Case Title: Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2020-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 38	
October 15, 2020	
139
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF OREGON
ALBANY & EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY,  
an Oregon corporation,
Respondent on Review.
v.
Michael MARTELL  
and Cindy Martell, a married couple;  
John Harcrow and Elaine Harcrow, a married couple;
Jeffrey Kaiser and Beverly Kaiser, a married couple;  
Joanne Fagan, an individual;  
Ray McMullen and Michelle McMullen, a married couple;
Jeremy Orr and Karen Orr, a married couple;  
Richard Hutchins and Jill Hutchins, a married couple;
Laura Mithoug, an individual,
Petitioners on Review.
(CC 13CV00291) (CA A161921) (SC S066941)
En Banc
On respondent on review’s petition for reconsideration 
filed July 28, 2020, and on petitioners on review’s petitions for 
attorney fees and costs, filed August 10 and 11, 2020, respec-
tively; considered and under advisement September 22, 
 
2020.*
Martin E. Hansen, Francis Hansen & Martin, LLP, 
Bend, filed the petition for reconsideration and objection to 
attorney fees on behalf of respondent on review.
Dan Armstrong, Heilig Misfeldt & Armstrong, LLP, 
Corvallis, filed the response to the petition for reconsider-
ation, the petitions for attorney fees and costs, and the reply 
to the objection on behalf of petitioners on review.
BALMER, J.
Plaintiff’s petition for reconsideration is allowed. The 
former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. 
______________
	
*  298 Or App 99, 445 P3d 319 (2019), reversed by 366 Or 715, ___ P3d ___ 
(2020).
140	
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
Defendants’ petition for attorney fees and costs and dis-
bursements is denied without prejudice to defendants seek-
ing attorney fees in the Court of Appeals for work performed 
in that court and the Supreme Court, should they prevail 
on remand. Costs are awarded to abide the determination 
of the prevailing party by the Court of Appeals on remand.
Case Summary: In an action to quiet title and seeking damages for trespass, 
the Supreme Court originally reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and 
affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Held: The opinion of the Supreme 
Court is modified to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceed-
ings. The original opinion is adhered to as modified.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified 
and adhered to as modified. Defendants’ petition for attorney fees and costs and 
disbursements is denied without prejudice to defendants seeking attorney fees in 
the Court of Appeals for work performed in that court and the Supreme Court, 
should they prevail on remand. Costs are awarded to abide the determination of 
the prevailing party by the Court of Appeals on remand.
Cite as 367 Or 139 (2020)	
141
	
BALMER, J.
	
Plaintiff Albany & Eastern Railroad Company 
(AERC) petitions this court for reconsideration of its deci-
sion in Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell, 366 Or 
715, 469 P3d 748 (2020). In Albany & Eastern Railroad Co., 
this court ruled in favor of defendants, holding that the trial 
court correctly had concluded that defendants had estab-
lished a prescriptive easement over plaintiff AERC’s land. 
366 Or at 729. This court reversed the decision of the Court 
of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 
 
Id.
	
In its petition for reconsideration, plaintiff does 
not challenge the court’s resolution of the prescriptive ease-
ment issue. Instead, plaintiff argues that this court erred 
in affirming the judgment of the trial court, rather than 
remanding the case to the Court of Appeals to consider a 
separate issue—the trial court’s award of attorney fees to 
defendants under ORS 20.080(2). Plaintiff had argued to 
the Court of Appeals that, even if defendants successfully 
asserted a prescriptive easement counterclaim, the trial 
court had no authority to award attorney fees to defendants. 
According to plaintiff, a prescriptive easement is an equi-
table remedy that falls outside of ORS 20.080. In support 
of that argument, plaintiff cited Rose v. Rose and Freeman, 
279 Or 27, 29, 566 P2d 180 (1977). Because the Court of 
Appeals ruled in favor of plaintiff on the prescriptive ease-
ment issue, that court vacated the trial court’s judgment 
without resolving whether the trial court erred in award-
ing defendants attorney fees under ORS 20.080(2). Albany 
& Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell, 298 Or App 99, 101, 445 
P3d 319 (2019).
	
Defendants filed a response to the motion for recon-
sideration, arguing that the trial court was correct in its 
award of attorney fees. They also filed petitions for attorney 
fees and costs and disbursements in this court and in the 
Court of Appeals. Plaintiff filed an objection to the request 
for attorney fees, arguing that the issue of defendants’ enti-
tlement to fees had not yet been resolved and, alternatively, 
that defendants’ claimed fees were unreasonable.
142	
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
	
We agree with plaintiff that the matter of attorney 
fees should have been remanded to the Court of Appeals fol-
lowing this court’s disposition on the merits. Accordingly, we 
grant plaintiff’s petition for reconsideration, and modify the 
disposition in Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell, 366 
Or 715, as follows:
“The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and 
the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further 
proceedings.”
	
Plaintiff’s petition for reconsideration is allowed. 
The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. 
Defendants’ petition for attorney fees and costs and dis-
bursements is denied without prejudice to defendants seek-
ing attorney fees in the Court of Appeals for work performed 
in that court and the Supreme Court, should they prevail on 
remand. Costs are awarded to abide the determination of 
the prevailing party by the Court of Appeals on remand.