Halperin v. Pitts
287 P.3d 1069
| Or. | 2012Background
- ORS 20.080 permits attorney fees in small tort actions; (1) plaintiff recovery requires a timely written demand before suit; (2) defendant recovery on counterclaims authorizes fees but contains no prelitigation demand prerequisite; statutes reflect different treatments for plaintiff and defendant.
- The case involved adjacent landowners disputing a boundary; plaintiffs sent a demand letter seeking $5,500 and sued for quiet title and trespass; defendants counterclaimed for trespass and quiet title with $5,000 in general damages; after bench trial, trespass claims were dismissed and title quieted in plaintiffs’ favor.
- Appellants argued Bennett v. Minson (1990) implied a prelitigation demand for subsection (2); appellees argued ORS 20.080(2) is silent and Bennett dicta is not binding; the Court of Appeals had sustained the objection to fee awards.
- The court analyzed statutory text, history, and later amendments; 2009 amendments clarified that subsections (3)-(5) apply only to plaintiffs under subsection (1) and do not import prelitigation-demand requirements to subsection (2).
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings; it refused prospective-only effect and rejected Bennett’s dicta as binding precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ORS 20.080(2) require a prelitigation demand? | Bennett implied a demand requirement for (2). | Textual silence; no demand prerequisite. | No prelitigation demand required under (2). |
| Is Bennett binding despite being dictum? | Bennett should govern under stare decisis. | Bennett dictum has no precedential force. | Bennett dictum is not binding precedent. |
| Should the court apply the decision prospectively? | Reliance on Bennett warrants prospective application. | No discretionary prospective-only effect for statutory interpretation. | Decision not applied prospectively; retroactive to case at hand. |
| How do 2009 amendments affect (1) vs (2) distinction? | Amendments reinforce (1) demands only. | Amendments do not alter (2)’s lack of demand requirement. | Amendments confirm no cross-application of (1)’s demand to (2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Minson, 309 Or 309 (1990) (addressed whether defendant prevailed for (2); dictum on demand/tender)
- Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or 432 (2008) (relation to ORS 20.080(1) and ORCP 54 E)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) (statutory interpretation framework)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory construction and canons of interpretation)
- Clackamas Cty Assessor v. Village at Main St. Phase II, 349 Or 330 (2010) (use of later-enacted statutes to assess meaning)