Cron v. Zimmer, 255 Or. App. 114

Five siblings would share mineral rights owned by their mother (Conlin-Hutton) in North Dakota; after her intestate death in Jan 2006, Harold Hutton as personal representative conveyed the rights to defendant for $1 and other consideration.
Hutton later executed a March 2008 affidavit stating the conveyance was intended to allow defendant to set up a trust that would divvy proceeds among all five children.
Plaintiffs Cron and Everson allege defendant promised to create such a trust and to account for or distribute proceeds; they seek 80% of mineral-rights revenue and, for unjust enrichment, an accounting and a court-ordered trust.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on all three claims; the trial court granted the motion.
Oregon courts asserted subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims despite the real-property nature of the underlying asset in North Dakota; parol evidence and integration of the deed were key to the analysis.
Court reverses and remands, finding triable issues on all three claims and that the deed was not fully integrated, allowing parol evidence of the oral trust arrangement to be considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interference with economic relations viability	Hutton and plaintiffs had a voluntary economic relationship; defendant’s interference to prevent the trust harmed plaintiffs.	There was no protected economic relationship or improper interference; the transfer was an outright conveyance not enabling protection of a trust.	Issue triable; summary judgment reversed.
Conversion of chattel (proceeds)	Defendant converted 80% of proceeds by retaining them despite intended trust.	Plaintiffs had no immediate possessory interest in the chattel; intent issues should be resolved at trial.	Issue triable; summary judgment reversed.
Unjust enrichment and constructive trust	Defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining proceeds that should have funded a trust for siblings.	No unjust enrichment shown; defendant’s initial conveyance supports her ownership.	Issue triable; trial on the merits warranted.

Allen v. Hall, 328 Or 276 (1999) (extends tort of interference to noncommercial relationships, including potential inheritance contexts)
Fox v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 169 Or App 54 (2000) (limits extension of interference with economic relations to noncommercial contexts; lawsuits as involuntary relationships not protected)
Berger v. Loomis, 169 Or 575 (1942) (equity may affect parties to obtain relief indirectly for real property outside state limits)
Claude v. Claude, 191 Or 308 (1951) (court may exercise equity in personam to affect property outside state, within limits)
Hatley v. Stafford, 284 Or 523 (1978) (parol evidence rule exceptions for consistent and collateral agreements not fully integrated writings)
Jaqua v. Nike, Inc., 125 Or App 294 (1993) (elements of unjust enrichment and proving benefit, knowledge, and unjust retention)