Hammond v. Hammond
246 Or. App. 775
| Or. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Acy Dean Hammond died in October 2001; the Jackson County property was at issue and had been subject to a 1985 deed transferring it to Sherman Hammond “as a survivor.”
- A May 2000 will devised interests in the same property among Acy’s three sons, including petitioner Michael Hammond.
- In March 2009, Michael filed to probate Acy’s will and be appointed personal representative, then sought a declaration that he owned the property or had an interest under the will or probate code.
- The trial court held the 1985 deed conveyed the property to Sherman in fee simple, resolving ownership against Michael.
- The court treated the deed as unambiguous and relied on ORS 93.180(2) to conclude a life-estate tenancy with cross-contingent remainders, then declared ownership in fee simple; this was reversed and remanded for ambiguity and extrinsic-evidence consideration.
- The case centers on whether the deed’s language “as a survivor” and the 1985 statutory framework create a survivorship tenancy or another form of transfer, and whether laches affects petitioner's equitable claim on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 1985 deed create a survivorship tenancy under ORS 93.180? | Hammond contends the deed’s language intended survivorship and alters ownership accordingly. | Hammond argues the deed complies with ORS 93.180 to create tenancy in common with survivorship. | Ambiguous; extrinsic evidence required on remand. |
| Does ORS 93.180(1985) require two or more grantees for survivorship to apply? | The deed may reflect survivorship rights despite form. | The statute requires a single conveyance to two or more with survivorship to create the tenancy. | Deed fails to meet statutory form; ambiguity remains. |
| Can extrinsic evidence resolve the deed’s meaning? | Extrinsic evidence should be consulted to ascertain Acy’s intent. | If the deed is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence is irrelevant. | Yes, extrinsic evidence relevant; remand for factual findings. |
| Is petitioner's claim barred by laches? | Delay in challenging the deed should not bar relief given possible uncertainty and long-term effects. | Prejudice and knowledge of respondent’s claim before Acy’s death support laches. | Remand; laches issue to be addressed alongside extrinsic-evidence analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cassidy v. Pavlonnis, 227 Or.App. 259 (2009) (ambiguous contracts permit extrinsic evidence; interpret text in context)
- Realvest Corp. v. Lane County, 196 Or.App. 109 (2004) (look to surrounding circumstances for ambiguous conveyances)
- Neuschafer v. McHale, 76 Or.App. 360 (1985) (equity-based, not automatic de novo review in declaratory actions)
- Stevens v. Theurer, 213 Or.App. 49 (2007) (statutory framework for tenancies in common under ORS 93.180)
- Patterson and Kanaga, 206 Or.App. 341 (2006) (extrinsic evidence in contract ambiguities)