Court Opinion

ID: 9545917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:22:09.335503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:45.458377
License: Public Domain

JOSEPH, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result, but I do not concur in the part of the opinion that upholds, on the basis of the language in the promissory note, the award of an attorney fee to the first attorney for his work in the bankruptcy proceeding. Suppose that a case were to come up where a secured creditor had placed a note in the hands of an attorney for collection and had also instructed the attorney to proceed first to foreclose the mortgage that secured the note. If the mortgage were held to be invalid for some reason and foreclosure were therefore denied, I doubt very much that we would say the maker of the note and the mortgage would be entitled to recover attorney fees for defending the foreclosure by reason of the language in the note and the reciprocity rule in ORS 20.096. We would, I am confident, say that the effort to realize on the security was not part of collection of the note. The bankruptcy proceeding here had no legal connection with collection of the note.
*211What I would do is to recognize that the defendant has not made a proper record to challenge the award of the attorney fee to the first attorney. For that reason, I concur in the result.