Court Opinion

ID: 9551782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:59:04.626676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:36.857949
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*626Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and McAllister,* Denecke, Holman, Tongue, Howell and Bryson, Justices.
TONGUE, J.
Defendant has petitioned for a rehearing, primarily upon the ground that our opinion in this case did not discuss and rule upon defendant’s contention that the record on appeal in this case was fatally defective for the reason that plaintiffs failed to file a statement of the points on which they intended to rely (as required by ORS 19.074), and instead stated that defendant relied solely on the contention that plaintiffs filed a “narrative statement” of the facts (as provided by ORS 19.088) which stipulated that payment of the reward did not constitute a “theft loss.”
It is true that on this appeal defendant relied upon both of these contentions and that our opinion should have so stated. At the time of argument, however, counsel for defendant was asked whether defendant contended that it was prejudiced in any way and whether defendant contended that any part of the record omitted by plaintiffs was needed by defendant for a proper consideration of the case on the merits. Defendant’s counsel then frankly stated that defendant made no such contentions, but nevertheless contended that in the absence of such a “statement of points” the record on appeal was “fatally defective.” Without waiving that contention, he then proceeded to argue the merits of the ease.
': The sole question presented for decision on the merits in this case was whether, under facts stipu*627lated by the parties, the payment of the reward constituted a “loss by theft” under the policy of insurance. That was also the sole issue presented for decision by the trial court and was obviously the sole and only “point” relied upon by plaintiffs on this appeal. Thus, plaintiffs’ sole assignment of error was that “the Court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the money paid by plaintiffs as a reward for the recovery of stolen jewelry, did not constitute a doss by theft’ under the insurance policy.”
Defendant is correct in the statement that when, as in this case, an appellant’s “designation of record” on appeal does not include the entire record, OES 19.074 then provided that he shall file “a plain and concise statement of the points on which he intends to rely” and “may rely on no other points than those set forth in such statement.”① When, however, as in this case, the appeal presents only one obvious point for decision and no claim of prejudice is made by respondent, this court has ample power to proceed with a determination of that point on its merits.
The failure to file a proper “statement of points” under OES 19.074 is not jurisdictional. OES 19.033. It is also provided by OES 19.108(1) that:
“When it appears to the court to which the appeal is made that the record is erroneous or incomplete in any particular substantially affecting the merits of the appeal, on motion of a party or on its own motion the court may make such order to correct or supplement the record as may be just or may dismiss the appeal if the error or omission is without reasonable excuse.”
*628It will be noted that this statute provides for relief even as to matters “substantially affecting the merits of the appeal.”
When the defect in the record on appeal in this case was called to plaintiffs’ attention as the appellants in this case by the filing of defendant’s brief as respondent, plaintiffs should have filed a motion to correct the record by the filing of a proper “statement of points,” as in Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 485 P2d 1085 (1971), as cited by defendant. Under the circumstances of this case, however, and under the authority conferred on this court by OES 19.108(1), we consider the assignment of error in appellants’ brief to be a satisfactory statement of the single and obvious point relied upon by plaintiffs on appeal of this case.
Defendant says that to permit plaintiffs to “disregard with impunity” the provisions of OES 19.074 would “provide a boon to those who ignore the law and a bane to those who hazard to rely upon it.” We do not condone plaintiffs’ failure to follow the plain and simple requirements for preparation of the record on this appeal.
Instead, and because of plaintiffs’ failure to do so, we hold that their attorneys may not claim reimbursement for costs incurred on this appeal, as we have occasionally held in cases involving the failure of attorneys to comply with the statute and rules of the court relating to records and briefs on appeal. Cf. Wynn v. Sundquist, supra, at 1345.
Defendant is also correct in contending that the purpose of OES 19.074(2) (b) is “to advise the respondent at an early date of the appellant’s position on appeal so that the respondent can determine whether or not the record containing less than the *629entire testimony is an adequate record for the purpose of decision of the appeal.” As previously noted, however, in this case there was obviously only one question or “point” to be decided on this appeal and defendant admitted on argument that the record was sufficient for decision of that single question presented for decision and that defendant was not prejudiced in any way.
Defendant also says that upon receiving plaintiffs’ brief it was “in a dilemma” in that “if the respondent intended to rely upon the provisions of OES 19.074 the respondent was precluded from filing a brief on the merits.” If, however, counsel for defendant had cared to do so, it could have included in its brief as respondent an argument on the merits of that question without waiving its contention that plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on that assignment of error, just as they proceeded to do at the time of oral argument.
Defendant also cites Freedman v. Cholick et ux, 233 Or 569, 577, 379 P2d 575 (1963), in which we declined to consider a point not included in a “statement of points” and State v. Gilmore, 236 Or 349, 388 P2d 451 (1964), to the same general effect. Those cases, however, involved quite different facts.
Defendant’s petition for rehearing also contends that this court erred in its decision on the merits of this ease. For reasons stated in our previous opinion, we reaffirm that decision.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

This appeal was filed prior to the effective date of 1971 amendments, which deleted these provisions from ORS 19.074, but added similar provisions to ORS 19.029 as requirements for the notice of appeal. Oregon Laws 1971, ch 565, §§ 6 and 8.