Opinion ID: 1131632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: did plaintiff act in bad faith?

Text: The trial court's 18-page narration of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Opinions and Order indicates that the court substantially focused on plaintiff's intervention in the life of Mrs. Sandy. [14] However, that intervention, in the form of a conservatorship and a guardianship, already had been judicially validated. The focus of the trial court, when determining whether attorney fees should be awarded, should have been on plaintiff's motives in bringing and maintaining this undue influence claim. As conservator of her aunt's estate, plaintiff had a fiduciary duty to take possession of all the property of substantial value of the protected person, and of rents, income, issues and profits therefrom whether accruing before or after the appointment of the conservator, and of the proceeds from the sale, mortgage, lease or other disposition thereof. ORS 126.293. The trial court found: Plaintiff's claims were brought on mere suspicion without substance. Mrs. Mattiza certainly realized this by the time of her telephone call to Mrs. Foster [in which she allegedly stated that she realized Mrs. Foster's intentions were good] in August of 1987. Mrs. Mattiza seems somewhat paranoid about Mrs. Foster and even perhaps vindictive. This Court would view that the claims were asserted in bad faith and will award attorney fees, as well as costs and disbursements, to Defendant. The operative phrases that apparently led the trial court to conclude that plaintiff had acted in bad faith were that the claims were brought on mere suspicion without substance and that plaintiff seem[ed] somewhat paranoid about Mrs. Foster and even perhaps vindictive. Although these statements [15] describe the trial court's impressions of the matter, they simply do not constitute legally adequate conclusions of law based on findings of fact. Applying the analysis set forth above, we ask first whether defendant prevailed. She did. The second inquiry is whether plaintiff's claim was meritless. Assuming, but not deciding, that the claim was entirely devoid of factual or legal support, we next address whether there was an improper motive. Did plaintiff act in bad faith? Even assuming that the trial court's conclusions noted above are supported by the evidence in this case, there was no findingand the evidence would not support a conclusion that plaintiff's actions constituted conduct, the primary aim of which was something other than the procurement of the fair adjudication of an authentic claim. We conclude that, regardless of other motives she may have had, plaintiff's primary aim was to obtain an adjudication of a bona fide dispute. Defendant is not entitled to attorney fees under ORS 20.105. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed on the merits and reversed on the award of attorney fees.