From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group

Oregon Supreme Court
Apr 4, 1989
307 Or. 603 (Or. 1989)

Summary

In Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group, 307 Or 603, 771 P2d 274 (1989), the plaintiff sought review of an award by the Court of Appeals of attorney fees to certain defendants in the case.

Summary of this case from Peeples v. Lampert

Opinion

TC 87-04-21572-L; CA A45275; SC S35899

On petition for review filed January 30, 1989

Appeals for further proceedings April 4, 1989

In Banc

On petition for review filed January 30, 1989.

Appeal from judgment of Malheur County Circuit Court, William L. Jackson, Judge. 93 Or. App. 429, 762 P.2d 1069, rev den 307 Or. 326, 767 P.2d 902 (1989).

Donald E. Tyler M.D., Ontario, pro se, for petitioner on review.

No appearance contra.


PER CURIAM

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.


Plaintiff petitions for review of a Court of Appeals order dated January 12, 1989, awarding attorney fees to certain defendants in this case. We allow review, vacate the Court of Appeals order, and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals affirmed this case on its merits October 5, 1988, and entered its order awarding attorney fees January 12, 1989. This court denied review January 18, 1989, and plaintiff's petition for reconsideration was denied on April 4, 1989.

The Court of Appeals order provides in part:

"The petition for attorney fees filed by [counsel] on behalf of respondents * * * is allowed in the amount of $6,649.75. * * *.

"The petition for attorney fees filed by [counsel] on behalf of respondents * * * is allowed in the amount of $4,610. * * *."

The order does not cite any statutory or other authority for the award of attorney fees. Both petitions for attorney fees, however, were based solely on ORS 20.105 (1), which provides:

"In any civil action, suit or other proceeding in a district court, a circuit court or the Oregon Tax Court, or in any civil appeal to or review by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees appropriate in the circumstances to a party against whom a claim, defense or ground for appeal or review is asserted, if that party is a prevailing party in the proceeding and to be paid by the party asserting the claim, defense or ground, upon a finding by the court that the party wilfully disobeyed a court order or acted in bad faith, wantonly or solely for oppressive reasons."

That statute does not expressly require the Court of Appeals to make findings on the record. Nevertheless, we conclude that findings are required. Otherwise, we have no basis upon which to review the award of attorney fees, nor to consider what the Court of Appeals understood the relevant statutory words to mean. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals to make the necessary findings to support its order.

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group

Oregon Supreme Court
Apr 4, 1989
307 Or. 603 (Or. 1989)

In Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group, 307 Or 603, 771 P2d 274 (1989), the plaintiff sought review of an award by the Court of Appeals of attorney fees to certain defendants in the case.

Summary of this case from Peeples v. Lampert

requiring findings by Court of Appeals in cases under ORS 20.105

Summary of this case from Peeples v. Lampert

In Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group, 307 Or. 603, 771 P.2d 274 (1989), this court declined to review an award of attorney fees under ORS 20.105 (1) by the Court of Appeals, because that court's failure to state its special findings to support the award obstructed the process of appellate review by this court.

Summary of this case from McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.

requiring findings by Court of Appeals in cases under ORS 20.105

Summary of this case from Mattiza v. Foster

In Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group, 307 Or. 603, 771 P.2d 274 (1989), the Supreme Court held that any court awarding fees under ORS 20.105(1) must make findings on the record, which must include specific mention of the actions deemed to be in bad faith or oppressive. Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or. 1, 803 P.2d 723 (1990).

Summary of this case from Sherman v. Staffel

In Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group, 307 Or. 603, 771 P.2d 274 (1989), the court said that, although ORS 20.105 does not expressly require us to make findings on the record, we are required to do so to facilitate review of the award of attorney fees.

Summary of this case from Soga v. Zimmerman
Case details for

Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group

Case Details

Full title:TYLER, Petitioner on Review, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP et al…

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Apr 4, 1989

Citations

307 Or. 603 (Or. 1989)
771 P.2d 274

Citing Cases

Tyler v. Hartford Insurance Group

Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court May 31, order awarding attorney fees and costs reinstated…

Peeples v. Lampert

I turn, then, to a brief review of this court's cases discussing the necessity of findings of fact by a…