Court Opinion

ID: 9576614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:26:20.76317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:55.307730
License: Public Domain

WARREN, P. J.,
dissenting.
Defendants did not object to the imposition of damages at trial, and we should not consider their argument on appeal. Accordingly, I dissent.
ORAP 5.45(2) provides:
*95“No matter assigned as error will be considered on appeal unless it was preserved in the lower court and assigned as error in the party’s opening brief; provided that the appellate court may consider errors of law apparent on the face of the record.”
The interests of justice are not served by allowing parties to prolong litigation by appealing based on errors that, if raised below, could have been corrected.1 This case is a perfect example of the type of error that easily could have been resolved if it had been brought to the court’s attention.
The error did not prejudice defendants or result in an injustice that we should review in the absence of an objection. Before they answered, defendants were made aware by the trial judge that a finding of bad faith would result in a “penalty.” They were not prejudiced by lack of notice.
The majority cites two criminal cases for the proposition that we may review, without preservation, a money judgment when the trial court lacked authority to enter it: State v. Montgomery, 106 Or App 150, 806 P2d 183 (1991); State v. Braughton, 28 Or App 891, 561 P2d 1040 (1977). The errors in those cases were qualitatively different from the one here. The courts in Montgomery and Braughton had no authority to enter the particular judgments. For example, in Montgomery, the court ordered the defendant to sell his car to pay costs, attorney fees and restitution. We reached the unpreserved error, because the court had no statutory authority to make such an order. Here, however, defendants do not dispute, that ORS 90.900(3) gives a court in a FED action authority to impose damages on tenants who wilfully holdover. The court found a wilful holdover and there was evidence to support that finding. The only error was in failing to make sure all the pleading requirements for the order were satisfied. The error in this case is not the kind that we should review when it has not been preserved.
I dissent.

 The majority implies that we ought to be more lenient, because defendants were not represented below. That is not correct. The same rules apply whether or not aperson is represented by counsel. See Linebaugh v. Helvig, 47 Or App 679, 682, 615 P2d 366 (1980).