450 P.3d 1
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff bought residential property in May 2007 and conveyed it to defendant (her daughter‑in‑law) by bargain and sale deed in June/July 2008 for $410,000; defendant later received a Countrywide loan secured by the property.
- Net loan proceeds (~$257,500) were deposited into plaintiff’s brother Hoffman’s Chase account (on which plaintiff was a signatory); plaintiff alleges those proceeds were for her benefit and that she paid mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance thereafter.
- Plaintiff claims an oral agreement/ trust: defendant would hold title in trust and reconvey the property to plaintiff after loan matters were resolved; plaintiff sued in 2015 for quiet title and breach of contract after defendant retained title.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; plaintiff sought leave to amend her complaint and asked for a continuance/production of defendant’s bank records to oppose summary judgment. The trial court denied leave to amend, denied the continuance/compel relief, struck portions of plaintiff’s declarations, and granted summary judgment to defendant.
- On appeal the court affirmed: denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; summary judgment was proper because plaintiff failed to show superior title and could not prove an enforceable oral agreement (statute of frauds/partial performance analysis); any error over failure to compel bank records was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint | Day: proposed amendments (new defendants, claims of unjust enrichment, ejectment, fraud, damages or constructive trust) relate to same facts and should be allowed; no undue prejudice | Day (defendant): amendments would materially change the case, introduce new claims and facts, impose new defenses, and lacked colorable merit given existing record | Denial affirmed; court reasonably found amendments would substantially alter the action and likely lacked colorable merit given the record |
| Whether summary judgment on quiet‑title claim was improper | Day: deed may have been held in trust and possession/part performance create an issue of fact that title is not defendant’s absolute | Day (defendant): plaintiff conveyed title and produced no evidence of a superior interest; quiet title requires proof of superior title | Affirmed; plaintiff failed to show a substantial interest superior to defendant’s recorded title |
| Whether summary judgment on breach‑of‑contract (oral agreement) claim was improper (statute of frauds / partial performance) | Day: oral agreement and part performance (payments, possession, drafting trust deed) render statute of frauds inapplicable and create triable issues | Day (defendant): statute of frauds bars oral transfer/reconveyance; plaintiff’s proof is ambiguous, lacks clear terms, and partial performance is not unequivocally referable to such an agreement | Affirmed; statute of frauds applies and plaintiff’s evidence fails the partial‑performance elements (not clear/unambiguous; performance not unequivocally referable to alleged agreement) |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to compel production of defendant’s bank records or continue summary‑judgment proceedings | Day: bank records are essential to prove disposition of loan proceeds and to oppose summary judgment; she sought a continuance to obtain them | Day (defendant): plaintiff did not properly obtain an order compelling production; withholding does not defeat summary judgment where record is otherwise insufficient | No reversible error; plaintiff did not obtain an express compel order and any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or. App. 755 (summary judgment standard; partial‑performance doctrine discussed)
- Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or. 319 (party opposing summary judgment bears burden to produce evidence on issues they would have at trial)
- Coussens v. Stevens, 200 Or. App. 165 (elements of quiet‑title action: substantial interest and superior title)
- Mukai Living Trust Dated Dec. 8, 1997 v. Lopez, 199 Or. App. 341 (partial‑performance requirements and summary judgment affirmed where performance could be explained by other means)
- Eugene Pioneer Cemetery Ass’n v. Spencer Butte Lodge No. 9, 228 Or. 13 (specific performance for real estate requires precise, unambiguous terms)
- Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or. App. 139 (factors for amendment of pleadings under ORCP 23 A)
- Caldeen Const., LLC v. Kemp, 248 Or. App. 82 (discussion of leave to amend and Ramsey factors)
- Jensen v. Duboff, 253 Or. App. 517 (amendments that merely strengthen existing claims are more readily allowed)
- Cron v. Zimmer, 255 Or. App. 114 (elements of unjust enrichment claim)
- Conzelmann v. N.W.P. & D. Prod. Co., 190 Or. 332 (fraud elements)
- Eggen v. Wetterborg, 193 Or. 145 (ejectment requires present right to possession)