507 P.3d 772
Or. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2003 Myhre bought land from Potter; their sale agreement required binding arbitration and stated that "filing for arbitration shall be treated the same as filing in court for purposes of meeting any applicable statutes of limitation."
- Myhre initiated arbitration in early 2010; in July 2010 the arbitrator awarded Myhre specific performance (a lot line adjustment), $6,069.50 for expenses/property loss, and $8,980 in costs and attorney fees.
- Myhre filed a petition to confirm the award in Aug 2010; that proceeding was dismissed in May 2011 for want of prosecution.
- Myhre filed a second petition to confirm the award in Feb 2019; Potter was served Feb 23, 2019 and filed objections 40 days later asserting improper venue and that the petition was time-barred by a statute of limitations.
- The trial court sustained the venue objection, transferred venue, and ultimately denied the petition, concluding it was barred by the statute of limitations. Myhre appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myhre) | Defendant's Argument (Potter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 36.700(1)’s 20‑day limit bars Potter’s objections (filed 40 days after service) | Objections were untimely under ORS 36.700(1); court must confirm unless timely motion to vacate/modify | ORS 36.700’s 20‑day rule governs only vacatur/modification grounds; venue, jurisdiction, and statute‑of‑limitations defenses are procedural and not time‑barred by §36.700 | The 20‑day limit does not bar purely procedural objections (venue, personal jurisdiction, statute‑of‑limitations); the court may consider them |
| Whether a six‑year contract statute of limitations (ORS 12.080) applies to a petition to confirm an arbitration award | The proceeding is not a new action on the contract; confirmation is a special statutory proceeding (so §12.080 should not apply); if any default applies, the longer 10‑year rules apply | The petition is an action upon a contract/liability, so ORS 12.080’s six‑year limit applies | A petition to confirm an arbitration award is a special statutory proceeding to enter judgment and is not governed by ORS chapter 12; no state statute of limitations applies to the confirmation proceeding; trial court erred in dismissing as time‑barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Couch Investments, LLC v. Peverieri, 270 Or App 233 (Or. App. 2015) (standard of review for refusal to confirm arbitration award)
- Snider v. Production Chemical Mfg., Inc., 348 Or 257 (Or. 2010) (arbitration proceedings are special statutory proceedings)
- Brown v. Farrell; Farrell v. Brown, 258 Or 348 (Or. 1971) (general statutes of limitations do not govern special statutory proceedings)
- Nickerson v. Mecklem, 169 Or 270 (Or. 1942) (same—special statutory proceedings may set their own limitations)
- Wallace v. Holden, 297 Or App 824 (Or. App. 2019) (personal jurisdiction is required in confirmation proceedings)