Geranghadr v. Entagh

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Citation189 Or. App. 567,77 P.3d 323
PartiesMarzieh GERANGHADR, Appellant, v. Abdolreza ENTAGH, Respondent.
Decision Date01 October 2003

77 P.3d 323
189 Or.
App. 567

Marzieh GERANGHADR, Appellant,
Abdolreza ENTAGH, Respondent

C012660 CV; A117857.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted July 30, 2003.

Decided October 1, 2003.

77 P.3d 324
Alan M. Spinrad, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Samuels Yoelin Kantor Seymour & Spinrad, LLP

Farsheed Shomloo argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and KISTLER, Judge pro tempore.

KISTLER, J. pro tempore.

The trial court set aside a judgment based on an Iranian arbitration award. The court reasoned, among other things, that a judgment cannot be based on a noncommercial, out-of-state arbitration award. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in setting aside the judgment for reasons that are not specified in ORCP 71. We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the judgment.

Plaintiff lives in Iran. Defendant, who is plaintiff's brother, lives in Oregon. In 1990, plaintiff gave defendant approximately $350,000 to invest. Defendant invested plaintiff's money in the stock market and lost much of it. Defendant initially told plaintiff that he had put her money in a bank, which went bankrupt. After that, defendant agreed to reimburse plaintiff for some of her losses. Later, an attorney contacted defendant about the remaining losses, and defendant agreed to go to Iran to meet with plaintiff. When defendant met with plaintiff in Iran, plaintiff told him that she had not authorized him to invest her money in the stock market and that he still owed her for the unpaid losses. Defendant and plaintiff signed an agreement to permit a relative to arbitrate the matter in Iran, and the relative issued an arbitration award or opinion (the parties disagree about the proper translation)1 requiring defendant to pay an additional $220,000 over a 12-year period.

Defendant made no payments under the arbitration award. Plaintiff filed the arbitration agreement and the award, along with translations of both documents, in Washington County Circuit Court. See ORS 36.350(1) (requiring arbitration award to be submitted to circuit court for entry of judgment on the award). Defendant was personally served on October 13, 2001. Defendant did not except to the filing, and a money judgment was entered on November 23, 2001. See ORS 36.350(1) (providing that, if no exceptions are filed within 20 days after service, "judgment shall be entered [on the arbitration award] as upon the verdict of a jury"). Several writs of garnishment were issued, one on defendant's employer on December 11, 2001.

On December 13, 2001, defendant filed a motion to set the arbitration award aside. Six days later, he filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to ORCP 71. In his motion to set aside the arbitration award, defendant argued that the award should be

77 P.3d 325
set aside because he was incapacitated when he signed the documents,2 because the award was not valid under Iranian law, and because the English translation filed with the trial court was incorrect. In his motion for relief from judgment, defendant asserted that the judgment should be set aside because it was void, ORCP 71 B(1)(d), and that there had been fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on plaintiff's part, ORCP 71 B(1)(c). In response, plaintiff argued that defendant's challenges to the arbitration award were untimely and that, at most, he could seek to set the judgment aside under ORCP 71

After considering the parties' arguments, the trial court set the judgment aside. The court explained that the process for obtaining an arbitration award in Iran was not clear and that it was concerned that the process in Iran might lack procedural protections that exist in Oregon. The court also observed that, "even if the proceeding in Iran could be considered an arbitration, there is no statutory basis * * * that allows plaintiff to obtain a judgment in Oregon based on an arbitration in Iran[.]" Based on those considerations, the court ruled that the judgment should be set aside.

This case presents two related but separate questions. The first is whether the judgment should be set aside under ORCP 71. Second, if it should, the remaining question is whether the arbitration award is unenforceable for one of the reasons listed in ORS 36.355. Most of defendant's arguments focus on the latter question. We cannot reach that question, however, unless there is some basis for first setting the judgment aside. Beckwith v. Frazey, 86 Or.App. 236, 238, 738 P.2d 1003, rev. den., 304 Or. 279, 744 P.2d 1003 (1987). Put another way, if defendant wished to argue that the arbitration award was not enforceable, it was incumbent on him under ORS 36.355 to file a timely exception when plaintiff filed the arbitration award with the court. Defendant did not do so, and a judgment was entered against him based on plaintiff's filing. In this posture, defendant must first get the judgment set aside under ORCP 71 before he can assert the merits of his underlying claim that the arbitration award is not enforceable under ORS 36.355.

Before the trial court, defendant argued that the judgment should be set aside under ORCP 71 B(1)(c) and (d). We begin with ORCP 71 B(1)(c), which authorizes a court to set aside a judgment for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party." On that point, defendant argues that the translation of the arbitration award that plaintiff filed with the court used the phrase "arbitration judgment" or "arbitration award" when it should have said "arbitration opinion"—a distinction that, defendant contends, makes a substantial difference under Iranian law.

The difficulty with defendant's argument is that, even if plaintiff fraudulently filed an incorrect translation with the trial court, intrinsic fraud is not sufficient to set aside a judgment; only extrinsic fraud will suffice. Johnson v. Johnson, 302 Or. 382, 389, 730 P.2d 1221 (1986). We explained the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud in Wimber v. Timpe, 109 Or.App. 139, 146, 818 P.2d 954 (1991):

"Extrinsic fraud

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mountain Woodworks, Inc. v. Voss, 160521823.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 19 Marzo 2008 the court's attention amounts to extrinsic fraud sufficient to set aside the bankruptcy judgment. See Geranghadr v. Entagh, 189 Or.App. 567, 571-72, 77 P.3d 323 (2003), rev. den., 336 Or. 509, 87 P.3d 1136 (2004) (filing an allegedly incorrect translation of an arbitration award might be......
  • Montoya v. Housing Authority of Portland
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 10 Marzo 2004
    ..."The fact that a court acts in violation of a statute does not mean that the resulting judgment is void." Geranghadr v. Entagh, 189 Or.App. 567, 572, 77 P.3d 323 (2003) (citation Quantum, however, relies on our opinion in Cooley v. Fredinburg, 144 Or.App. 410, 927 P.2d 124 (1996), modified ......
  • Larkins v. Larkins (In re Southard), 120464547, 130565220
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 2 Diciembre 2015
    ..."The fact that a court acts in violation of a statute does not mean that the resulting judgment is void." Geranghadr v. Entagh, 189 Or.App. 567, 572, 77 P.3d 323 (2003) (court's judgment was not void because it had jurisdiction to enter judgment on an arbitration award even if mistaken in c......
  • San Francisco County Dep't of Child Support v. Marc D., A128746
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 19 Mayo 2011
    ...proficient interpreter if he was dissatisfied with the skills of the person acting in that capacity. (See Geranghadr v. Entagh (Or. 2003) 189 Or.App. 567, 571-572 [77 P.3d 323, 325-326 [fraudulently filing an incorrect translation of an arbitration award is only intrinsic fraud and provides......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT