Berger v. Stephan
241 Or. App. 399
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Family dispute over proceeds from sale of Crook County ranch held as tenants in common with life estate and cross-contingent remainders.
- Plaintiffs Freidrich and Erika Berger claim 75% interest; Kristine Berger Benks and Rudiger Stephan claim 25%.
- Prior to trial, parties stipulated no partition; court to determine proceeds distribution rather than physical partition.
- Evidence showed funds for Oregon purchase were advanced from Rudiger/Kristine via a German Iggelbach house sale, allegedly used to purchase the ranch.
- Iggelbach contract stated DM 49,500, but evidence indicated DM 350,000 actually funded the Oregon deal; extrinsic evidence sought to show this.
- Trial court admitted extrinsic evidence about the Iggelbach transaction; court found defendants’ funds contributed to the Oregon purchase and that plaintiffs held majority ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic evidence about the Iggelbach contract is admissible. | Bergeres contend extrinsic evidence relevant to ownership; not barred by integration. | Stephan/Benks argue parol evidence and statute of frauds bar extrinsic terms. | Extrinsic evidence admissible; contract not fully integrated; not barred by statute of frauds. |
| Whether parol evidence rule barred consideration of Iggelbach circumstances. | Evidence explains purpose and payment, affecting ownership rights. | Rule prohibits adding to/altering written terms. | Parol evidence rule did not bar admissibility; circumstances allowed to explain payment. |
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss claim under ORCP 54 B(2). | Claim to modify Iggelbach or related relief maintains ownership dispute. | Improper pleading to modify contract barred. | Court properly denied motion; not a modification of Iggelbach contract. |
| Effect of evidence on division of sale proceeds. | Evidence supports greater allocation to plaintiffs. | Evidence mischaracterizes the contract, should not modify distribution. | Proceeds allocated 75% to plaintiffs and 25% to defendants; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatley v. Stafford, 284 Or. 523 (1978) (parol evidence and integration analysis guide admissibility)
- McInnis v. Lind, 198 Or.App. 139 (2005) (questions of law and fact with statute of frauds; mixed questions to jury)
- Golden v. Golden, 273 Or. 506 (1975) (statute of frauds; oral contract cannot override written; exception when used for other relief)
- Grover v. Sturgeon, 255 Or. 578 (1970) (statute of frauds not applicable where oral promise performed)
- Wirth v. Sierra Cascade, LLC, 234 Or.App. 740 (2010) (parol evidence rule as substantive rule of contract law)
- Abercrombie v. Hayden Corp., 320 Or. 279 (1994) (integration/extrinsic evidence allowed to interpret contract terms)
- Hyland v. Oregon Agricultural Co., 111 Or. 212 (1924) (parol evidence and integration principles; executive contexts)