Trail v. Haney

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-01-2017
  • Case #: A162851
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 18.005(13), a limited judgment must fit into certain categories, one being “a judgment entered under ORCP 67 B or 67 G.” In order to apply 67 B, “the court must have determined a ‘claim.’ [A] motion for sanctions under ORCP 46 D does not constitute a claim within the meaning of ORCP 67;” therefore, sanctions under ORCP 47 are not appealable. Baugh v. Bryant Limited Partnerships, 98 Or App 419, 423 779 P2d 1071 (1989)

Defendant appealed an order that dismissed his fourth amended answer and a “purported limited judgment” that awarded $2,000 in sanctions to Plaintiffs, under ORCP 17. Defendant understood the “Limited Judgment and Money Award” to be a limited judgment. Plaintiffs contended that the “limited judgment” was not appealable. Under ORS 18.005(13), a limited judgment must fit into certain categories, one being “a judgment entered under ORCP 67 B or 67 G.” In order to apply 67 B, “the court must have determined a ‘claim.’ [A] motion for sanctions under ORCP 46 D does not constitute a claim within the meaning of ORCP 67;” therefore, sanctions under ORCP 47 are not appealable. Baugh v. Bryant Limited Partnerships, 98 Or App 419, 423 779 P2d 1071 (1989). The Court of Appeals found Baugh  to be controlling because the nature of sanctions under 46D are similar to those of ORCP 17. The Court held that the “Limited Judgment and Money Award” was not actually a judgment, and thus not appealable, because it was not a claim under ORCP 67 B, nor did it fit into any other category proscribed by ORS 18.005(13). Appeal dismissed. 

Advanced Search