- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 08-07-2013
- Case #: A151026
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Homeowner appealed from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Chase bank and NWTS (“Defendants”) in a dispute arising from a foreclosure. Homeowner filed a first amended petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Defendants. Both Defendants filed motions under ORCP 21, and Homeowner filed a second amended petition. Defendants filed answers, including the affirmative defense of failure to allege facts stating a claim for relief. The trial court granted summary judgment for both Defendants, and entered a limited judgment dismissing Homeowner’s claims. Homeowner filed a third amended complaint, asserting the same claims as before and additionally requesting a declaration of his rights under ORS 86.770. Both Defendants moved against the third amended complaint. The trial court dismissed the claims against both Defendants, and Homeowner appealed. The Court held that the trial court did not err when it dismissed Homeowners third amended complaint. Under the doctrine of “law of the case,” Homeowner was precluded from re-litigating the claims that were asserted in his second amended complaint. The Court held that Homeowner’s new claim regarding his entitlement to a declaration of his rights under ORS 86.770 did not plead facts that established a “real and substantial controversy” between the parties. Affirmed.