HEJAZI v. SAMMONS (2022)

Plaintiff appeals from a circuit court denial of his application for a filing fee waiver. See Hejazi v. Gifford, 314 Or. App. 534, 535, 499 P.3d 151 (2021) (explaining that orders denying fee deferrals are appealable orders under ORS 19.205(2)). We reverse.

When a trial court denies a fee waiver based on the face of the application, we review for legal error. Hejazi, 314 Or. App. at 535, 499 P.3d 151. “More specifically, *** we accept as true the representations in the application and determine whether those facts demonstrate that the applicant satisfies the statutory requirements for a fee waiver.” Id.

When an adult in custody, like plaintiff, files suit against a public body, fee waivers or deferrals are governed by ORS 30.643. However, for suits against nonpublic bodies, fee waivers, even for adults in custody, are governed by ORS 21.682. In Bondick v. Lane County Circuit Court we held:

“Although that statute, by its terms, grants a trial court discretion to deny a requested fee waiver, we have held that, where an applicant's submissions show that the applicant is eligible for a fee waiver, in the absence of competing evidence or ‘any findings of fact or conclusions of law provided by the court to explain its decision,’ a court's denial of a requested waiver is an abuse of discretion. Stanwood v. Multnomah County, 135 Or. App. 58, 61, 898 P.2d 196 (1995).”

315 Or. App. 600, 601-02, 501 P.3d 91 (2021).

Here, plaintiff was not suing a public body. And, as in Bondick, the face of the application establishes that appellant qualifies for a waiver. Accordingly, “the court lack[ed] the discretion to deny it without further developing the record or providing an explanation for the denial.” Id. at 602, 501 P.3d 91. We therefore reverse and remand as in Bondick.

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM