Andlovec v. Spoto

“[F]or purposes of ORS 20.105(1), a claim, defense, or ground for appeal or review is meritless when it is entirely devoid of legal or factual support at the time it was made.” Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 8, 803 P2d 723 (1990) (footnotes omitted).

Plaintiff appealed a supplemental judgment entered against him awarding Defendant attorney fees under ORS 20.105. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant’s attorney fees request. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that he pursued his claim against Defendant on an objectively reasonable basis and therefore attorney fees may not be applied. Defendant argued that after a bankruptcy proceeding involving the issue within the trial court, Plaintiff’s claim became objectively unreasonable. Defendant argued this was because the bankruptcy court made a finding that would imply that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring his case in the trial court. Under ORS 20.105, the Court must award attorney fees to the prevailing party if the non-prevailing party had no objectively reasonable basis to assert the claim. “[F]or purposes of ORS 20.105(1), a claim, defense, or ground for appeal or review is meritless when it is entirely devoid of legal or factual support at the time it was made.” Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 8, 803 P2d 723 (1990) (footnotes omitted). The Court found that because the record as a whole was not devoid of support for Plaintiff’s claims, the trial court erred when awarding Defendant attorney fees under ORS 20.105. Reversed.