Hall v. Fox
| Citation | 808 P.2d 99,106 Or.App. 377 |
| Parties | Marjorie W. HALL, Respondent, v. Mel FOX, Appellant. A8706-04118; CA A62903. |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Fred A. Granata, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs, for appellant.
Howard R. Hedrick, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief, for respondent.
Before BUTTLER, P.J., and ROSSMAN and DE MUNIZ, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this action for rescission of a land sale contract that provided for attorney fees to the prevailing party. 1 She did not allege a right to attorney fees in her original complaint; however, defendant, in his answer asserted a counterclaim for attorney fees under the contract. In her reply, plaintiff sought to have the counterclaim dismissed, because an attorney fees provision is inapplicable in an action to rescind the underlying contract. Bodenhamer v. Patterson, 278 Or. 367, 378, 563 P.2d 1212 (1977). 2
On the second day of the trial to the court, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to include a claim for reformation. The court deferred its ruling. After trial, the court allowed the motion to amend and found for plaintiff on the reformation claim. After her motion for attorney fees was denied because she had not pleaded them, ORCP 68C(2), 3 the court, pursuant to ORCP 23A and ORCP 23C, and over defendant's objection, granted her motion to amend her complaint to allege entitlement to attorney fees on the reformation claim. Final judgment was then entered, including $7,710 for attorney fees. 4 The only issue on appeal is whether the court erred in allowing the second amendment.
Defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the amendment after trial to plead entitlement to attorney fees. He contends that he did not have "an opportunity, prior to trial, to evaluate the entirety of plaintiff's claim so as to be fully informed on whether or not to settle." However, plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the complaint on which she went to trial. It was not until the court allowed her to amend her complaint to state a claim for reformation and to enforce the contract, as reformed, that she had a right to claim attorney fees, and that occurred after trial. Defendant does not assign error to the court's allowing the amendment to plead reformation. Therefore, the prejudice that defendant claims could not have resulted from the later amendment to plead a claim for attorney fees. Even if plaintiff had included the necessary attorney fee allegation when she amended her complaint to claim reformation, defendant could not have settled that claim before trial. Furthermore, defendant was not surprised by the contract provision; he had counterclaimed for attorney fees under the contract, and the contract was in evidence. Horn v. Lieuallen Land and Livestock Corp., 69 Or.App. 285, 288, 684 P.2d 1246, rev. den. 297 Or. 824, 687 P.2d 797 (1984).
Leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." ORCP 23A. The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to allow an amendment, and we review only for abuse of that discretion. Benj. Franklin Fed. Savings and Loan v. Phillips, 88 Or.App. 354, 745 P.2d 437 (1987). There is nothing in ORCP 68C to suggest that the rule cannot be satisfied by an amendment. Benj. Franklin Fed. Savings and Loan v. Phillips, supra, 88 Or.App. at 357, 745 P.2d 437. Because defendant was not prejudiced as he claims, the trial court acted within its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to amend. 5
Affirmed.
1 The attorney fee provision reads:
"In case suit or action is instituted to foreclose this contract or to enforce any provision hereof, the losing party in said suit or action agrees to pay such sum as the trial court may adjudge reasonable as attorney's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OTECC v. Co-Gen Co.
...Our review is for abuse of discretion. Sullivan v. Oregon Landmark-One, Ltd., 122 Or.App. 1, 8, 856 P.2d 1043 (1993); Hall v. Fox, 106 Or.App. 377, 380, 808 P.2d 99 (1991). We find In ruling that OTECC could not amend its complaint to add claims for rescission or reformation, the trial cour......
-
Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk
...McAmis Industries v. M. Cutter Co., 161 Or.App. 631, 636, 984 P.2d 909, rev. den., 329 Or. 553, 994 P.2d 129 (1999); Hall v. Fox, 106 Or.App. 377, 380, 808 P.2d 99 (1991); Benj. Franklin Fed. Savings and Loan v. Phillips, 88 Or. App. 354, 357, 745 P.2d 437 (1987), and we review only for abu......
-
Kaste v. Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC
...surprised by the fact that plaintiffs ultimately invoked that provision in connection with their contract claims. See Hall v. Fox , 106 Or.App. 377, 380, 808 P.2d 99 (1991) (noting that the defendant was aware of the contractual fee provision in concluding that the defendant was not prejudi......
-
STATE, McAMIS INDUSTRIES v. M. Cutter Co.
...the state case began.2 We review the grant of a motion to amend or supplement pleadings for abuse of discretion. Hall v. Fox, 106 Or.App. 377, 380, 808 P.2d 99 (1991). Even if we agreed with plaintiff that claim preclusion does not apply in this case, the existence and timing of entry of th......