Hanley Engineering, Inc. v. Weitz & Company, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 August 2022
• Docket Number: A175597
• Parties: HANLEY ENGINEERING, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WEITZ & COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation; Daniel P. Weitz, individually; and all persons in possession or claiming any right to possession, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

321 Or.App. 323
516 P.3d 1192

HANLEY ENGINEERING, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WEITZ & COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation; Daniel P. Weitz, individually; and all persons in possession or claiming any right to possession, Defendants-Appellants.

A175597

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted March 1, 2022
August 10, 2022

Brent H. Smith, La Grande, filed the brief for appellants.

Ryon K. Sirucek and David R. Auxier, Baker City, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.

MOONEY, J.

321 Or.App. 324

Defendants appeal from an order denying their Motion to Set Aside Extension of Foreign Judgment. Defendants assign error to the trial court's denial of their motion, arguing that the judgment was no longer entitled to full faith and credit in Oregon (the forum state) because judgment remedies for the judgment had expired in Idaho (the rendering state). The trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion. We affirm.

When we review a trial court's decision regarding a judgment under ORCP 71 and "the trial court's decision rests on a legal conclusion about the meaning of a rule or statute * * * we review that conclusion as a matter of law." Palmquist v. Flir Systems, Inc. , 207 Or App 365, 368-69, 142 P.3d 94 (2006) (citing Shumake v. Foshee , 197 Or App 255, 261, 105 P.3d 919 (2005) ).

On November 4, 2010, in the district court for Elmore County, Idaho, a Supplemental and Final Judgment was entered against Weitz & Company and Daniel P. Weitz (defendants). On December 15, 2010, in the circuit court for Baker County, Oregon, Hanley Engineering, Inc. (plaintiff) submitted a Notice of Filing Foreign Judgment pursuant to ORS 24.125, a provision of Oregon's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA). See ORS 24.105 - 24.175.

On December 8, 2020, in the Baker County Circuit Court, plaintiff filed a Certificate of Extension of Judgment pursuant to ORS 18.182(1). Plaintiff notes in the certificate of extension, "Less than 10 years have passed since the judgment entry date [December 17, 2010], judgment remedies for this judgment have not expired, and a full satisfaction for the money award portion, if any, of the judgment has not been filed."

On December 18, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Extension of Foreign Judgment with the Baker County Circuit Court pursuant to ORCP 71(B)(1)(e). Defendants argued that because the original judgment had expired in Idaho it was no longer due full faith and credit under the United

516 P.3d 1194

States Constitution, and because of that, the judgment could not be extended in Oregon. Plaintiff

321 Or.App. 325

argued that pursuant to Oregon case law once a foreign judgment is filed in Oregon that filed foreign judgment is itself enforceable according to Oregon law. Plaintiff thus argues that the 10-year period of limitation provided by ORS 18.180(3) applies, rather than the five-year period of limitation under the corresponding Idaho statute, making the judgment extension appropriate and timely.

The trial court heard oral arguments on February 10, 2021, and issued a letter opinion on February 16, 2021. The court concluded that

"the ruling in Newhouse is [ ] applicable. In Ames v. Ames , 60 Or App 50, 58[, 652 P.2d 1280] (1982), the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that foreign judgments are to be treated as if they were judgments issued by Oregon Courts and are subject to Oregon's statute of limitations and other procedures.

"In this

...