Rookstool-Moden Realty, LLC v. Gallagher
Decision Date | 28 May 2020 |
Docket Number | A169071 |
Citation | 465 P.3d 300,304 Or.App. 450 |
Parties | ROOKSTOOL-MODEN REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon GALLAGHER, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Scott D. MacArthur argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Scott D. MacArthur, P.C.
No appearance for respondent.
Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.*
This case arises out of a forcible entry and detainer action commenced by plaintiff (landlord) against defendant (tenant) to recover possession of the premises. In a defense, tenant asserted that landlord's failure to provide adequate ventilation in the bathroom to prevent the accumulation of mold, among other conditions, breached its duty under ORS 90.320 to keep the premises in a habitable condition. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a letter opinion concluding that the lack of ventilation breached the landlord's duty and resulted in a reduction of the premises’ rental value which entirely offset any unpaid rent. The court entered judgment in favor of tenant and landlord appeals.
On appeal, landlord argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support the trial court's verdict. It argues that a tenant claiming a breach of the landlord's duty to keep the premises in a habitable condition is required to present evidence of the extent to which the habitability issue reduced the premises’ rental value. Lane v. Kelley , 57 Or. App. 197, 201, 643 P.2d 1375, rev. den. , 293 Or. 394, 650 P.2d 927 (1982). After reviewing the record, we conclude that landlord failed to preserve that argument.1
"Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal." State v. Wyatt , 331 Or. 335, 341, 15 P.3d 22 (2000). To preserve an argument in a bench trial that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, a party is required to move for a judgment of dismissal under ORCP 54 B(2) or make " ‘a timely equivalent assertion.’ " Marshall v. Cannady , 291 Or. App. 802, 808, 423 P.3d 143 (2018) (quoting Falk v. Amsberry , 290 Or. 839, 844-45, 626 P.2d 362 (1981) ); see also Kahl v. T.G., Inc. , 116 Or. App. 402, 404, 840 P.2d 1392 (1992) ( ). Here, landlord did neither.
Before the trial court, landlord argued that defendant's evidence at trial failed to prove that the habitability issues reduced the unit's rental value to zero:
Landlord did not preserve his argument that there was insufficient evidence to submit the question to the factfinder. Rather, he argued that the factfinder should not be persuaded by the evidence presented.
Arguments made to the trial court as factfinder and arguments about the legal sufficiency of the evidence are fundamentally different. A factual argument seeks to convince the trial court that, although the court could find for the opposing party because that party has produced at least some evidence in support of its position, the court should not find for the party because its evidence is not persuasive. State v. R. W. G. , 288 Or. App. 238, 240, 404 P.3d 1131 (2017). By contrast, an argument that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law asserts that the trial court cannot return a verdict for the opposing party because that party has failed to produce any evidence supporting at least one element of its claim or defense. Id. at 241, 404 P.3d 1131 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reyes-Castro
...of its position, the court should not find for the party because its evidence is not persuasive." Rookstool-Moden Realty, LLC v. Gallagher , 304 Or. App. 450, 453, 465 P.3d 300 (2020) (emphasis in original). The latter type of argument "asserts that the trial court cannot return a verdict f......