Case Name: John P. HAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, v. Paul HAMMER, Trustee of Hammer Revocable Trust; Paul Hammer, Trustee of Wyman Hammer Trust; and Paul Hammer, Individually, Defendants-Respondents Cross-Appellants, and Sara HAMMER, Individually, Defendant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 280 Or. App. 175
Docket Number: 161303305; A158067
Parties: John P. HAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, v. Paul HAMMER, Trustee of Hammer Revocable Trust; Paul Hammer, Trustee of Wyman Hammer Trust; and Paul Hammer, Individually, Defendants-Respondents Cross-Appellants, and Sara HAMMER, Individually, Defendant.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 280
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 11;
on appeal, affirmed; on cross-appeal, attorney fee award vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed August 3, 2016
John P. HAMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, v. Paul HAMMER, Trustee of Hammer Revocable Trust; Paul Hammer, Trustee of Wyman Hammer Trust; and Paul Hammer, Individually, Defendants-Respondents Cross-Appellants, and Sara HAMMER, Individually, Defendant.
Lane County Circuit Court
161303305; A158067
380 P3d 1196
Josephine H. Mooney, Judge.
John C. Fisher argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant-cross-respondent.
George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents-cross-appellants.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this dispute over trustee fees, plaintiff appeals a general judgment that dismissed his petition for supplemental relief under ORS 28.080. We reject plaintiffs assignment of error without written discussion and write only to address defendant's cross-appeal, in which defendant assigns error to the trial court's award of attorney fees. The court awarded defendant attorney fees for services related to the supplemental-relief proceeding and not for services related to the underlying action for declaratory relief, which were requested by defendant because, in his view, he was the ultimate prevailing party in the matter. Defendant points out that the court incorrectly stated when defendant's motions to disqualify a judge and for reconsideration were made. According to defendant, the court erred because the factual error served as the basis for its decision to not award fees for the part of the proceeding related to the declaratory relief action. We agree with defendant. Because the court based the attorney fee award on a "materially erroneous factual premise," Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 233 Or App 210, 221, 225 P3d 101 (2010), we vacate the attorney fee award and remand for reconsideration. Id. at 221-22.
On appeal, affirmed; on cross-appeal, attorney fee award vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.