383 P.3d 365
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (members/developers) sued individual defendants (board members) under ORS 65.327 seeking judicial removal for alleged breaches of duties and violations of ORS chapter 94 and association bylaws.
- Trial court granted defendants’ ORCP 21 A(8) motion to dismiss; this court reversed in Goodsell I and remanded.
- After remand plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action under ORCP 54 A(1).
- Defendants sought $78,430.50 in attorney fees under ORS 94.719 and ORS 94.780 covering trial, appeal, and post-remand work; the trial court awarded $9,744.50 and expressly denied appellate fees.
- Defendants appealed the denial of fees for the unsuccessful appellate stage; plaintiffs cross-appealed contesting statutory entitlement to fees under ORS 94.719/94.780.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 94.719 (or ORS 94.780) authorizes defendant to recover fees where plaintiffs sued under ORS 65.327 | Goodsell: the action for judicial removal under ORS 65.327 is not an action to "enforce" ORS chapter 94 or bylaws and thus falls outside ORS 94.719/94.780 | Defendants: plaintiffs’ claims alleged violations of ORS chapter 94 and bylaws so the suits were to enforce ORS chapter 94 or bylaws, triggering statutory fee entitlement | Court: ORS 94.719 applies — plaintiffs’ complaint alleged violations of ORS chapter 94 and bylaws and sought injunctive/remedial relief, so defendants are entitled to statutory fees; no need to decide ORS 94.780 |
| Whether a prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees for earlier, unsuccessful stages of litigation (including a lost appeal) when it ultimately prevails after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the case | Goodsell: voluntary dismissal and plaintiffs’ prior success on appeal mean defendants should not recover fees for the stage(s) they lost; trial court’s exclusion was discretionary | Defendants: ORS 94.719 is a compulsory fee statute granting the prevailing party entitlement to reasonable fees for the entire litigation, including losing stages; trial court erred as a matter of law in denying appellate fees | Court: As a legal matter, a prevailing party under ORS 94.719 is entitled to reasonable fees for all stages, including prior losing efforts (e.g., appeal); trial court erred by denying appellate fees as a matter of law, though it may on remand exercise discretion in setting reasonable amounts under ORS 20.075 factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodsell v. Eagle-Air Estates Homeowners Assn., 249 Or. App. 639 (prevailing opinion in prior appeal reversing dismissal)
- Mountain High Homeowners Assn. v. Jewett, 224 Or. App. 45 (discussing statutory fee entitlement under ORS 94.719)
- LeBrun v. Cal-Am Properties, Inc., 197 Or. App. 177 (prevailing-party entitlement to fees for work on the action)
- Bennett v. Baugh, 164 Or. App. 243 (right to fees for abandoned or unsuccessful defensive efforts if part of the action)
- Cascade Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 206 Or. App. 1 (fees are recoverable for services that led to obtaining the judgment; timing not limiting)
- Fadel v. El-Tobgy, 245 Or. App. 696 (fees recoverable for work on dismissed claims closely related to the eventual prevailing claim)
- Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.) (unsuccessful stage that was necessary to ultimate victory can be compensable)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (framework for statutory interpretation used by the court)