Court Opinion

ID: 9545925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:22:18.09937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:46.494008
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the decision and opinion in this case. I specially concur to state the possible consequences of our decision and the possible need for legislative change.
Assuming that the plaintiff secured a judgment for $100,000 in the trial court and on appeal, the defendant was able to convince the appellate court to reduce that to $100, under our reasoning in the present case it might be thought that the plaintiff is still “the prevailing party” in such a situation. If so, an attorney fee on appeal would be payable to the plaintiff. The court awarding fees may be able to award only a nominal fee because while the plaintiff may have a judgment in its favor for $100, the defendant was the big winner. This may not be possible, however, under the criteria we stated in Chalmers v. Oregon Auto. Ins. Co., 263 Or 449-455, 502 P2d 1378 (1972). The result obtained is only one factor to be used in fixing fees.
*130Under the hypothetical stated, the plaintiff may not be “the prevailing party” under the statute. See Kytasty v. Godwin, 102 Cal App3d 762, 162 Cal Rptr 556 (1980).
In any event, if, under the hypothetical stated, the plaintiff would be entitled to a substantial attorney fee on appeal, I doubt if such a result coincides with what the legislature intended and ORS 20.096 should be amended.