Court Opinion

ID: 9790542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:54:42.338216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.102405
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s conclusion that tenant should not prevail on her counterclaims and that plaintiff was entitled to the rent paid into court. I also agree that when a tenant, in good faith, claims that the premises are not habitable and withholds rent and tenders it into court, she need not prevail on the counterclaims to retain possession.
I do not, however, agree that the trial court erred in awarding possession to the landlord in this case. Neither party requested special findings. The majority ignores the significance of that fact. It is rule of appellate practice that, when *349neither party requests special findings, we assume that the trial court found the facts supporting its judgment. See Helmer v. Transamerica Title Insurance Co., 279 Or 457, 464, 569 P2d 10 (1977); Ierulli v. Lutz Development Co., 73 Or App 311, 316, 698 P2d 504 (1985). There was substantial evidence from which the trial court could have found that the tenant made her counterclaims in bad faith and we should assume that it did.
I would affirm the trial court in all respects and would award landlord his attorney fees on appeal.