Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren
288 P.3d 859
Or.2012Background
- Construction defect action in Oregon; association sued Warren and others; summary judgment granted to Warren; association moved for reconsideration; judgment entered; appeal filed but reconsideration issue affected jurisdiction; Court of Appeals held reconsideration could be treated as a new trial under Carter; Oregon Supreme Court overruled Carter and held reconsideration of a summary judgment is not a new trial; case remanded for other proceedings.
- Record shows trial court ordered summary judgment June 23, 2010; plaintiff filed motion to reconsider June 25, 2010; trial court later signed judgment July 8, 2010; notice of appeal filed July 22, 2010; reconsideration hearing August 23, 2010; defendants argued jurisdictional timing under ORS 19.255(2) and ORS 19.270(1).
- Lower court treated motion for reconsideration as potential new trial; appellate jurisdiction hinged on whether reconsideration is a new trial; supreme court interprets ORS 19.255(2) and ORCP 64 to exclude summary judgment from a “trial”; Carter and earlier line of cases disavowed.
- Court concludes summary judgment is not a trial; motion for reconsideration of summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial; timing rules for notices of appeal do not apply to this motion; case affirmed to Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
- The decision discusses stare decisis concerns but overrules Carter and related pre-ORCP cases to align with statutory/textual interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment qualify as a motion for a new trial? | Timeliness hinges on reconsideration being a new trial. | Reconsideration equates to a new trial under Carter. | No; not a new-trial motion. |
| If not a new trial, does a prematurely filed notice of appeal remain valid? | Appeal timely since no new timing trigger. | Premature notice due to pending reconsideration. | Timely jurisdiction; notice remains valid. |
| Does ORS 19.270(1) allow court to decide reconsideration without new notice of appeal? | Court retains jurisdiction to rule on reconsideration despite notice. | Appeal process interrupted without new notice. | Remains jurisdiction over appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 285 Or 179 (1979) (motion to reconsider is a motion for a new trial under pre-ORCP rules)
- Cooley v. Roman, 286 Or 807 (1979) (reconsideration of summary judgment treated as a new trial)
- Employee Benefits Ins. v. Grill, 300 Or 587 (1986) (confirms Carter lineage on reconsideration as new trial)
- Carter v. U.S. National Bank, 304 Or 538 (1987) (initial rule that reconsideration of summary judgment is a new trial (overruled))
- Alt v. City of Salem, 306 Or 80 (1988) (writ of review; no trial, hence no motion for new trial)
- Mowry v. Farmers Ins. Co., 350 Or 686 (2011) (stability vs. correct statutory interpretation; reconsideration doctrine reevaluated)