Court Opinion

ID: 9552476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:11:14.032395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:53.375245
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
I strongly disagree with both the rationale and the result reached by the majority in this case. In my view the majority is not only deciding the case on a ground not raised by either party during the trial, it is resting the decision on a ground that is contrary to settled law in this state. ORS 19.125(3).1
*635First, there was never at any time even a suggestion by any of the parties that the jury verdict on the two legal claims would be dispositive of the accounting claim. Nevertheless, the majority now disposes of the case on that issue without benefit of briefs or oral argument and without the citation of any authority for its decision.
An appellate court is not at liberty on appeal to disregard the issues the parties have made in the trial court, even to achieve an equitable result. Cole v. Fogel, et al, 210 Or 257, 310 P2d 315 (1957). Thus, it was held in Turner v. McDaniel, et al, 194 Or 595, 243 P2d 273 (1952), that where the parties treated the proceeding as one for an accounting and the trial court decided the several issues upon that theory, the Supreme Court would so treat the proceedings on appeal. Here, the trial court also expressly decided the accounting issue upon that ground, a fact which the majority opinion seemingly disregards.
Second, the majority completely ignores or disregards the fact that the defendant expressly refused to stipulate to having the jury determine the accounting issue. This indicates clearly that both parties were expecting that the accounting claim would be decided by the court.
The case began as a Petition for Partition and Accounting, clearly equitable. The complaint was amended to add two legal claims, plaintiff still maintaining in her first “Count for Accounting” that she had no adequate remedy at law. It was the intent of the parties that the jury would reach a verdict on the legal counts and be advisory only on the accounting count. The trial judge employed the jury in an advisory fashion under ORCP 51(D):
“D. Advisory jury and jury trial by consent. In all actions not triable by right to a jury, the court, upon motion of a party or on its own initiative, may try an issue with an advisory jury or it may, with the consent of all parties, order a trial to a jury whose verdict shall have the same effect as if trial to a jury had been a matter of right. ” (Emphasis added.)
*636Under the above, unless the parties consent, the equitable claims are still triable to the court. Counsel for defendant specifically stated he would not stipulate to having the accounting issue tried to the jury. Here both parties and the court treated the accounting claim as equitable with the finder of fact being the court.2 At no time did the parties assume the court would be bound by the jury’s verdict in the legal claims. If the parties wanted the jury to be the trier of fact on the accounting claim, they could have so stipulated. ORCP 51(D).
The majority seems to bind the trial court, and in turn this court, on the accounting claim to the jury verdicts in the two legal claims under a theory analagous to res judicata. The application of res judicata leads to the opposite result here. Plaintiffs claim was originally solely on petition for partition and accounting for a jointly owned duplex. The legal claims were added in an amendment. The doctrine of res judicata, by prohibiting the splitting of claims, required plaintiff to join the two legal claims with her accounting - otherwise they would be barred.3 If plaintiff had brought only the accounting claim and it had been tried to the court, review would be de novo as a suit in equity. Plaintiff should not be foreclosed from de novo review because she joined legal claims which she was required to join or lose them. If plaintiff had earlier brought claims against defendant for conversion and money had and received, it is true that she would be foreclosed from another forum, i.e., a suit in equity, for an accounting. However, here plaintiff brought all her claims in one proceeding and should not be foreclosed from consideration of her accounting claim. In effect, the majority has eliminated the accounting claim because it involves a question of fact common to the two legal claims.4
*637In Paul v. Mazzocco et al, 221 Or 411, 351 P2d 709 (1960), the court discussed the role of an advisory jury and the scope of appellate review. The case involved a suit to declare plaintiff the holder of property in trust. The court stated:
“A jury, called by the trial court in an advisory capacity, found for the defendants. The trial court concurred in the finding of the jury, - that the deed executed by the defendants was in fact security for the debt due the plaintiff, - and its decree was entered accordingly. From this decree the plaintiff appeals.
“Although a jury determined the issues of fact in the trial court, its findings were advisory only and could have been rejected instead of accepted by the trial court. The matter is, therefore, before this court triable de novo. Mogul Transportation Co. v. Larison, 181 Or 252, 181 P2d 139.” 221 Or at 413.
See also discussion in State ex rel Jones v. Workman, 34 Or App 777, 780, 579 P2d 1302, rev den 284 Or 521 (1978).
The result reached by the majority is particularly egregious in this case. A review of the record reveals how defendant took advantage of his position. As an example, plaintiff contends that defendant should account for sums used in duplex mortgage payments jointly owned by plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff did not occupy her side of the duplex after June, 1974, because she was confined to the nursing home. Defendant made the monthly payments from his account and then wrote checks from plaintiffs account. In doing so, defendant wrote checks off plaintiffs account for more than one-half of the monthly payment. In addition, defendant rented plaintiffs side from July, 1977 to February, 1978. Although the rent receipts for the first *638two months were deposited in plaintiffs account, thereafter defendant deposited the rental income of $250 per month in his own account. Defendant moved out of his side of the duplex in April, 1976, and received rental income from August, 1976 until February, 1978 of $325 per month which he placed in his own account. In sum, during the relevant period, defendant was drawing more than one-half of the monthly mortgage payment from plaintiffs account and keeping the rent receipts as his own income. Prior to trial, defendant tendered $3,889.47 to plaintiff for partial reimbursement for the overpayments and rent receipts. The tender was refused because defendant had deducted a 10. management fee which plaintiff felt defendant was not entitled to.
On de novo review, I would find that the mortgage overpayments and rent receipts were not intended as a gift. Defendant should account to plaintiff for the amounts owing.

 ORS 19.125(3) provides:
*635“Upon an appeal from a decree in a suit in equity, the Court of Appeals shall try the cause anew upon the record.”

 How the parties and the court treat a claim as equitable or legal has been considered in determining whether de novo review applies. See, e.g., Oregon Farm Bureau v. Thompson, 235 Or 162, 176, 378 P2d 563, 384 P2d 182 (1963), and cases cited therein.

 ORCP 24(A) provides:
“A plaintiff may join in a complaint, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal or equitable, as the plaintiff has against an opposing party.”

 There were no special findings of fact under the money had an received and the conversion claims. The verdict form read:
*637“SECOND CLAIM - MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
“-1. We find for the plaintiff in the sum of $_ (not to exceed $26,925.75).
X 2. We find for the defendant.
“THIRD CLAIM - CONVERSION
“_1. We find for the plaintiff in the sum of $_ (not to exceed $26,925.75).
X 2. We find for the defendant.”