Case Name: KENT, Respondent, v. BRUNE, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-07-26
Citations: 97 Or. App. 691
Docket Number: A8601-00570; CA A48711
Parties: KENT, Respondent, v. BRUNE, Appellant.
Judges: Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 97
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 31,
affirmed July 26, 1989
KENT, Respondent, v. BRUNE, Appellant.
([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A48711)
776 P2d 882
James Waggoner, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Michael J. Gentry, Waggoner, Farleigh, Wada, Bogrand & Georgeff, and Tooze, Marshall, Shenker, Holloway & Duden, Portland.
Garry P. McMurry, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this action to enforce an oral contract to make a will, the trial court found for plaintiff and imposed a constructive trust in her favor on the assets of the decedent's estate. The personal representative appeals. We affirm.
An oral contract to make a will is unenforceable, unless it was made before January 1, 1974. ORS 112.270. The issues on appeal are whether the evidence is clear and convincing that there was a contract and that it was entered into before that daté, whether there is sufficient corroboration to satisfy the requirements of ORS 115.195, assuming that they apply, and whether plaintiff breached the contract. The trial court resolved those questions in plaintiffs favor.
We have read the transcript, examined the exhibits, and considered the arguments on appeal. On de novo review, we generally agree with the trial court's findings and conclusions. A detailed opinion would not add anything of significance to those findings or be of value to the bench or bar. We affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.