Court Opinion

ID: 9565201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:16:43.634451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:27.776603
License: Public Domain

CARSON, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the dismissal of this case. However, for *281what it is worth, I believe that there is more to this case than a premature appeal. Without thorough briefing and argument, I cannot be certain, but it appears to me that the personal representative may be correct in her assertion, though not precisely so stated, that the probate court has yet to rule on the merits of the objection to the final account in respect of the allowed claim.
The first order in contention directed payment of a claim previously allowed by the personal representative in accordance with ORS 115.185. The second order denied the objection on the ground that the first order became “the law of the case” and that the probate court then “was without jurisdiction to hear further objection to the payment of [the allegedly insufficient] claim.” That the allowed claim was to be paid is clear; whether the claim should have been allowed remains an open question (ORS 114.275 and 114.395) that, in my opinion, should be considered on remand.