Vukanovich v. Kine

When neither party requests a de novo review, and the case does not appear to warrant doing so due to exceptional circumstances, the court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions for errors of law and its factual findings to determine whether the findings are supported by evidence in the record. ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Vukanovich v. Kine, 268 Or App 623, 633, 342 P3d 1075 (Vukanovich II), adh'd to as modified on recons, 271 Or App 133, 349 P3d 567 (2015 (Vukanovich III). 

Plaintiff appealed a trial court ruling on defenses of equitable estoppel and unclean hands.  Plaintiff assigned error to (1) the trial court's finding of fact that contradicted jury findings of fact, (2) the trial court's use of an "any evidence" standard when making factual findings, (3) specific factual findings made by the court, and (4) the court's legal conclusions on the equitable defenses.  On appeal, Plaintiff argued that "even if he did agree to the equitable defenses tried to the court, that stipulation violated ORCP 51 C" because no formal stipulation was on the record; the trial court could not decide facts related to the equitable defenses that conflicted with jury findings related to those equitable defenses and the trial court findings contradicted jury answers to several questions; that the wrong standard of evidence was applied; and the court's factual findings did not meet the standards for the equitable defenses.  When neither party requests a de novo review, and the case does not appear to warrant doing so due to exceptional circumstances, the court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions for errors of law and its factual findings to determine whether the findings are supported by evidence in the record. ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Vukanovich v. Kine, 268 Or App 623, 633, 342 P3d 1075 (Vukanovich II), adh'd to as modified on recons, 271 Or App 133, 349 P3d 567 (2015 (Vukanovich III).  Based on the evidence in the record, the Court found that the trial court did not make factual findings regarding the equitable defenses that were inconsistent with the jury's findings regarding Defendant's fraudulent inducement defense, nor did it err in the evidentiary standard employed to review the record, nor in its legal conclusion that Plaintiff failed to disclose prior performance bonds to Defendant.  Affirmed.