Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher
Decision Date | 19 February 2003 |
Citation | 63 P.3d 1271,186 Or. App. 416 |
Parties | MARK WENDT HOMES, INC., an Oregon corporation, Respondent, v. Eddie L. WILCHER, Appellant, and C & K Market, Inc., 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Defendant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Douglas J. Richmond, Medford, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Erik J. Glatte and Kellington, Krack, Richmond, Blackhurst & Sutton, LLP.
Andrew C. Brandsness, Klamath Falls, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Brandsness, Brandsness & Rudd, P.C.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and BREWER, Judges.
Plaintiff, a contractor, filed this action to foreclose on a construction lien based on defendant's failure to pay for plaintiff's construction of a fireplace.1 Plaintiff contended that the oral contract was a "cost-plus" contract and that it was entitled to its material costs plus a margin of 5 percent, for a total of $13,610. Defendant argued that the cost-plus contract was not to exceed $8,000 and that, in any event, plaintiff breached the contract by failing to perform it adequately. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for a judgment of dismissal pursuant to ORCP 54 B(2). The trial court denied the motion. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that plaintiff had performed negligently in some respects but otherwise was entitled to relief in the amount of $11,600, plus interest.
On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion for a judgment of dismissal. According to defendant, on de novo review, we must conclude that the parties agreed that the price could not exceed $8,000. Plaintiff responds that we do not review the denial of a motion for a judgment of dismissal de novo but for any credible evidence and that the record contains credible evidence that the parties agreed to a cost-plus contract without an $8,000 cap.
Motions for judgment of dismissal are to be "sparingly granted." Castro and Castro, 51 Or.App. 707, 713, 626 P.2d 950 (1981). Only when a plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case is it appropriate to grant such a motion. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Globe Seed & Feed Co., Inc., 125 Or.App. 321, 327, 865 P.2d 451 (1993), rev. den., 318 Or. 458, 871 P.2d 122 (1994). We do not review the facts de novo. We review the whole record to determine whether the plaintiff introduced "credible evidence" on the essential elements of the claim. Dunkin v. Dunkin, 162 Or.App. 500, 507, 986 P.2d 706, rev. den., 329 Or. 553, 994 P.2d 130 (1999) (quoting Castro, 51 Or.App. at 713, 626 P.2d 950).
When pressed on the $8,000 figure, the witness testified that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Venture Properties, Inc. v. Parker
...for allowance of dismissal under ORCP 54 B(2) without clarifying their relationship. For example, in Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher, 186 Or.App. 416, 63 P.3d 1271 (2003), in which we affirmed the denial of a motion under ORCP 54 B(2) to dismiss a lien foreclosure action, we described our......
- State v. Foster
-
Schiele v. Montes
...to review for errors of law. In response, the Monteses argue that several of this court's cases, including Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher, 186 Or.App. 416, 63 P.3d 1271 (2003), and Ranger Ins. Co. v. Globe Seed & Feed Co., Inc., 125 Or.App. 321, 865 P.2d (1993), rev. den., 318 Or. 458, 8......
-
Wilcher v. Amerititle, Inc.
...which ultimately totaled something in excess of $60,000. Plaintiff appealed the judgment, but we affirmed. Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher, 186 Or.App. 416, 63 P.3d 1271 (2003). In the meantime, since the filing of the Wendt construction lien, plaintiff found it increasingly difficult to ......