Willamette Landing Apartments - 89, LLC v. Burnett
280 Or. App. 703
| Or. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tenant (defendant) rented an apartment from Willamette Landing (plaintiff) and repeatedly refused landlord entry for maintenance after notices under ORS 90.322. Plaintiff filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action and obtained a jury verdict awarding possession.
- Plaintiff initially misnamed itself in the complaint (short name) and later sought leave to amend to the full business name; the trial court allowed amendment over tenant objection.
- Court awarded plaintiff $103,308.43 in attorney fees under ORS 90.255; tenant argued fees were excessive and procedure on fee statements defective.
- Tenant posted a supersedeas undertaking to stay execution on appeal: initial lump sum for two years’ occupancy, later replenished for additional years as appeal extended; plaintiff received disbursements for each elapsed year and sought increased deposits based on higher market value.
- Tenant moved for relief from judgments after plaintiff accepted the undertaking disbursement, arguing that acceptance of payment reinstated the lease; trial court denied relief. Tenant challenged several rulings on the undertaking and discovery relating to valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 105.130 bars amending a misnamed plaintiff in an FED complaint | Statute identifies proper party but does not preclude amendment; apply ORCP amendment rules | Misnaming is fatal and cannot be cured post-filing under ORS 105.130 | Amendment allowed; trial court did not abuse discretion (ORCP 23 governs) |
| Whether attorney fees award procedure or amount was improper | Fee factors in ORS 20.075 were considered at hearing; unusually large award justified by litigation complexity and tenant’s conduct | Initial fee statement failed to cite ORS 20.075(1); award excessive and chilling to tenant defenses | No error: court considered required factors; findings supported fee amount and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether plaintiff’s acceptance of undertaking disbursement reinstated the lease and discharged judgments | Acceptance was payment for value of occupancy under ORS 19.335(2), not rent under lease; did not waive breach or reinstate lease | Acceptance of payment during appeal reinstates tenancy/lease (tenant relied on landlord-tenant principles/statutes) | Denial of relief affirmed: undertaking payments were security for stay, not rent acceptance that reinstates lease; ORS 91.090 and related principles inapplicable to RLTAs here |
| Whether court erred in releasing deposited funds, increasing required undertaking amounts, or denying discovery on valuation | Court may release undertaking funds for elapsed appeal periods and may adjust required security based on evidence of market value; discovery discretionary | Release improper; court lacked authority to increase deposit; discovery needed to contest valuation | Affirmed: release and increases were proper given hearings and evidence; denial of expanded discovery not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuart v. Pittman, 350 Or 410 (statement of viewing facts in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Balboa Apartments v. Patrick, 351 Or 205 (amendment of FED pleadings governed by ORCP; correcting apartment identification)
- Temple v. Zenon, 124 Or App 388 (trial court has broad discretion to allow amendments)
- Harmon v. Fred Meyer, 146 Or App 295 (misnaming a correctly served party may be cured by amendment)
- C & K Market, Inc. v. Roccasalva, 246 Or App 277 (landlord’s acceptance of rent can reinstate lease; limits discussed)
- Reeves v. Baker, 270 Or 837 (acceptance of rent upon which action is predicated can reinstate lease)
- Commonwealth Property Management v. Hanson, 94 Or App 136 (awarding rent tendered into court during appeal)
- LIG Investments LLC v. Roach, 215 Or App 210 (context for undertaking valuation disputes)