Koster Remodeling & Const., Inc. v. Jataka
| Decision Date | 15 July 1998 |
| Citation | 963 P.2d 726,155 Or.App. 142 |
| Parties | KOSTER REMODELING & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent, v. Ann JATAKA, Appellant. 9604-02708; CA A97207. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Kevin Milton Myles, Portland, argued the cause for Appellant. With him on the brief were Phylis Chadwell Myles, Portland, and Myles & Myles.
Van M. White, Portland, argued the cause for Respondent. With him on the brief was Samuels, Yoelin, Kantor, Seymour & Spinrad, LLP.
Before RIGGS, P.J., and LANDAU and WOLLHEIM, JJ.
Defendant appeals a judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff in this action for breach of contract and quantum meruit. She assigns error only to the award of fees. We affirm.
Plaintiff, a contractor, agreed to construct and install library shelving in defendant's home. The agreement executed by the parties provided plaintiff with the option of enforcing payment for the services through either court action or private arbitration. The agreement also provided:
Plaintiff delivered the shelving to defendant's home, but, before it was installed, defendant terminated the agreement. Plaintiff initiated this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court for $7,923.67 in damages.
Because of the amount in controversy, the trial court ordered the case transferred to mandatory Multnomah County Arbitration. See ORS 36.400. The arbitrator awarded plaintiff $2,500. Plaintiff requested attorney fees, but the arbitrator declined, holding that the agreement between the parties provided for an award of attorney fees only in the event of a "suit or action," not in the event of arbitration.
Plaintiff filed an exception directed solely at the arbitrator's decision not to award attorney fees. The trial court concluded that the arbitrator was incorrect and awarded plaintiff $3,000 in attorney fees. Defendant challenges that decision on appeal.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in reversing the arbitrator without expressly finding that the arbitrator abused his discretion, as required by ORS 20.075(3). Plaintiff argues that the trial court's decision "was in compliance with ORS 20.075."
At the outset, it bears noting that the trial court's review of the arbitrator's decision was not governed by ORS 20.075(3). That statute concerns an appeal to this court from an award of attorney fees by a trial court:
"In any appeal from the award or denial of an attorney fee subject to this section, the court reviewing the award may not modify the decision of the court in making or denying an award, or the decision of the court as to the amount of the award, except upon a finding of an abuse of discretion."
ORS 20.075(3). The statute clearly pertains to appellate review of a "decision of the court" to award or to deny attorney fees. It does not concern the trial court's review of an arbitrator's decision.
The statute that governs the trial court's decision in this case is ORS 36.425(6):
The statute expressly confers on the trial court authority to examine the "legal grounds for an award or denial of attorney fees." It does not require any deference to the arbitrator on that question of law. The court is directed to "decide the issue" of legal entitlement and "enter a decision." That is precisely what the trial court did.
The question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ives v. Lyon (In re Lyon)
...case where the court compelled the plaintiff to participate in arbitration and allowed fees. Koster Remodeling & Construction, Inc. v. Jataka , 155 Or. App. 142, 144, 963 P.2d 726 (1998). In Koster , the plaintiff chose to file a lawsuit, but based on local rules the court transferred the c......
-
Feffer v. Administrative School District No. 1
...a trial court's holding regarding a contractual entitlement to attorney fees as a matter of law. Koster Remodeling Construction, Inc. v. Jataka, 155 Or.App. 142, 145, 963 P.2d 726 (1998). The attorney fee provision in the contract between the parties "Should it be determined through any lit......
-
Bennett v. Baugh
...573, 576, 795 P.2d 1087 (1990). A party's entitlement to attorney fees is a question of law. Koster Remodeling & Construction, Inc. v. Jataka, 155 Or.App. 142, 145, 963 P.2d 726 (1998). The reasonableness of fees, however, is a factual determination, where the trial court considers, among o......
-
SQUIER ASSOCIATES v. SECOR INVESTMENTS
...fees depends on the interpretation of a contract, a legal question, we review for errors of law. Koster Remodeling & Construction, Inc. v. Jataka, 155 Or.App. 142, 145, 963 P.2d 726 (1998). The provision in the December contract that serves as the basis for plaintiff's attorney fee and cost......