Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Walker v. Grote
Citations: 806 P.2d 725; 106 Or. App. 214; 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 377Docket: 16-89-00617; CA A63483
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; March 6, 1991; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Tony M. Walker, the appellant, contested the trial court's award of attorney fees following a successful breach of warranty action against Benjamin Davis Grote, the respondent. Walker submitted a petition for attorney fees amounting to $6,555.36, which Grote did not timely object to. The trial court awarded only $3,000, leading Walker to seek reconsideration, arguing that without a timely objection, the court lacked authority to reduce the fee request. The Court of Appeals of Oregon analyzed ORCP 68 C, which governs the awarding of attorney fees. It outlined that attorney fees are defined as the "reasonable value of legal services," and the court has discretion to determine their reasonableness. However, the court found that when a fee request is unchallenged within the stipulated time, the opposing party is presumed to have conceded the reasonableness of the fees. The appellate court noted that the only circumstances under which the court may review fee amounts are when there is a default judgment or timely objections filed by the opposing party. Since no timely objections were filed by Grote, the trial court had no authority to award less than the amount claimed by Walker. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for entry of judgment reflecting the full amount of attorney fees claimed. The ruling emphasized that the absence of objections implies a waiver of the right to contest the reasonableness of the fees.