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.
Allen Trust Co. v. Cowlitz Bank
Citations: 212 Or. App. 572; 159 P.3d 319; 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 711Docket: 030891392; A128473
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; May 16, 2007; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Respondent Ronald W. Harriman seeks reconsideration of a previous opinion regarding the case Allen Trust Company v. Cowlitz Bank. The court grants the petition to clarify one aspect of its initial ruling while maintaining its overall opinion. The court acknowledges the necessity of reviewing facts in favor of the nonmoving party in an appeal from a summary judgment. Harriman contends that the court overstepped by making binding factual determinations that could affect the trial court on remand. The court clarifies that it found Allen Trust to be a de facto trustee, exercising the duties of the office under a reasonable belief of its status. However, the court recognizes that this could be interpreted as a conclusive finding, which would be inappropriate since the appealing party did not contest the denial of its own cross-motion for summary judgment. The court emphasizes that its prior opinion framed the discussion by stating facts most favorably to Allen Trust, without needing to reiterate this standard with each fact presented. The contested statements are seen as possible interpretations of the record rather than definitive conclusions. Additionally, the court addresses Harriman's claim that certain statements regarding Allen Trust's entitlement to compensation were outside the scope of the issues raised. The court finds these statements relevant to the parties' arguments and does not believe they will mislead the trial court on remand. The court thus clarifies its opinion while adhering to its original conclusions. Reconsideration is allowed, and the previous opinion is confirmed with the specified clarifications.