Yoshida v. Watson

“A motion [for an order declaring that a money award has been satisfied] . . . must include . . . [t]he date or dates and amounts of any payments on the money award. . . . [and a]ny amount that the person believes remains to be paid.” ORS 18.235(3)(c), (d).

Yoshida appealed a post-judgment order granting Watson’s motion for entry of satisfaction and request for attorney fees. Yoshida first assigned error to the trial court's decision to award attorney fees to Watson, arguing that it was improper because his failure to provide a satisfaction of judgment was not willful. In his second assignment of error, Yoshida argued the trial court improperly granted Watson's motion because it was facially defective. “A motion [for an order declaring that a money award has been satisfied] . . . must include . . . [t]he date or dates and amounts of any payments on the money award. . . . [and a]ny amount that the person believes remains to be paid.” ORS 18.235(3)(c), (d). The Court reasoned the motion for entry of satisfaction contained sufficient information to meet the statutory requirements. Further, the Court found that by filing his own motion for partial satisfaction, Yoshida had conceded that he recovered a portion of his collateral to satisfy a part of the judgment. The Court reasoned that although Yoshida had several opportunities to provide the satisfaction document to Watson, he willfully failed to do so. The Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. Affirmed.