tendered the costs for the transfer pursuant to ORS 46.070.
Prior to the commencement of the trial, the following colloquy occurred between the court and defendant's counsel.
Following this colloquy, defendant's counsel reduced the counterclaim to the jurisdictional limit of the district court and the trial proceeded. After a hearing, the court awarded plaintiff possession of the premises and awarded defendant partial relief on its counterclaim.
Defendant first contends that after it filed its counterclaim in an amount in excess of the district court's jurisdiction and filed its motion to transfer the cause to circuit court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. Because we agree and the case must be remanded, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the defendant's other claims of error.
ORS 46.060 provides:
Where, however, a counterclaim is made, ORS 46.070 provides:
* * * "
ORS 46.075(1) provides:
Where, as here, commercial property is involved and it is not claimed that the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, ORS 91.700 to 91.895, has any application, the limitation of the amount of a counterclaim to the jurisdictional limit of the district court specified in ORS 91.810(1) is not applicable. LFC, Inc. v. Burtchaell, 47 Or.App. 471, 474-75, 614 P.2d 1201 (1980); also see analysis of the apparent conflict between ORS 46.070 and ORS 91.810 in Ingersoll v. Mattson, 47 Or.App. 463, 614 P.2d 1197 (1980).
In an FED involving commercial property, when a...
To continue reading
Request your trial