Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; July 17, 1985; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged delays by defendants in approving construction plans for a house on leased property. The lease is for 99 years with perpetual renewal options, and plaintiff claims defendants violated its terms. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, which plaintiff appeals, asserting the court erred in this ruling. The court found this claim to lack merit.
Plaintiff's second argument challenges the award of attorney fees to defendants, contending that the lease’s attorney fee provision does not apply because "Salishan" did not initiate enforcement actions. Defendants counter with two points. First, they argue that since plaintiff sought attorney fees in his complaint, under ORS 20.096(1), they are entitled to fees as prevailing parties. The court finds this reasoning flawed, noting that merely seeking fees does not guarantee entitlement if the plaintiff were to prevail.
Second, defendants reference the Supreme Court case Jewell v. Triple B. Enterprises, which established that a prevailing party can recover attorney fees even if not explicitly covered in the contract, to support their claim. The majority in Jewell held that denying fee recovery would undermine the reciprocity policy of ORS 20.096(1). The dissent argued that fees should only be recoverable in actions directly covered by the contract's attorney fee clause. Defendants assert they should be awarded fees based on the precedent set in Jewell, despite acknowledging that the current action does not align with the contract's specified circumstances for attorney fee recovery.
Defendants’ argument seeks to establish a right to attorney fees based on a contract of adhesion that does not explicitly provide for such rights. The court suggests a simpler approach, clarifying that the action initiated by the plaintiff partially aims to enforce a term within the lease, which aligns with the attorney fee provision, despite only naming Salishan, Inc. as the party entitled to fees. The precedent set in Jewell indicates that the ability to recover attorney fees is not dependent on which party initiates the action; thus, the plaintiff could also have recovered fees had they successfully sued. The relevant statute, ORS 20.096(1), allows for the prevailing party to recover attorney fees in contract actions, regardless of whether they are the party specified in the contract. The trial court's decision to award attorney fees to both defendants is upheld, with no separate argument from the plaintiff regarding the entitlement of Salishan Leaseholders, Inc. versus Salishan Properties, Inc.
