Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute between a corporation and an insurance agency concerning a stock redemption agreement. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance agency, declaring the redemption agreement illegal under ORS 57.035 and ruling on its counterclaim for past payments. On appeal, the appellate court identified a material issue of fact regarding the claim and counterclaim, resulting in a reversal and remand. The insurance agency petitioned for reconsideration, focusing on the respondent's affidavit about the market value of expirations, which was submitted post-summary judgment but prior to final judgment. The agency argued that expirations should not be included in capital surplus calculations or, if included, should be valued at book value. The court found the objection to the affidavit's consideration untimely and maintained its original ruling. Additionally, the court affirmed that expirations were not categorized as surplus, despite considering the respondent's argument. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was allowed, but the court adhered to its initial opinion, leaving the appellate court's reversal in place.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Evidence Post-Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Singmaster's objection to the affidavit concerning the market value of expirations was considered untimely, as it was raised after the trial court's summary judgment but before the final judgment.
Reasoning: The objection to the affidavit's consideration was deemed untimely, leading to the decision to maintain the previous ruling.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's grant of summary judgment was challenged due to the existence of a material issue of fact regarding the stock redemption agreement and corresponding counterclaim.
Reasoning: The appellate court found that a material issue of fact existed concerning both the claim and counterclaim, leading to a reversal and remand.
Valuation of Expirations in Capital Surplus Calculationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether expirations should be valued at market or book value for surplus calculations, ultimately affirming that expirations were not classified as surplus.
Reasoning: Singmaster acknowledged that the validity of the respondent's claim about capital surplus depended on whether the expirations should be valued at market or book value.