Greenwood Prods., Inc. v. Greenwood Forest Prods., Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Greenwood Prods., Inc. v. Greenwood Forest Prods., Inc., 275 Or.App. 1020, 365 P.3d 153(Mem) (Or. App. 2015)
• Decision Date: 30 December 2015
• Docket Number: 050302553,A135701.
• Parties: GREENWOOD PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; and Jewett–Cameron Lumber Corp., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiffs–Respondents Cross–Appellants, v. GREENWOOD FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; Jim Dovenberg, an individual; and Bill Lefors, an individual, Defendants–Appellants Cross–Respondents.

275 Or.App. 1020

365 P.3d 153 (Mem)

GREENWOOD PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; and Jewett–Cameron Lumber Corp., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiffs–Respondents Cross–Appellants,

v.GREENWOOD FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; Jim Dovenberg, an individual; and Bill Lefors, an individual, Defendants–Appellants Cross–Respondents.

050302553

A135701.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted on Remand Dec. 2, 2015.

Decided Dec. 30, 2015.

Maureen Leonard and Ron D. Ferguson filed the briefs for appellants-cross-respondents.

Robert D. Newell, Kevin H. Kono, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed the answering-cross-opening brief for respondents-cross-appellants. With them on the supplemental brief was Timothy R. Volpert.

Before ARMSTRONG, Presiding Judge, and HASELTON, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court for the second time. Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products, 238 Or.App. 468, 242 P.3d 723 (2010) (Greenwood I ), rev'd in part and rem'd, 351 Or. 604, 273 P.3d 116 (2012) (Greenwood II ), on remand, 264 Or.App. 1, 330 P.3d 662 (2014) (Greenwood III ), rev'd and rem'd, 357 Or. 665, 359 P.3d 219 (2015) (Greenwood IV ). A recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public.

Suffice it to say, defendants (Forest Products) raised seven assignments of error on appeal, and plaintiffs (Greenwood) raised a single assignment of error on cross-appeal. The Supreme Court rejected Forest Products' first through fourth and sixth assignments of error in Greenwood II and Greenwood IV. In Greenwood I, with regard to Forest Products' seventh and final assignment of error, we concluded that Forest Products—who was awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party on its counterclaim for nonpayment of the promissory notes—was also entitled to recover expert expenses, and we remanded for the trial court to award reasonable expert expenses to Forest Products. 238 Or.App. at 482–85, 242 P.3d 723. We also rejected Greenwood's cross-appeal on preservation grounds. Id. at 485–86, 242 P.3d 723. Because Greenwood did not challenge those two determinations in the Supreme Court, see Greenwood II, 351 Or. at 615 n. 8, 273 P.3d 116 ; Greenwood IV, 357 Or. at 676–78, 359 P.3d 219, we adhere to our reasoning in Greenwood I concerning those determinations and readopt it here. As instructed by the Supreme Court in Greenwood IV, we have now considered Forest Products' fifth assignment of error concerning purported instructional error and the part of Forest Products' seventh assignment of error concerning the award of attorney fees to Greenwood,...