Woodroffe v. State
422 P.3d 381
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff (incarcerated) had a prior small claims judgment requiring the State to provide a new 13-inch TV with cables and accessories including the box.
- The State delivered a TV and plaintiff signed an acknowledgment purporting to accept the TV in satisfaction of the judgment.
- Plaintiff later alleged the TV was not new: missing screws and earbuds, different power cord, no screen protector, and a dent/damage; he submitted a declaration, manual excerpt, and photos.
- The State submitted a corrections officer declaration asserting the TV was new, undamaged, had the protector, included all parts, and bore only plaintiff’s inmate ID.
- The State moved for summary judgment claiming it had complied with the small claims judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment but based its ruling on plaintiff’s signed satisfaction (a ground not raised in the State’s motion).
- The court of appeals reversed dismissal of the TV enforcement claim, holding summary judgment was improper because (1) the trial court relied on an unraised ground and (2) there remained genuine factual disputes about whether the TV was new.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State complied with the small claims judgment to provide a new TV | Plaintiff says the TV delivered was not new and lacked required accessories; his declaration and photos create a factual dispute | State says it delivered a new TV, plaintiff signed an acknowledgment, and officer’s declaration plus photos show no deficiency | There is a genuine factual dispute on condition/accessories; resolution is for factfinder, so summary judgment improper |
| Whether plaintiff’s signed acknowledgment bars his enforcement claim | Plaintiff contends he signed based on representation and discovered defects later, so satisfaction should not preclude relief | State and trial court treated the signed satisfaction as barring the claim | Trial court erred to rely on satisfaction ground because the State did not move on that basis; evidence on that issue was not fully developed |
| Proper basis for granting summary judgment | Plaintiff: evidence creates credibility conflict and is not amenable to summary judgment | State: plaintiff produced no admissible evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact | Court: credibility contest exists; some plaintiff statements are admissible and sufficient to survive summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court could grant summary judgment on an issue not raised by the moving party | Plaintiff: court should not grant on unraised ground without giving parties opportunity to develop record | State: defended trial court’s reliance on satisfaction in reply brief | Court: improper to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or. 717 (2016) (trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the moving party’s motion)
- Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or. 319 (2014) (summary judgment requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party; disputes on issues where nonmovant would bear persuasion preclude judgment)
- Evans v. City of Warrenton, 283 Or. App. 256 (2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- State ex rel. English v. Multnomah County, 348 Or. 417 (2010) (party may bring action to enforce a prior judgment)
- Fiedler v. Bowler, 117 Or. App. 162 (1992) (acceptance of payment that is intended to discharge a debt can satisfy the debt)