Halvorson v. Real Estate Agency

“If there is evidence creating a relevant fact issue, then no matter how ‘overwhelming’ the moving party’s evidence may be, or how implausible the nonmoving party’s version of the historical facts, the nonmoving party, upon proper request, it entitled to a hearing.” Watts v. Board of Nursing, 282 Or App 705, 714, 386 P3d 34 (2016).

Petitioner sought judicial review of a final order issued by the Oregon Real Estate Agency where the agency ruled that the Petitioner violated professional standards and his real estate broker license was revoked. Petitioner assigned error to the ALJ's grant of the agency's motion for summary determination. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the agency was not entitled to summary determination on the allegations that he violated ORS 696.301(6) and (7) because he raised genuine issues of material fact and thus the agency was not entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of law. In response, the agency argued that there were no disputed issues of fact that were material to whether Petitioner violated ORS 696.301(6) and (7) and that they did carry their burden of proving that Petitioner violated ORS 696.301(7). "If there is evidence creating a relevant fact issue, then no matter how 'overwhelming' the moving party's evidence may be, or how implausible the nonmoving party's version of the historical facts, the nonmoving party, upon proper request, it entitled to a hearing." Watts v. Board of Nursing, 282 Or App 705, 714, 386 P3d 34 (2016). The Court of Appeals held that there were disputed issues of fact in this case, the agency presented no evidence to show that petitioner violated ORS 696.301(7) and the agency was not entitled to summary determination. Reversed and remanded.