Snyder v. Pynn
Decision Date | 17 February 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 79-6-434,79-6-434 |
Citation | 623 P.2d 1090,50 Or.App. 449 |
Parties | Dennis SNYDER and James Torrance, dba American Construction and Mining Co., Appellants, v. Allen B. PYNN, Respondent. ; CA 16656. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gary M. Bullock, Portland, filed the brief for appellants.
James O. Goodwin and Richard C. Helgeson, West Linn, filed the brief for respondent.
Before RICHARDSON, P. J., and THORNTON and BUTTLER, JJ.
Plaintiffs filed a claim against defendant for money damages allegedly caused by defendant's breach of a contract. In response to plaintiffs' allegations, defendant moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment entered by the court after granting defendant's motion. We reverse and remand.
The parties' dispute initially arose in November, 1975. For several years prior to that time they had an oral agreement allowing plaintiffs to remove rock and fill material from defendant's property. In November, 1975, defendant advised plaintiffs that, effective November 15th of that year, their right to remove material was being terminated. A series of discussions ensued between the parties, culminating in what plaintiffs contend was an agreement on December 18, 1975.
In January, 1976, defendant here brought suit against plaintiffs seeking a mandatory injunction enjoining them from removing rock and other material from defendant's property after November 15, 1975, and for damages. Plaintiffs here, defendants in that action, filed a counterclaim seeking money damages for defendant's alleged breach of the claimed December, 1975 agreement. In response to that counterclaim, defendant here moved for an order requiring plaintiffs here to make their allegation regarding the December agreement more definite and certain. In particular, he requested an order requiring plaintiffs to state "whether the alleged agreement of December, 1975, is oral or written, and to set forth the date and terms of such agreement haec verba." After the trial court granted that motion, plaintiffs filed an amended countersuit which alleged, in pertinent part, that:
Thereafter, defendant here filed a reply but eventually dismissed the suit.
Plaintiffs secured new counsel and filed the action which is the subject of this appeal. Their complaint, like the previous countersuit, sought money damages from defendant for his alleged breach of the December, 1975, agreement. Plaintiffs' allegation regarding the agreement was identical in all material respects to that alleged in their prior countersuit.
Defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to former ORS 18.105(2). 2 Attached to the motion was defendant's sworn affidavit, the letter exhibits plaintiffs had attached to their complaint, and a memorandum of law. In response, plaintiffs submitted a sworn affidavit by plaintiffs' former counsel and an excerpt of testimony given by that attorney during the course of the parties' former litigation.
In his affidavit, defendant stated that he had not entered into any agreement with plaintiffs in December, 1975, or any time thereafter, allowing plaintiffs to remove material from his property. Defendant further stated that although he made an offer to plaintiffs on December 15, 1975, contained in one of the letter exhibits attached to plaintiffs' complaint, that offer was never accepted by plaintiffs. Instead, he stated, plaintiffs made certain counterproposals in a letter dated December 18, 1975, the last letter exhibit attached to plaintiffs' complaint, to which he never assented. Defendant's position was that examination of the exhibits relied upon by plaintiffs to contain the parties agreement reveals that there had been no acceptance by defendant. There being no acceptance, defendant contended there could not be any contract between the parties.
In response to defendant's motion, plaintiffs submitted a counteraffidavit from the attorney who represented them in the first case between the parties. The affidavit stated that on or about December 18, 1975, defendant entered into an agreement, negotiated by the affiant as attorney for plaintiffs. Further, the affidavit stated that the agreement was set out substantially in the letter sent by the affiant to defendant on December 18, 1975. The affidavit also referred to testimony, given by the affiant and attached to the affidavit, which detailed the alleged agreement between the parties. The substance of this testimony was that on or about December 18, 1975, defendant entered into an oral agreement with plaintiffs' former attorney which was memorialized, at defendant's request, in the letter sent to defendant that same day.
At the summary judgment hearing, defendant objected to any attempt by plaintiffs to prove an oral agreement as being beyond the scope of plaintiffs' pleadings. The trial court made no ruling on the objection but, the record indicates, considered plaintiffs' counteraffidavit and supporting documents prior to ruling on the motion. The court granted defendant's request for summary judgment. In a letter to the parties explaining its decision, the court noted:
(Emphasis added.)
To warrant summary judgment the moving party must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable and proper inferences which can be drawn from the pleadings, testimony and affidavits. Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 288 Or. 659, 665, 607 P.2d 177 (1980); Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or. 695, 699, 588 P.2d 1100 (1978); Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or. 81,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shumate v. Robinson
...well established rule that a party must recover, if at all, on the party's pleadings is to prevent unfair surprise. Snyder v. Pynn, 50 Or.App. 449, 454, 623 P.2d 1090 (1981). While we have not been able to find any Oregon authority directly on point, we agree with the California Court of Ap......
-
Department of Revenue v. Croslin, TC 4728 (Or. Tax 5/23/2006), TC 4728.
...because the relief the department sought therein was different from the relief it had sought in its Complaint. See Snyder v. Pynn, 50 Or App 449, 454, 623 P2d 1090 (1981) ("It is true that a party must recover, if at all, on the allegations of the complaint and not on a new or different iss......
-
Gorge Leasing Co. v. Hanna, 44194
...affidavits. Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 288 Or. 659, 607 P.2d 177 (1980); Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, supra; Snyder v. Pynn, 50 Or.App. 449, 623 P.2d 1090 (1981). Under these principles, we examine defendant's equitable estoppel defense. Defendant's evidence is that when he first con......
-
Hugie v. City of Shady Cove, J-2
...judgment on the contract claims. 1 We reverse. Plaintiff argues that this case comes within the rule stated in Snyder v. Pynn, 50 Or.App. 449, 455, 623 P.2d 1090 (1981), and the cases cited there, that "[a]ctions amounting to a party's manifestation of a determination to accept an offer com......