Case Title: Finney v. Bransom

Citation: 

Docket Number: S43728

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  March 5, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

RICHARD FINNEY and KATHLEEN
FINNEY, individually and as
guardians of CHRISTY FINNEY,
a minor Child,

	Respondents on Review,

	v.

DOYLE H. BRANSOM,

	Petitioner on Review,

	and

EAGLE POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT 9,
a Public School District,

	Respondent.

_________________________________
RICHARD FINNEY and KATHLEEN
FINNEY, individually and as
guardians of Christy Finney,
a minor Child,

	Petitioners on Review,

	v.

DOYLE H. BRANSOM and EAGLE POINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 9, a Public School
District,

	Respondents on Review.

(CC 93-3808-L-2; CA A84924; SC S43728, S43807)

(Consolidated for argument and opinion)

	On review from the Court of Appeals.*

	Argued and submitted September 9, 1997.

	Peter Mersereau, of Mersereau & Shannon, Portland, argued
the cause for petitioner on review/respondent on review, Doyle H.
Bransom.  Thomas W. McPherson, Portland, filed the petition.

	William S. Dames, of Dames & Dames, Medford, argued the
cause for petitioners on review, Richard and Kathleen Finney. 
Kenneth M. Jaffee, Medford, filed the petition.

	Lisa Lear, of Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass &
Hoffman, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review,
Eagle Point School District 9.  With her on the brief were Chrys
A. Martin, and Karen M. Vickers, Portland.

	Phil Goldsmith, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae
Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
Graber, Durham, and Kulongoski, Justices.**

	GILLETTE, J.

	The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and
reversed in part.  The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

	*Appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court,

	 L. L. Sawyer, Judge.

	 143 Or App 154, 924 P2d 318 (1996).

    **Fadeley, J., retired January 31, 1998, and did not
participate in this in this decision.	

		GILLETTE, J.

		This is an action by parents of a Jackson County
schoolchild who allegedly was sexually abused by her eighth grade
health teacher.  Plaintiffs seek compensation from the teacher
and from the school district that employed him for the injuries
resulting from that abuse.  At the trial level, both defendants
prevailed on summary judgment motions.  On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed with respect to one defendant -- the teacher --
but otherwise affirmed.  Finney v. Bransom, 143 Or App 154, 165,
924 P2d 319 (1996).  

		Both sides have filed petitions for review.  Plaintiffs
seek to overturn the summary judgment for the school district, as
well as an implicit denial by the trial court of their motion to
amend the pleadings.  Defendant teacher seeks to reinstate the
trial court's summary judgment in his favor.  Ultimately, we
conclude that plaintiffs failed to establish any error by the
trial court in granting summary judgment to both defendants.  We
therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals to the
extent that it concludes otherwise.

		During the relevant period, the defendant teacher, 
Bransom, taught at the Eagle Point Middle School, where
plaintiffs' daughter was a student.  In April 1992, plaintiffs
complained to Bransom's employer -- Eagle Point School District 9
-- that Bransom had been sexually abusing their daughter.  They
suggested that Bransom should be fired and criminally prosecuted. 
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission subsequently
investigated Bransom and revoked his teaching license.(1)  

		In October 1993, almost 18 months after their initial
complaint to the school district, plaintiffs filed this personal
injury action, charging the school district with negligence and
charging Bransom with negligence, battery, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.  In their complaint, plaintiffs
alleged that, "[a]t all times relevant herein, defendant, Doyle
Bransom, was a teacher licensed by the state of Oregon, teaching
at Eagle Point Middle School," where their daughter was in
attendance.  They further alleged that, during that period,
Bransom had "flirted" with their daughter, had "hugged and kissed
her and fondled her" while on school grounds, and had had sexual
intercourse with her on various occasions both on and off school
property.  Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the school district
was aware that Bransom had engaged in inappropriate behavior with
their daughter and other students and had failed to notify
plaintiffs or take other action. 

		Defendants separately moved for summary judgment on the
ground that plaintiffs had failed to comply with the notice
requirement of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), ORS 30.275.(2)

 
In its motion, the district averred that it was a public body
subject to the OTCA, that plaintiffs were aware of the relevant
facts by April 1992, and that it was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law because plaintiffs had failed to give notice of
their tort claims within 180 days of the discovery of the facts
that supported their tort claims.  In his motion, Bransom averred
that, at all material times, he was a public employee subject to
the OTCA.  Otherwise, Bransom adopted the points and authorities
tendered by the school district in its motion.  Both defendants
requested oral argument on their motions.  The trial court
granted their requests and scheduled a hearing five weeks later.

		Plaintiffs did not respond to defendants' motions until
the day of the hearing.  On that day, plaintiffs filed a
memorandum in opposition to the motions, supported by affidavits
and other evidentiary material.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion
to amend their complaint in three ways: (1) to add a new claim
against the school district under 42 USC section 1983, (2) to add
an allegation that they had discovered the facts relevant to
their negligence claim only in July 1993, and (3) to add separate
claims of negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress against Bransom as an individual.  Less than
an hour before the scheduled hearing, plaintiffs faxed copies of
the filings to opposing counsel.	

		The summary judgment hearing was not recorded.  It thus
is impossible to say what arguments and objections were made with
regard to the newly filed materials.  All we know is the result:  
The trial court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions,
thereby implicitly rejecting plaintiffs' motion to amend their
pleadings.  

		Plaintiffs appealed, arguing, first, that the trial
court erred in rejecting their motion to amend their pleadings. 
Relying on two Court of Appeals cases, Hussey v. Huntsinger, 72
Or App 565, 696 P2d 580 (1985), and U.S. National Bank v. Miller,
74 Or App 405, 703 P2d 246 (1985), plaintiffs argued that the
court was obligated either to permit the amendment or to treat
the complaint as if it had been amended.  

		Plaintiffs also argued that, regardless of the outcome
on the motion to amend, the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment on their original claims.  In that regard, they asserted
that, although there were factual issues that bore on the
question, it was clear that any sexual relationship that Bransom
had with their daughter was outside the scope of his employment
and, consequently, beyond the scope of the OTCA.(3)   

		The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment for
Bransom, but otherwise affirmed.  With respect to Bransom, the
court noted that plaintiffs had alleged conduct -- sexual
relations with a minor student -- that was beyond the scope both
of Bransom's teaching duties and of the OTCA as a matter of law. 
The court then went on to explain: 

	"Nevertheless, to preclude summary judgment,
plaintiffs must offer evidence that raises a genuine
issue of material fact in support of their allegations. 
There is a dispute about whether Bransom had sexual
intercourse with plaintiffs' daughter between 1991 and
1992 according to the information contained in [one of
the documents filed by plaintiffs on the day of the
summary judgment hearing].  Consequently, the trial
court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
Bransom."

Finney, 143 Or App at 158-59.  

		The Court of Appeals was less receptive to plaintiffs'
remaining arguments.  First, it rejected plaintiffs' contention
that, under the circumstances, the trial court was obligated to
permit the addition of a section 1983 claim.(4)  In rejecting that
contention, the court explained that nothing in either of the two
cases on which plaintiffs relied undermined the ordinary
discretion to allow or deny pleading amendments that trial courts
enjoy under ORCP 23.  Finney, 143 Or App at 161-165.  Finally,
after noting that plaintiffs did not challenge the trial court's
decision under an abuse of discretion standard, the Court of
Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in denying the
motion to amend and granting summary judgment for the school
district.  Id. at 165.

		As previously noted, the challenges to the foregoing
decision come from two different quarters.  We begin with
defendant Bransom's assertion that the Court of Appeals erred in
reversing the summary judgment in his favor.  

		Bransom does not take issue with the preliminary
conclusion of the Court of Appeals that, based on the
allegations, plaintiffs were not required to provide a tort
claims notice with respect to the claims against him.  He argues,
however, that, in deciding the ultimate question -- whether there
was an issue of fact that precluded summary judgment in his favor
-- the Court of Appeals erroneously relied on affidavits and
documents that it should have disregarded.  He notes, in that
regard, that plaintiffs' supporting materials were filed long
after they were due -- indeed, so late that he was deprived of
any opportunity to respond to them.  Bransom argues that the
Court of Appeals was required to exclude those late-filed
materials from consideration and that, had it done so, it would
have had to conclude that the trial court's award of summary
judgment in his favor was proper.  

		 Under the relevant procedural rule, ORCP 47 (C),
plaintiffs had 20 days after Bransom's motion for summary
judgment was filed in which to respond with opposing affidavits
and supporting documents.  Beyond that time, defendant was
entitled to a five-day period in which to reply to any response.(5) 
Under that standard, there is no question that the plaintiffs'
filing and the materials supporting that filing, which were
served and offered for filing nearly five weeks after defendant's
motion for summary judgment and only hours before the scheduled
hearing, were untimely.  

		Defendant suggests that, in view of that untimeliness,
the Court of Appeals was precluded from considering the materials
on review.  But that suggestion diminishes the importance of the
trial court as the initial decisionmaker and, consequently, is
not entirely correct.  Under ORCP 47 (C), a trial court has the
discretion to modify the ordinary deadline and consider late-filed materials in its summary judgment decision.  If the trial
court in this case had chosen to exercise its discretion in that
manner, the Court of Appeals properly could have relied on them
to reverse the trial court's decision, unless the trial court
would have abused its discretion by permitting so late a filing. 
However, if the trial court refused to modify the deadline,
thereby excluding the late-filed materials from its purview, the
Court of Appeals could not rely on those materials to reverse the
trial court, unless the decision not to modify the deadline was,
itself, erroneous (i.e., on the particular facts of the case, an
abuse of discretion).

		Plaintiffs appear to concede that the trial court could
have refused to accept the late tendered materials.  However,
they argue that, because the materials appear in the summary
judgment record and were filed without apparent objection, we can
assume that the trial court modified the applicable deadlines and
considered the materials in its ultimate decision on Bransom's
summary judgment motion.

		We find nothing in the procedural facts on which
plaintiffs rely that establish, or even suggest, that the trial
court either granted plaintiffs' implicit request to modify the
applicable deadlines or otherwise considered the documents.  To
the extent that such an inference might arise out of the absence
of any recorded objection to the late filing, we certainly would
not give plaintiffs the benefit of that inference here, given
that their late filing and service effectively deprived
defendants of any opportunity to object in writing or to file a
reply, as contemplated by the second sentence of ORCP 47 (C).(6) 
Neither are we persuaded that the fact that the documents were
formally filed (a purely ministerial event) establishes an actual
exercise of discretion in favor of plaintiffs. 

		Ultimately, the record does not tell us what, if any,
action the trial court took with respect to the late-filed
materials.  However, because a decision to exclude the materials
would justify the trial court's decision on the summary judgment
motions completely,(7) we cannot conclude that the trial court
chose to exercise its discretion in plaintiffs' favor.   		Plaintiffs might argue that, because they are challenging a
summary judgment decision in favor of their opponents, a contrary
inference, running in their favor, is warranted.  It is true
that, when reviewing grants of summary judgment, we generally
consider the record in the light most favorable to the party
against whom summary judgment was granted.  See, e.g., Double
Eagle Golf, Inc. v. City of Portland, 322 Or 604, 606, 910 P2d
1104 (1996) (so stating).  However, that standard of review,
which applies to our consideration of the record on summary
judgment and which derives from a trial court's responsibility
with respect to the evidentiary material before it, is not
relevant to the present question.  When, as here, the record does
not show any waiver by the trial court of the pertinent rule, the
evidence that plaintiffs wish to rely on simply is not in the
record.(8)

		For the reasons stated, we hold that the Court of
Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's grant of summary
judgment to Bransom.  We proceed to the issues raised in
plaintiffs' petition for review.  

		Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment for the school district on the basis of
plaintiffs' failure to meet the OTCA notice of claim requirement,
when the facts before the court would support a federal civil
rights claim under 42 USC section 1983 (to which the OTCA is
inapplicable).  Plaintiffs acknowledge that their original
complaint was based entirely on tort theories and that the
section 1983 claim was offered in a motion to amend the
pleadings.  They also acknowledge that, in general, trial courts
have discretion to deny motions to amend.  Nevertheless, they
argue that the trial court erred in refusing to take their
section 1983 theory into consideration when deciding the summary
judgment motions because: (1) the school district impliedly
consented to the proffered amendment, by not objecting to the
amended complaint when it was submitted; (2) although not
artfully pleaded, the original complaint alleges a section 1983
claim; (3) under the circumstances, failing to decide the summary
judgment motion as if the complaint had been amended was an abuse
of discretion; and (4) because there were facts before the trial
court that would support amendment of the complaint to include a
section 1983 claim, the court was obligated to proceed as if such
an amendment had been allowed and, consequently, to deny the
motion for summary judgment.  

		We do not consider the first three arguments, because
they were not raised before the Court of Appeals.  The fourth
argument -- the only one that was preserved -- is premised on the
proposition that, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a
trial court is required to treat the complaint as having been
amended, if the evidence before it would support such an
amendment.  Plaintiffs draw that proposition from the two Court
of Appeals' decisions mentioned earlier, Miller and Hussey. 
Although those cases are not binding on this court, the essential
rule of law that plaintiffs draw from them may be valid. 

		However, we have no reason to consider that point in
the present case.  Even if we were to conclude that the rule that
plaintiffs contend for is a sound one, plaintiffs would not be
entitled to the reversal that they seek.  That is so because the
essential factual assumption that underlies plaintiffs' argument
-- that there was evidence in the summary judgment record that
would justify an amended complaint -- is not an assumption that
this court is bound to accept.  

		In our discussion of defendant Bransom's petition, we
concluded that, in keeping with our usual standard of review, the
fact of plaintiffs' untimely filing, taken together with the
trial court's ultimate decision in favor of Bransom, means that
the trial court had refused to exercise its discretion to
consider plaintiffs' late-filed documents as part of the record
on summary judgment.  The same principle applies with respect to
the school district's summary judgment motion:  To the extent
that it supports the trial court's ultimate decision in favor of
the school district, the trial court is deemed to have refused to
consider plaintiffs' late-filed documents as part of the summary
judgment record.  Obviously, if the trial court refused to
consider their late-filed materials, plaintiffs could not argue
that there was any evidence in the summary judgment record that
would support a potential section 1983 claim -- or any other
claim, for that matter. 

		We acknowledge that we may be misunderstanding
plaintiffs' argument -- that they may not be relying on their
late-filed evidentiary materials at all but, instead, on the
contemporaneously-filed motion to amend the pleadings. 
Plaintiffs may be arguing, in other words, that the trial court
was obligated to grant their motion to add a section 1983 claim,
because that motion to amend was filed in a summary judgment
context and because, if allowed, the amendment would preclude
summary judgment. 

		 That position -- if it is plaintiffs' position -- is
clearly contrary to law.  Under the applicable rule of civil
procedure, ORCP 23, there is only one circumstance in which a
party is entitled to amend his or her pleading as of right, and
that is before a responsive pleading has been filed (or, if no
response is required, within 20 days of the original pleading).(9) 
Otherwise, a party who wishes to amend must have the consent of
the opposing party (either implicit or explicit) or of the court. 
In all circumstances in which the consent of the court is
required, the court retains discretion to deny the motion.(10) 
Under ORCP 23, a party that is disappointed in an attempt to
amend might argue that the denial of the party's motion is an
abuse of discretion, but the party cannot argue, as plaintiffs
here do, that such a denial is erroneous as a matter of law.  

		Ultimately, whichever of the foregoing arguments was
intended, both miss their mark.  The trial court's grant of
summary judgment for the school district was proper, as was the
Court of Appeals' affirmance of that ruling.

		The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in
part and reversed in part.  The judgment of the circuit court is
affirmed.

1. 	The Commission found that there was insufficient
evidence to establish that Bransom had had sexual intercourse
with plaintiffs' daughter.  The Commission found, however, that
other conduct by Bransom constituted gross neglect of duty
justifying revocation of his teaching license. 

2. 	ORS 30.275 provides:

		"(1) No action arising from any act or omission of
a pubic body or an officer, employee or agent of a
public body within the scope of ORS 30.260 to ORS
30.300 [,i.e. tort actions,] shall be maintained unless
notice of claim is given as required by this section.

		"(2) Notice of claim shall be given within the
following applicable period of time, not including the
period, not exceeding 90 days, during which the person
injured is unable to give the notice because of the
injury or because of minority, incompetency or other
incapacity:

		"(a) For wrongful death, within one year after the
alleged loss or injury.

		"(b) For all other claims, within 180 days after
the alleged loss or injury."

3. 	Plaintiffs also argued that they had complied with the
180-day notice requirement by complaining about Bransom's conduct
to the school district in April of 1992.  The Court of Appeals
concluded that that argument had not been preserved and, thus, 
refused to consider it.  Plaintiffs have not asserted that
argument again to this court, and we do not address it. 

4. 	Such a claim would not be subject to the OTCA notice
requirement.  Sanok v. Grimes, 306 Or 259, 262, 760 P2d 228
(1988).

5. 	ORCP 47 (C) provides, in part:

		"The motion and all supporting documents shall be
served and filed at least 45 days before the date set
for trial.  The adverse party shall have 20 days in
which to serve and file opposing affidavits and
supporting documents.  The moving party shall have five
days to reply.  The court shall have discretion to
modify these stated times.  The judgment sought shall
be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions,
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,
if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law."

(Emphasis added.)

6. 	Amicus Curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Associations (OTLA)
suggests that the late-filed materials properly may be considered
on appeal, because Bransom waived any objection to them.  In so
arguing, OTLA notes that there is no evidence in the record that
Bransom ever objected to plaintiffs' late-filed response.  The
amicus concedes that the timing of the response deprived Bransom
of any opportunity to respond in writing, but suggests that
Bransom has nothing to complain about, when he cannot point to
any oral objection in the record.  

		That argument is not well taken.  Where, as here, there
is no transcript of the oral argument, we would have to infer
both that Bransom made no objection and that the trial court did
not decline to consider plaintiffs' late-filed materials sua
sponte.  Given the fact that the trial court ruled against
plaintiffs, neither inference is permissible.  It was up to the
offering party either to meet the deadlines or to obtain leave to
file late.  Neither occurred here.

7. 	With the late-filed materials out of the picture, the
trial court was required to conclude that summary judgment was
warranted, because plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence that
established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.

8. 	Amicus curiae OTLA suggests that the trial court's
decision was wrong, regardless of its decision with respect to
the late-filed materials.  It argues, in particular, that
Bransom's summary judgment motion should have been denied,
because Bransom never met his initial burden of showing that
there were no genuine issues as to any material fact.  We do not
consider that argument, because it was never presented in any
recognizable form to the Court of Appeals.  

9. 	In this case, the District's responsive pleading was
filed over two months before the motions for summary judgment.

10. 	ORCP 23 provides, in part:

		"(A) A pleading may be amended by a party once as
a matter of course at any time before a responsive
pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which
no responsive pleading is permitted, the party may so
amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. 
Otherwise a party may amend the pleading only by leave
of the court or by written consent of the adverse
party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so
requires. * * *"