Columbia Crossings, LLC v. Mathis

• Decision Date: 29 June 2022
• Docket Number: A171962
• Citation: 320 Or.App. 637
• Parties: COLUMBIA CROSSINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jack MATHIS, an individual; Patricia Mathis, an individual; and all other occupants, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

320 Or.App. 637

COLUMBIA CROSSINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Jack MATHIS, an individual; Patricia Mathis, an individual; and all other occupants, Defendants-Appellants.

A171962

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 29, 2022

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Argued and submitted March 4, 2022.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 19LT05854; Kenneth R. Walker, Senior Judge.

Harry D. Ainsworth argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Kevin V. Harker argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Harker Lepore LLC.

Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge.

1

[320 Or.App. 638] JOYCE, J.

Defendants, Jack Mathis and Patricia Mathis (the renters), and Benjamin Gonzales (the subletter), appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff-the landlord-in a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action to recover possession of real property. Among other things, defendants argue that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff had properly served the FED complaint and summons. While the appeal was pending, the renters settled their disputes with plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently moved to dismiss the FED case as moot. The subletter, who was not a party to the settlement, objects to the motion to dismiss, arguing that this appeal is not moot because of the collateral consequences of the FED judgment. As explained below, we agree with the subletter that the appeal is not moot. We further conclude that the trial court erred when it found that plaintiff had properly served the compliant and summons. Accordingly, we reverse.

FACTS

The underlying historical facts of this FED action are essentially the same of those of a related case filed by plaintiff, Columbia Crossings, LLC v. Jack Mathis, Patricia Mathis, Benjamin Gonzalez, and All Other Occupants (Columbia Crossing II), Case No. 19CV47539.^[1] The undisputed procedural facts of both cases are relevant to resolve the question of mootness in this appeal. Thus, we briefly summarize the facts of both cases.

In 2006, the renters entered into a rental agreement with plaintiff for a floating home in the Jantzen Bay Floating Home Community. In September 2018, the subletter moved into the property without plaintiffs permission. Around two months later, plaintiff issued a for-cause termination notice to all defendants^[2], directing them to vacate the

2

[320 Or.App. 639] premises in 90 days. At least one of the defendants remained in possession of the premises beyond the deadline.

In April 2019, plaintiff initiated this case by filing an FED action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the renters breached the rental agreement by subletting the floating home without plaintiffs consent and by storing an oversized boat in the moorage space, which caused "problems for ingress and egress by other residents in the community."

On May 9, 2019, and again during trial on May 17, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the FED action because plaintiff had not served them in accordance with ORS 105.135. The trial court denied both of those motions after finding that plaintiff had sufficiently complied with ORS 105.135. The trial court ultimately found that the renters had violated the rental agreement by subletting the floating home without plaintiffs permission and by storing an oversized boat in the moorage space, which presented a safety hazard for other residents in the floating community. The trial court then awarded a judgment of restitution in favor of plaintiff.

On August 22, 2019, defendants appealed the judgment of restitution, and that appeal is the one before us now. During the pendency of this appeal, the subletter posted a supersedeas bond and continued mooring the oversized boat in the slip.

On October 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate civil suit against all three defendants, Columbia Crossing II, seeking injunctive relief in the form of "an order from [the trial court] ruling that [defendant's structures *** violat[e] the [rental agreement], and as such must be removed[,]" as well as economic damages and attorney fees. Defendants responded that the boat and other structures did not violate the rental agreement.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that issue preclusion prevented defendants from relitigating the issue of whether the oversized boat violated the rental agreement. The trial court in that case agreed, finding that "the defenses raised by [defendants are precluded by issue

3

[320 Or.App. 640] preclusion[,]" because the trial court in the FED case had found that the boat "was oversized for the moorage space" and interfered with the ingress and egress of other residents in the community, a violation of the rental agreement. The trial court awarded plaintiff attorney fees and costs in the amount of $15,840.73. Defendants appealed that judgment as well; that appeal remains pending.

While both appeals were pending, the renters and plaintiff settled their disputes and agreed to dismiss all claims against each other. The subletter was not a part of that settlement agreement.^[3]

Plaintiff subsequently moved to dismiss defendants' appeal as moot because of the settlement. The subletter responds that the case is not moot because a resolution of the merits of this appeal will affect the judgment entered against him in Columbia Crossing II. At this point, all defendants have vacated the premises and delivered possession to plaintiff.

MOOTNESS

As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the settlement between the renters and plaintiff renders this appeal moot. "Determining mootness is one part of the broader question of whether a justiciable controversy exists." Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402, 405, 848 P.2d 1194 (1993). A case is moot when "it becomes clear in the course of a judicial proceeding that resolving the merits of a claim will have no practical effect on the rights of...