Kazlauskas v. KBBP, LLC
275 P.3d 171
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Emmert and Kazlauskas litigated over two property ventures: Victory Lane property and Flax Plant Road property, with disputes over contracts and claimed profits split.
- In CV06090108, Emmert sued Kazlauskas for fraud related to a loan; the jury awarded Emmert $108,800, including $88,800 disputed damages plus $20,000 conceded.
- In CV07020311, Kazlauskas sued Emmert for breach of contract; the jury awarded Kazlauskas $88,800 on two contract claims and also found liability on the Stickney Road claim.
- Kazlauskas elected specific performance rather than damages after the jury verdicts, prompting a court-ordered judgment allocating future_profit-sharing percentages.
- Emmert challenged the verdicts and the court’s denial of a directed verdict; Kazlauskas challenged evidentiary rulings and the jury’s deliberations; cross-appeal contended the initial verdicts should be reinstated.
- The Court reversed in CV07020311 and remanded for entry of damages consistent with the jury verdict; affirmed in CV06090108.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contract claims were enforceable despite the statute of frauds | Kazlauskas: part performance defeats statute | Emmert: no clear, unequivocal part performance | Part performance sufficient to defeat statute of frauds |
| Whether specific performance was appropriate when damages were available | Kazlauskas: specific performance warranted due to contract breaches | Emmert: damages adequate; specific performance improper | Damages were adequate; specific performance not appropriate |
| Whether the cross-appeal preserving initial verdicts was preserved and proper | Kazlauskas seeks reinstatement of initial higher damages | Emmert: no preservation and improper reconsideration | Cross-appeal rejected for lack of preservation |
| Whether the trial court erred in directing further deliberations or in handling the verdicts | Kazlauskas argued court erred by altering the Stickney Road damages | Emmert contends procedures were proper | Court's approach to remediation of the Stickney Road verdict was proper; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brice v. Hrdlicka, 227 Or.App. 460 (2009) (part performance and statute of frauds considerations)
- Moore v. Fritsche, 213 Or. 103 (1958) (specific performance only where damages are inadequate)
- Eckles v. State, 306 Or. 380 (1988) (restatement of general remedy principles for specific performance)
- Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. State, 318 Or. 33 (1993) (damages must be practical, adequate, and not require equitable relief if available)
- Luckey v. Deatsman, 217 Or. 628 (1959) (doctrine of part performance under statute of frauds)
- Young v. Neill, 190 Or. 161 (1950) (clear, certain and unambiguous terms required for part performance)