- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 06-28-2017
- Case #: A154276
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J.; Hadlock, C.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner sought judicial review of an administrative order, regarding the Department of Revenue's, (DORA), attempt to garnish damages and attorney fees awarded for the "violate[ion] of her statutory and constitutional rights..." Petitioner proffered 6 assignments of error, 5 of which were not addressed by the court. Accordingly, the court determined whether all of Petitioner's $50,000 damages award could be garnished by the State, or if a portion was exempt under ORS 18.345(1)(k). On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined whether: (1) it was proper for Petitioner to bear the burden of proof under ORS 18.345(1)(k); and (2) whether Petitioner’s testimony that incidents while under state custody left her physically injured, was sufficient to satisfy the statute’s evidentiary requirements. In response, State contended that (1) since Petitioner was shielding assets from garnishment she bore the burden of proof, and that (2) because she sought damages for mental harm in addition to physical, she failed to adequately delineate $10,000 of the total $35,000 as only compensating physical harms. ORS 18.345(1)(k) exempts from a creditors' ability to garnish, payments or property, up to $10,000 in value, received as an award of damages for the “personal bodily injury’ of [a] debtor.” The court held that, per Childers v. Brown, 81 Or 1, 8, (1916), Petitioner had the burden of proof under ORS 18.345(1)(k). Additionally, it held that Petitioner's claim regarding her testimony evidence lacked a sufficient "factual or legal challenge." Therefore, the Court held no error was established. Affirmed.