Opinion ID: 1182164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: disposition of case

Text: The next issue is whether the cause should be remanded to the circuit court for the taking of additional evidence. The trial court entered a conclusion of law which stated that plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the apartment building was in violation of the PUD ordinance. At the close of the trial, in allowing the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court stated that it did so because it could not find that the City acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. As a result the court did not pass upon the question of whether plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction or damages. Also, the defendants did not rest their case before moving for a dismissal, and consequently the defendants did not offer any evidence regarding damages, injunctive relief, or the defense of waiver, laches, or estoppel. The specific question now presented is whether defendants are precluded from offering any evidence. While this cause is a declaratory judgment action, it was tried, and properly so, as a suit in equity. In Newman v. Stover, 187 Or. 641, 213 P.2d 137 (1950), an equity suit challenging the validity of a will, the trial court allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of plaintiff's case. We announced that it is bad practice in equity for a defendant to move for a dismissal at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, and that the trial court should have required the defendant to rest before considering his motion to dismiss. However, the suit was remanded for additional testimony in the interest of justice. In In re Estate of Andersen, 192 Or. 441, 235 P.2d 869 (1951), we reiterated the rule of Newman that it is bad practice to move for a dismissal at the conclusion of plaintiff's case, but held the rule to be inapplicable where the party having the burden of proof failed to establish his contention of undue influence. Having failed to sustain the burden of proof, a motion to dismiss was proper. In Karoblis v. Liebert, 263 Or. 64, 501 P.2d 315 (1972), we stated that the defendant in a law action tried to the court without a jury may not test the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence at the close of plaintiff's case. If he wishes to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence he must rest his case and submit the matter to the court on its merits. In Petersen v. Thompson, 264 Or. 516, 506 P.2d 697 (1973), we reiterated the rule of Karoblis, but because Petersen was tried in the circuit court before the Karoblis decision, we remanded the action to require the defendant to put on his evidence or rest his case before moving for a nonsuit. The case at bar was tried before our decision in Karoblis. Perhaps the bar should have been alerted by Newman v. Stover, supra, where we stated that a defendant in an equity suit should close his case before moving to dismiss. However, as we have previously mentioned, the defendant in Newman on the remand was allowed to put on his case. Later, in In re Estate of Anderson, supra, the rule of Newman was held not applicable where one party fails to sustain his burden of proof. We believe that we should follow the same procedure in the instant case as we did in the law action in Petersen v. Thompson, supra, and remand this suit to allow both parties to introduce evidence relating to the issue of which remedy  injunction or monetary damages  is proper. As a part of the proceedings, the plaintiffs and defendants will also be allowed to introduce evidence relating to the issue of damages under the rules enunciated above. Finally, the defendants are allowed to offer any evidence relating to the defenses of waiver, laches and estoppel. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified herein, and this cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.