380 P.3d 999
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Shriners obtained a default judgment in 2008 on a promissory note against Woods based on an affidavit claiming personal service at his Canby residence on November 28, 2007; Woods did not appear in that action.
- Woods later litigated a dissolution and a legal-malpractice action; in 2013 he received a malpractice award that PLF tendered to the court for disbursement (about $187,075).
- Shriners filed a writ of garnishment against the PLF funds in 2013 to collect on its default judgment.
- Woods moved under ORCP 71 B(1)(d) to set aside the 2008 default judgment as void for lack of personal service, submitting multiple witness declarations placing him elsewhere on the alleged service date.
- The trial court denied Woods’s motion as untimely and on grounds that Woods had actual knowledge of the Shriners action; the court treated attorney liens as having priority but left lien amounts for later determination.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the trial court erred in rejecting the set-aside motion as untimely and that factual findings on service are required before resolving garnishment and lien disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2008 default judgment (personal jurisdiction/service) | Shriners: process-server affidavit presumptively establishes valid personal service; plaintiff relied on affidavit and contends Woods had actual knowledge so service defect is immaterial | Woods: affidavit false; he was not served on Nov 28, 2007; lack of personal service renders judgment void ab initio | Court: Whether service occurred is a factual question; trial court must decide that issue—vacated and remanded for factual determination |
| Timeliness of ORCP 71 B(1)(d) motion to set aside (void judgment) | Shriners: Woods’s 2013 motion is untimely; he knew of the claim in Jan 2008 so motion not reasonably timely | Woods: Judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction; motions to set aside void judgments have no timeliness limit | Court: Motions to set aside a void judgment are not subject to the reasonable-time requirement; trial court erred in denying as untimely |
| Effect of Woods’s use of the judgment in other litigation (estoppel/waiver) | Shriners: Woods should be judicially/equitably estopped from attacking the judgment because he used it as damages evidence in malpractice case | Woods: A void judgment cannot be validated by estoppel | Court: Estoppel cannot validate a void judgment; does not bar collateral attack |
| Resolution of competing attorney liens on malpractice proceeds | Shriners: attorney liens are valid and have priority; PLF funds should be disbursed after lien amounts determined | Woods: sought recoupment/reduction of liens based on attorney errors; disputed lien amounts and defenses | Court: Lien disputes are ancillary to the jurisdictional/service determination; because personal-jurisdiction is unresolved, lien issues are not reached and may be affected by remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Utility Reform Project v. PUC, 215 Or. App. 360 (appellate caution on nonjusticiable/hypothetical issues)
- Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or. 460 (justiciability requires a present controversy)
- Estate of Selmar A. Hutchins v. Fargo, 188 Or. App. 462 (no timeliness limit for setting aside void judgments)
- Baker v. Foy, 310 Or. 221 (service under ORCP 7 required for personal jurisdiction; actual notice alone insufficient)
- Alloway & Duncan, 165 Or. App. 624 (actual notice does not excuse noncompliance with ORCP 7)
- Murphy v. Price, 131 Or. App. 693 (proper service is a substantial right; actual notice insufficient)
- Burt & Gordon v. Stein, 128 Or. App. 350 (estoppel does not cure a void judgment)