Case ID: or-app_162/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BREWER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On appellants’ petition for reconsideration filed June 18, reconsideration allowed; disposition (161 Or App 156, 984 P2d 854) modified;
    reversed and remanded in part; vacated and remanded in part; otherwise affirmed September 15, 1999
    Kenneth L. EDWARDS, Sharon A. Edwards, Robert W. West and Gwendolyn F. West, Respondents, v. Jim L. SALEEN-DEGRANGE and Eula Saleen-Degrange, Appellants, and Jimmie L. SALEEN-DEGRANGE, Defendant, and Linda SALEEN-DEGRANGE, Riter H. Dean, Lenabelle Dean and Martha K. Storaci, Respondents. Riter H. DEAN, Lenabelle Dean, Martha K. Storaci, and Linda Pachal, fka Linda Saleen-Degrange, Plaintiffs, v. YAMHILL COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Third-Party Defendant. Jim L. Saleen-Degrange and Eula Saleen-Degrange, Plaintiffs, v. YAMHILL COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Cross-Claim-Defendant.
    
    (CV 94-343; CA A99185)
    986 P2d 667
    
      Carl R. Neil and Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler LLP for petition.
    Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Brewer, Judges.
    BREWER, J.
   BREWER, J.

In their petition for reconsideration of our decision in Edwards v. Saleen-Degrange, 161 Or App 156, 984 P2d 854 (1999), defendants Jim and Eula Saleen-Degrange suggest that, because we reversed and vacated all or part of the other judgments involved in this case, we should also vacate those portions of the trial court’s judgment for costs and disbursements in favor of plaintiffs and defendants Dean and Storaci. We agree and modify the disposition accordingly.

Reconsideration allowed; disposition modified; summary judgment on existence of road reversed and remanded; those portions of paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of the trial court’s final judgment dated October 3, 1997, relating to boundary between Lots 6, 7, and 8 and Lot 11 and to implied easements in favor of Lots 6, 7, and 8 vacated and remanded; paragraphs 1 and 3 of the judgment for costs and disbursements, dated December 9, 1997, vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.