Court Opinion

ID: 9615903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:41:42.534256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:53.245308
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
dissenting.1
I agree with the majority that the document dated September 8, 1982, “does not comply with one of the requirements for a judgment set out in ORCP 70A.,” 301 Or at 87, and so cannot be considered to be a judgment in itself. I disagree with the majority that because another document had been signed on . June 25, 1982, the inadequacy of the September 8, 1982, document was somehow cured.
*99I suppose that it is somewhat tautological to state that the term “every judgment” includes a “final judgment.” If that statement is incorrect, its want of the quality of correctness is not immediately apparent to me. I proceed on the assumption that the statement is correct.
As I have noted at the outset of this opinion, the majority recognizes that the September 8 document, standing alone, does not meet the requirements of ORCP 70A. for form of a judgment. The rule provides in pertinent part:
“Every judgment shall be * * * set forth in a separate document.” (Emphasis added.)
The majority says this does not mean a “single” document because if that is what the legislature meant, it would have said “a separate single document.” 301 Or at 97. Until now I had always believed that “a” piece of pie meant one piece of pie. Apparently the majority believes that is so only if it is described as “a single” piece of pie. Thus, I submit, the two documents can no more meet the requirements of ORCP 70A. for form of “[e]very judgment” than can the document of September 8 by reason of its flaws in other respects required by the rule.
The majority holds that ORCP does not require a final judgment to be in a single document. That holding is simply inaccurate unless the term “[e] very judgment” does not include a “final judgment.”21 can find absolutely nothing in the rules that would exclude a final judgment from the all-inclusive words used in ORCP 70A.
Aside from the matter of form, to which ORCP 70A. speaks, however, I believe that in a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, or both thereof, ORCP 67 requires *100a result different than that reached by the majority. I now turn to that rule.
ORCP 67A. contains definitions. The first clause of the first sentence provides:
“ ‘Judgment’ as used in these rules is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action;” (Emphasis added.)
At first blush, it would appear to me that the separate document required by ORCP 70A. would have to determine all of the rights of all of the parties to an action. After all, the definition does not speak to “some” of the rights or to “some” of the parties. I conclude, however, that my first impression cannot be correct because ORCP 67B. clearly contemplates that there may be more than one judgment in an action if the action involves multiple parties or multiple claims, or both thereof. (I shall reach ORCP 67B. shortly.) It follows that the clause defines judgment to be the final determination of one or more rights of one or more parties.
The second clause of the first sentence provides:
“judgment includes a decree and a final judgment entered pursuant to section B. or G. of this rule.”
The clause tells us that judgment includes a decree. The comment by the Council on Court Procedures tells us that “the reference to decree is probably unnecessary but is included here for clarity” because ORCP 1 and 2 provide for but one form of civil action, whether it would have been before the adoption of the rules either an action at law or a suit in equity.
Why the clause then states that judgment includes a final judgment entered pursuant to section B. or G. of the rule is not mentioned in the comment by the Council. I believe that with respect to section B. it was perhaps because the Council was charged with revising procedure without making changes in substantive law and out of an excess of caution repeated the language of former ORS 18.010.3 Section G. of the rule is set *101forth in the margin.4 The text of the clause is puzzling as to section B., but perhaps that is a result of the conclusion that I draw that ORCP 67B. concerns two kinds of final judgments, as I shall shortly discuss.
The second sentence of ORCP 67A. obviously comes from former ORS 18.010(2). See footnote 3, supra. It would seem to implicate both ORCP 67B. and 14A.5
I now come to ORCP 67B., which provides:
“When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
The section contemplates two kinds of final judgments. One is called “final judgment”; the other is not. The rule allows the entry of a “final judgment” as to fewer than all parties or all claims only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and “upon express direction for the entry *102of judgment.”6 The section describes another judgment without calling it final. That is the judgment “adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Although that judgment is not called final by the rule, it must be deemed final in the ordinary sense of that word, for it ends the litigation in the trial court except for post-judgment practice.
In the instant case, the record is bare of any express direction of entry of the June 25 document and is likewise bare of an express determination that there was no just reason for delay. As the majority acknowledges, that document cannot be a “final judgment” as that term is used in the text of ORCP 67B. That document, despite its designation as a judgment, did not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, even as to Stevens and Kugel; rather, it merely had the effect of an order. May v. Josephine Memorial Hospital, 297 Or 525, 686 P2d 1015 (1984).
Nor did that document qualify as the other type of final judgment contemplated by ORCP 67B., which adjudicates “all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” (Emphasis added.) As the majority acknowledges, the document of September 8 did not do that because it fails, standing alone, to mention either Stevens or Kugel in the caption or the body of the document and therefore does not follow the command of ORCP 70A. to “specify clearly the party or parties in whose favor it is given and against whom it is given.”
The meagre legislative history that led to the adoption of former ORS 18.125 makes it clear that the drafter wanted to allow for appeals of some judgments prior to final determination of all claims and all parties. According to the legislative testimony quoted by the majority, that was the aim of the Bar’s Procedure and Practice Committee. Although the majority states that the Council on Court Procedures must have had the same reasons for adopting ORCP 67B., unaccountably the majority goes on to hold that the drafters must have intended to adopt for Oregon a procedure that may work *103in federal practice but presents problems in our law because of ORS 19.033. See majority footnote 7.
I do not assert that every case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, or both thereof, ends with but a single document denominated judgment. As I have pointed out, there may be several “final judgments” in a case if those that dispose of fewer than all claims and all parties have the necessary express determinations and directions described, in ORCP 67B. If there is not at least one document that meets the test of a “final judgment” on its own, however, there must under the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure be a judgment of the second type “adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” ORCP 67B. Moreover, that judgment must be labeled as a judgment “and set forth in a separate document.” (Emphasis added.) ORCP 70A.
There was no “final judgment” in the case at bar for Stevens and Kugel by the document of June 25th; there was no separate document adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties ever entered in this case. In short, there was neither the first kind of final judgment permitted by ORCP 67B. nor the second kind.7
Carson, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

This may not be a true dissent. The majority’s decision makes it unnecessary for the majority to consider defendant’s affirmative defenses. Had I been able to convince the court of my position here, the affirmative defenses would have to be addressed. I shall not address them, but it is possible that if they have merit, this separate opinion would be an opinion concurring in the result.

Two or more documents collectively may be “separate” in the sense of covering “distinct” matters “dissimilar in nature or identity” from those addressed by all other documents in the case. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2069 (1971). They may thereby satisfy the concern that the matters required to be addressed in a judgment be stated separately rather than intermingled with other matters in orders, memoranda and opinions. However, if no single document sets forth all the matters required to constitute a judgment, there exists no “separate document,” ORCP 70A., which “existing by itself, * * * independently],” Webster’s, supra, at 2069, satisfies the equally-important concern that there be an identifiable document upon which parties can rely as a “final determination” of a clearly-defined portion of the case. See ORCP 67A.

ORS 18.010 was repealed with the adoption of ORCP 67 but formerly provided:
“(1) A final judgment shall include both the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding as well as a final judgment entered *101pursuant to ORS 18.125.
“(2) Other determinations in an action that are intermediate in nature are called orders.”
Former ORS 18.125(1) became present ORCP 67B.

ORCP 67G. provides:
“The court may direct entry of a final judgment as to that portion of any claim which exceeds a counterclaim asserted by the party or parties against whom the judgment is entered, if such party or parties have admitted the claim and asserted a counterclaim amounting to less than the claim.”
I see nothing pertinent to this discussion involving section G. and shall not address it further.

ORCP 14A. provides in pertinent part:
“An application for an order is a motion. * * *”

Why the drafter dropped the adjective “final” at this point is something I cannot explain.

It has been suggested that a party against whom a judgment by default has been taken has suffered final judgment. This is explicitly not so. ORCP 69C. provides in pertinent part:
“In all cases a judgment by default is subject to the provisions of Rule 67B.”
No plaintiff, third party plaintiff, cross-claimant or counterclaimant should lose sight of the fact that unless there is the express determination and direction described in ORCP 67B., there is no final judgment just because it is taken after an order of default.