Court Opinion

ID: 9787108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:10:50.079384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:52.302825
License: Public Domain

DEITS, C. J.,
concurring.
I agree that we must conclude, under Russell v. Sheahan, 324 Or 445, 927 P2d 591 (1996), that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. I write separately to *214emphasize that this case presents a set of facts that has not previously been considered by either the Supreme Court or this court and that might, were we free to do so, justify reconsideration of the breadth of the holding in Russell.
“The right to obtain appellate review is statutory and subject to limitations imposed by the statute conferring the right.” Ososke v. DMV, 320 Or 657, 659-60, 891 P2d 633 (1995). The pertinent statute in this case, ORS 19.245 (1997),1 provides, in part:
“Any party to a judgment or decree, other than a judgment or decree given by confession or for want of an answer, may appeal therefrom. The plaintiff may appeal from a judgment or decree given by confession or for want of an answer where such judgment or decree is not in accordance with the relief demanded in the complaint.”
In Russell, the Supreme Court considered whether a stipulated judgment entered pursuant to ORCP 54 E is appealable. The court ultimately concluded that ORS 19.245 (1997)2 “does not authorize an appellate court to exercise jurisdiction over a stipulated judgment * * Russell, 324 Or at 454-55. The court analyzed separately each of the two sentences of ORS 19.245 (1997) quoted above. The court first addressed the second sentence. The court observed that both types of judgments referred to in that sentence — a judgment by “confession” and a judgment for want of an answer — are judgments entered pursuant to the unilateral act of a defendant only. The court contrasted those types of judgments with a “stipulated judgment,” to which both parties consent. Id. at 449-50. The court concluded that, because the second sentence of ORS 19.245 (1997) omitted reference to “stipulated” judgments, but instead included other, well-defined kinds of judgments, that sentence could not be viewed as authorizing an appeal of a stipulated judgment. Id. at 450.
*215The court then turned to the first sentence of ORS 19.245 (1997). As viewed by the court, the question presented was whether a party who has stipulated to a judgment may be considered a “party to a judgment” as that phrase is used in the first sentence of ORS 19.245 (1997). Id. at 450-51. The court began its analysis of that question by noting:
“This court has developed a body of principles that serve to assure that every appeal presents, at every stage of appellate litigation, a genuine controversy for decision. * * * One of those principles is that a party waives the right to appeal a judgment to which that party has consented.”
Id. at 451. The court then reviewed a number of its previous cases in which it had concluded that, because the party seeking to appeal had stipulated to the judgment, that party had waived the right to appeal. The court concluded:
“The preceding analysis demonstrates that this court has never varied from the fundamental principle that a party may not take an appeal from a judgment to which that party consented. Consent to judgment terminates all controversy regarding the correctness of the court’s interlocutory legal rulings before judgment and regarding the adequacy of the relief to which the parties have agreed.”
Id. at 454.
As the majority points out, the above conclusion of the Supreme Court appears to definitively answer the question of whether we have jurisdiction in this case. 174 Or App at 213. Because plaintiff stipulated to the judgment from which she now seeks to appeal, she is not a “party to the judgment,” and ORS 19.245 (1997) precludes her appeal, as the Supreme Court construed that statute in Russell. Accordingly, as the majority correctly holds, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
A review of the cases in which the Supreme Court and this court have concluded that stipulating to a judgment precludes a party from appealing — and a comparison of those cases with this case — causes me to question whether the holding in Russell might have been too broadly stated. In Rader v. Barr, 22 Or 495, 495, 29 P 889 (1892), the defendant denied each material allegation in the plaintiffs complaint. Nonetheless, “both the plaintiff and the defendant appeared *216in * * * court, and the defendant consented that judgment be rendered against him for the amount demanded by the complaint * * In Schmidt v. Oregon Mining Co., 28 Or 9, 40 P 406 (1895), the plaintiff moved for judgment on his complaint, the defendant consented to judgment, and the court entered judgment after the parties agreed to its terms in open court. In Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or 226, 107 P 459 (1910), the plaintiff demurred to the defendant’s answer, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. The parties entered an agreement that the plaintiff should have judgment against the defendant and asked the court to enter judgment accordingly. In Schoren v. Schoren, 110 Or 272, 293-94, 222 P 1096 (1924), the parties agreed to a settlement, while the trial was underway, which the attorneys together dictated to the court reporter. In Basche-Sage Hdw. Co. v. De Wolfe, 113 Or 246, 231 P 135 (1925), the trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action of the plaintiffs complaint. After the defendant answered the remaining causes of action, the parties filed a stipulation allowing the plaintiff to take judgment on all causes of action except the first. In Westfall v. Wilson, 255 Or 428, 429, 467 P2d 966 (1970), when the case came on for trial, the parties agreed to enter a “stipulated judgment order.” In Nieminen v. Pitzer, 281 Or 53, 573 P2d 1227 (1978), when the case was called for trial, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement and explained the terms of the agreement; the trial court entered a judgment accordingly.
In Russell, the plaintiff asked for class certification. The trial court refused to order class certification and also refused the plaintiffs subsequent request to enter an order permitting an interlocutory appeal of the denial of certification. The defendant then offered to suffer judgment, and the plaintiff accepted the offer. In Rauda v. Oregon Roses, Inc., 329 Or 265, 986 P2d 1157 (1999), the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion as to one cause of action but denied it as to the remaining cause of action. The parties then stipulated to a judgment in which the parties agreed that the plaintiffs could have judgment against the defendant on the nondismissed cause of action. In Jensen and Jensen, 169 Or App 19, 7 P3d 691 (2000), after the husband had moved to *217modify child and spousal support obligations under a dissolution judgment, the parties appeared before the court and entered into a stipulated agreement disposing of the husband’s request for modification. Most recently, in Davis v. Act III Theatres, Inc., 170 Or App 524, 13 P3d 164 (2000), after the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ first and third claims, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their second claim, and the parties submitted a stipulated dismissal to the trial court.
Two common features emerge from the above cases. First, in each case, it appears that the parties entered a stipulated judgment at a point in the proceedings at which there remained something for the trial court to do to resolve the dispute — something that could have led to an appealable judgment. In other words, but for the stipulation, the case would have proceeded to a disposition requiring a decision by the court. Second, it appears to be a common scenario in the cases that, by entering a stipulated judgment at the point they did, the parties were attempting to, in effect, obtain interlocutory review of an intermediate order that would have been reviewable, if ever, only after the entry of a final judgment. See Allen v. County of Jackson, 169 Or App 116, 121, 7 P3d 739 (2000) (core of reasoning that stipulated judgments are not appealable is proposition that parties cannot create a right to appeal from a stipulated judgment that is not otherwise appealable).
What occurred here is different. Here, each of the two parties had filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court had granted one of the motions. All that remained for the case to be in an appealable posture was for the trial court to enter judgment accordingly. No further decision on the part of the court was necessary. Much of the justification for holding stipulated judgments to be nonappealable appears to be traceable to a concern that the parties have “collu[ded] or improperly acquiesce[d],” Schoren, 110 Or at 290, in obtaining the judgment, making its entry a formality requiring no true judicial act. See Twitchell, 56 Or at 228. The Russell court itself acknowledged as much by observing that the principle that a party that consents to a judgment waives the right to appeal is part of the broader jurisprudential concern with the presence of a true controversy. 324 Or at 451; see also Allen, 169 Or App at 121-22 (dispositive factor in *218determining that judgment had not been stipulated to was that parties litigated contested issues on which the court made rulings). In this case, there was a true controversy at every meaningful level; both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and each opposed the other’s motion for summary judgment. The parties ran afoul of Russell only because they jointly prepared, and “stipulated” to, a document reflecting the trial court’s disposition of those motions. In my view, the policies underlying the court’s reasoning in Russell and other cases holding stipulated judgments to be nonappealable do not justify precluding an appeal in this case. As discussed above, however, under the language of Russell, the majority is correct that we are compelled to conclude that we lack jurisdiction in this case.
For the reasons stated above, I concur.
Haselton, P. J., joins in this concurrence.

 ORS 19.245 was amended effective October 23,1999. Or Laws 1999, ch 367, § 1. The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 19, 1999. Accordingly, we apply the version of the statute that was in effect when plaintiff filed her notice of appeal.

 Russell refers to ORS 19.020. ORS 19.020 was renumbered in 1997 as ORS 19.245.