Case Name: MILLS, Respondent, v. WONG et al, Appellants
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1986-03-26
Citations: 78 Or. App. 313
Docket Number: A8210-06076; CA A34275
Parties: MILLS, Respondent, v. WONG et al, Appellants.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 78
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted February 21,
affirmed in part, reversed in part March 26,
reconsideration denied May 9,
petition for review denied July 15, 1986 (301 Or 338)
MILLS, Respondent, v. WONG et al, Appellants.
([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A34275)
715 P2d 1356
Donald Winfree, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.
Marvin S. Nepom, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff brought this action seeking damages and attorney fees for the alleged breach of an earnest money agreement and for general and punitive damages for a fraudulent misrepresentation allegedly made to induce plaintiff to enter into the earnest money agreement. The jury returned a general verdict for general damages of $30,000 and punitive damages of $37,500. Judgment was entered on the verdict. In a supplemental proceeding on plaintiffs cost bill, the trial court awarded plaintiff judgment for attorney fees of $10,000.
On appeal from both judgments, most of defendants' assignments of error relate to the contract claim; however, defendant argues and plaintiff conceded during argument that the jury verdict was based on the fraud count. Accordingly, any error relating to the contract claim would be harmless. With respect to the fraud count, there is sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find that defendants had defrauded plaintiff into entering into the earnest money agreement and to support an award of punitive damages. Therefore, we affirm the judgment on the verdict.
Because the jury's verdict was based on plaintiffs fraud claim, there is no basis for awarding attorney fees. Accordingly, the judgment awarding plaintiff attorney fees is reversed.
Judgment for damages affirmed; judgment for attorney fees reversed.