Case Title: Murrieta v. Brewster

Citation: 

Docket Number: S46058

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed: April 29, 1999  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

LOUIE MURRIETA and

JEANNIE MURRIETA,

	Petitioners on Review,

	and

ROGER WEIDNER,

	Plaintiff,

	v.

SUSAN BREWSTER, FRANK

MANCINO, GEORGE REED,

KEVIN HARRISON, CATHERINE

MORROW, RALPH GIFFEN, and

GERALD MARTIN,

	Defendants,

	and

DESCHUTES COUNTY,

	Respondent on Review.

(CC 97CV0031AB; CA A102922; SC S46058)

	En Banc

	On petition for review filed January 8, 1999.*

	Terrance L. McCauley, Estacada, filed the petition for
petitioner on review.

	No appearance contra.

	GILLETTE, J.

	The petition for review is allowed.  The order of the Court
of Appeals is vacated.  The case is remanded to the Court of
Appeals for further proceedings.

	*Appeal from Court of Appeals' Order of Dismissal dated

      November 6, 1998.

	GILLETTE, J.

	This case involves the appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals.  Petitioners seek review of an order of the
Court of Appeals that dismissed their appeal as untimely.(1)  For
the reasons that follow, we allow the petition for review, vacate
the order of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that
court for further proceedings.

	Petitioners appealed from a judgment entered in the
trial court on June 22, 1998.  Their notice of appeal was filed
on July 21, 1998, the next to last day on which an appeal could
be taken from the trial court judgment.  ORS 19.255(1).  Although
there were several defendants in the case before the trial court,
petitioners chose to designate only one defendant, Deschutes
County (the county), as respondent on appeal.  Osburn, who was
counsel for the county, also had represented additional
defendants before the trial court.

	The county moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that the notice of appeal was not served timely.  Osburn's
affidavit stating that he had not received a service copy of
petitioners' notice of appeal until August 12, 1998, accompanied
the county's motion.  The Court of Appeals allowed the motion to
dismiss; the present petition for review followed.	

	A notice of appeal must be served and filed within 30
days after the judgment from which the appeal is taken is entered
in the trial court register.  ORS 19.255(1).  Timely service of
the notice of appeal on the adverse party or parties is
jurisdictional.  ORS 19.270(2)(a).  Service of the notice on an
opposing party may be accomplished, inter alia, by first class,
registered, or certified mail, and the date of mailing  the copy
of the notice by any of the foregoing methods is deemed to be the
date of service.  ORS 19.260(2).

	In cases such as this, in which timely service of the
notice of appeal is contested, the question whether the notice
was served timely is a question of fact to be resolved by the
Court of Appeals.  Mullens v. L. Q. Development, 312 Or 599, 608,
825 P2d 1376 (1992).  The Court of Appeals made the following
findings of fact in this case:

	"The judgment being appealed was entered on June 22,
1998; therefore, in order for the notice of appeal to
have been served timely, appellants would have had to
serve the notice of appeal no later than July 22, 1998. 
Further, the court finds that:

	"*	Appellants designated only Deschutes County as a
respondent on appeal.

	"*	When the notice of appeal was filed, Deschutes
[C]ounty was represented by attorney John Osburn.

	"*	The original notice of appeal contains
[petitioners'] counsel's certificate that counsel
served John Osburn by mail on July 21, 1998, but
the certificate identifies * * * Osburn as counsel 
only for defendants other than Deschutes County.	

	"*	John Osburn did not receive the copy of the notice of
appeal mailed to him until August 12, 1998.

	"* 	The certificate of service portion of the copy of
the notice of appeal received by John Osburn
differs from the original notice of appeal in that
handwritten on it under the statement of the date
of mailing are these words: '2nd copy: 8-11-98'.

	"* 	In his response to the motion to dismiss,
[petitioners'] attorney does not state that he
properly mailed a copy of the notice of appeal to
John Osburn on July 21, 1998, nor does he deny
that he caused a second copy of the notice of
appeal to be mailed to Osburn on August 11, 1998.

	"The court infers from these facts that:  (1)
[petitioners'] attorney made some mistake in serving
the original notice of appeal on July 21, 1998,
resulting in the copy of the notice of appeal intended
for John Osburn not being delivered to him at that
time, and (2) [petitioners'] attorney caused a second
service copy to be mailed to Osburn on August 11, 1998,
which was received by him on August 12, 1998.

	"The court concludes that [petitioners] did not serve
respondent with a copy of the notice of appeal until
August 11, 1998, and that such service is untimely. 
The motion to dismiss is granted."

	It appears from the Court of Appeals' order that the
court considered it a pivotal fact that the petitioners'
certificate of mailing "identifies * * * Osburn as counsel only
for defendants other than Deschutes County."  Although
technically correct, that fact is not dispositive.  It is true
that the certificate of service, which appears in paragraph 6 of
the notice of appeal, identifies Osburn as being "of attorneys
for" a list of other defendants, without mentioning Deschutes
County, and states that a true copy of the notice of appeal was
served on him.  However, the immediately preceding paragraph in
the notice of appeal correctly identifies Osburn as the attorney
for Deschutes County.  Thus, the notice of appeal both identifies
Osburn as counsel for respondent and certifies that a true copy
of the notice of appeal was served on him.

	For whatever reason, the original copy of the notice of
appeal did not reach Osburn.  But, because service is
accomplished by a proper mailing, not by receipt, that fact does
not determine necessarily whether adequate service by mail
occurred.  See Mullens, 312 Or at 604, 607 (stating principle). 

	The order of the Court of Appeals appears to be
predicated on a factual finding that counsel for petitioners
"made some mistake" and failed to mail a notice to Osburn.  The
path to that conclusion is not clear to us.  The certificate
states that Osburn was served.  Such a certificate is not a
verity, but it is sufficient to put a respondent to its proof
that service did not occur.  Mullens, 312 Or at 609.  Lack of
receipt raises a factual question about whether service actually
occurred, but is not dispositive.  Ibid.  The Court of Appeals
justified its conclusion that service did not occur based on four
additional facts:  (1) The failure to describe Osburn as counsel
for the county; (2) the fact that the copy of the notice of
appeal that Osburn finally did receive was designated "2nd copy,
8-11-98"; (3) the failure of counsel for petitioners to aver in
his affidavit opposing dismissal that he timely had mailed a copy
of the notice of appeal to Osburn; and (4) the failure of counsel
for petitioner to deny that he caused a second copy of the notice
of appeal to be mailed to Osburn.

	None of the foregoing reasons suffices.  The failure to
identify Osburn in the certificate of service as counsel for the
county is immaterial, because the notice otherwise indicates that
Osburn is counsel for the county and that service was made on
him.  The designation of the copy of the notice of appeal that
Osburn finally did receive as a "2nd" copy proves nothing about
whether the original copy was mailed.  As to the third ground,
the Court of Appeals was mistaken factually:  The record does
contain a further, sworn statement from counsel that he timely
served Osburn.(2)  Finally, counsel had no reason to "deny" that he
had sent a second copy of the notice of appeal to Osburn; he
acknowledged it -- not surprisingly, as it is a courtesy that
ordinarily would be expected of any lawyer when a document is
missing.

	In summary, the reasons given by the Court of Appeals,
when considered either individually or collectively, are not
sufficient as a matter of law to justify its dismissal of the
appeal.  There remains the fact that Osburn did not receive the
first copy, however, and this court has acknowledged that failure
to mail a copy of the notice of appeal may be inferred from
failure to receive it.  Mullen, 312 Or at 609.  Moreover, this
court generally has been loath to second-guess the Court of
Appeals on matters that turn entirely on facts that either are in
or may be inferred from the record.  See ibid. (illustrating
application of that principle).  Thus, the Court of Appeals
retains the authority to dismiss this appeal if, on
reconsideration, it concludes that facts that are in the record
or that fairly may be inferred from it justify dismissal.

	The petition for review is allowed.  The order of the
Court of Appeals is vacated.  The case is remanded to the Court
of Appeals for further proceedings.

1. 	The issues in the underlying case are not material to
this proceeding.

2. 	In fairness to the Court of Appeals, we note that
counsel's affidavit was filed very late in the process
surrounding the motion to dismiss the appeal, and the Chief Judge
may not have been aware that the affidavit existed at the time
she signed the order of dismissal.