Case Name: Sonia TAVERA, Appellant, v. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; Kellie Rider, an individual; and Sam Davis, an individual, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2003-07-02
Citations: 188 Or. App. 484
Docket Number: 98-2484-L-3; A112509
Parties: Sonia TAVERA, Appellant, v. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; Kellie Rider, an individual; and Sam Davis, an individual, Respondents.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Kistler and Schuman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 188
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 19,
appeal dismissed July 2, 2003
Sonia TAVERA, Appellant, v. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; Kellie Rider, an individual; and Sam Davis, an individual, Respondents.
98-2484-L-3; A112509
72 P3d 124
G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr. argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr., P. C.
Michael A. Lehner argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Lehner & Rodrigues, P. C.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Kistler and Schuman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants' motion for mistrial and ordering plaintiff, as a condition for continuing the case, to reimburse defendants' costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal before the court established a specific amount of those costs and attorney fees; the court took no further action after the appeal was filed. We hold that the order is not appealable and therefore dismiss the appeal.
An order granting a mistrial is generally not an appealable order. Heath v. Armore, 208 Or 533, 302 P2d 1017 (1956). Plaintiff argues, however, that the order is appealable under ORS 19.205(2)(a) because it affects a substantial right and "in effect determines the action so as to prevent a judgment therein." The foundation of her position is that she is financially incapable of paying the required costs and attorney fees and the order therefore determines the action as to her. Assuming that financial inability may satisfy the requirements of ORS 19.205(2)(a), the difficulty is that the trial court has not decided the amount that plaintiff must pay. There is evidence in the record that plaintiff is a person of limited means, but without knowing the specific amount, we cannot determine her ability to comply with the court's order and, thus, cannot say that it in effect prevents a judgment in the case.
Appeal dismissed.
Before argument, the Chief Judge denied defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal on these grounds. Because the issue is jurisdictional, that action does not affect our ability to consider the question. ORAP 7.15(3).