Summary
rejecting proposed interpretation that ‘arguably would infringe on the constitutional rights’ of parties
Summary of this case from State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLCOpinion
CC 16-90-10439; CA A71452; SC S40106
Submitted on petition for reconsideration filed January 6, 1994,
Westwood Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Lane County, 318 Or. 146, 864 P.2d 350 (1993).
petition for reconsideration allowed; court's former opinion adhered to as modified; decision of the Court of Appeals and judgment of the circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part February 3, 1994, reconsideration denied February 2, 1994
David B. Williams, Assistant County Counsel, Lane County Office of Legal Counsel, Eugene, for petitioner on reconsideration.
No appearance contra.
Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Unis, and Graber, Justices.
UNIS, J.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. This court's former opinion is adhered to as modified. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Lane County petitions for reconsideration of this court's decision in Westwood Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Lane County, 318 Or. 146, 864 P.2d 350 (1993). We allow the petition for reconsideration and adhere to our former opinion as modified.
In the statement of facts, our former opinion states:
"In 1990, the Association filed an action in Lane County Circuit Court to foreclose the Association's lien on the 15 lots for the approximately $18,000 in unpaid assessments that had accumulated between January 1988 and August 1990 after Lane County became record title holder of the 15 lots." Westwood Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Lane County, supra, 318 Or at 150.
As our former opinion points out, Lane County acquired title on May 27, 1988. Id. Of the approximately $18,000 in assessments, only a portion was assessed after Lane County acquired title. To be precise, $2,117.88 was assessed between January 28 and May 27, 1988 (i.e., before Lane County acquired title), and $16,131.16 was assessed after May 28, 1988 (i.e., after the county acquired title).
We adhere to our holding that the pre-foreclosure assessments were extinguished by the foreclosure, while the post-foreclosure assessments were not extinguished. The judgment of the trial court awarded the Association the entire $18,249.04. Pursuant to our holding, the Association is entitled to a judgment for $16,131.16. The trial court erred in entering a judgment for the entire $18,249.04, and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming that judgment.
The trial court's judgment specifically recognized and identified the difference between the pre-foreclosure and the post-foreclosure assessments and awarded Westwood the sum of both.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. This court's former opinion is adhered to as modified. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed in part and reversed in part.