Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROUGH & READY LUMBER CO., an Oregon corporation, Respondent, v. William R. HARTNELL, Appellant, Andy R, Inc., a Washington corporation; Andy Roderick; Andy R, Inc. of Oregon, an Oregon corporation; Linda Lee Gettling, Trustee of the Alvin D. Bounds Trust Dated August 16, 1987; Mortgage Corporation of America, a Washington corporation; Rex Kellso; and Oregon Oswego Land & Lending Company, an Oregon corporation, Defendants.
Plaintiff, the prevailing party, sought recovery of its portion of the neutral's fee for participating in the Court of Appeals settlement program. We hold that a prevailing party is not entitled to recover its portion of the neutral's fee.
This case was assigned to the court's Appellate Settlement Conference Program. See generally ORAP Rule 15. ORAP 15.05(7)(a) requires the parties to equally share the neutral's fee. The settlement conference was unsuccessful. The case was briefed to the court, and plaintiff prevailed and was designated the prevailing party, entitling it to costs and disbursements. Rough & Ready Lumber Co. v. Hartnell, 175 Or.App. 291, 27 P.3d 537 (2001). Plaintiff included its share of the neutral's fee in its attorney fee petition. Defendant objected.1
There is no statutory authority for a party to recover its portion of the Appellate Settlement Conference Program neutral's fee from an adverse party. See Willamette Prod. Credit v. Borg-Warner Acceptance, 75 Or.App. 154, 706 P.2d 577, rev. den. 300 Or. 477, 713 P.2d 1058 (1985). Plaintiff is not entitled to recover its portion of the neutral's fee.
Petition for attorney fees allowed in the sum of $11,077.70.
FOOTNOTES
1. Defendant also argued that the number of hours in the fee petition was excessive. We reject that contention.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 93-2654-E-3; A109062
Decided: October 31, 2001
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)