Court Opinion

ID: 9547847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:53:09.868882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:09.442321
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority reverses the trial judge because it finds that he did not make findings of fact. I would hold that the judge did make general findings and that that was sufficient.
The trial judge stated in pertinent part:
“THE COURT: * * * I do not find that the proof that was offered establishes that [defendant], by anything that he did, intended to cause the demise of Z & M, Inc. * * *
*565“I find that there has been a failure of proof of the underlying intent that’s necessary to sustain this cause of action.
“I further find that there is an absence of proof with any specificity upon which the Court could, if I found deliberate interference with the intent to destroy the corporation, how the plaintiff has been damaged in this action.
So on that cause of action I will allow the motion for directed verdict.
<<* * * * *
“THE COURT: * * * [B]ased on the facts that you presented I conclude that you have not proved your cause of action.
“THE COURT: Factually you have not proved a cause of action.
* * * *
“THE COURT: I have found that you have not established the facts necessary to prove a cause of action. I don’t know how to say it differently.”
Castro and Castro, 51 Or App 707, 626 P2d 950 (1981), does not compel a different result. Castro is sui generis. It involved a child custody dispute. On de novo review, we found that the child was a third party to an adversary contest between his parents and that, because the child’s interests was the controlling principle, the fairest course was for the trial judge to hear both sides before making a decision. We concluded that we could not exercise meaningful de novo review because of an incomplete record.
This is a civil action. We do not review de novo. Our review is limited to a determination of whether the judgment is supported by any evidence. We review whatever record the parties made below. Plaintiff did not make a pretrial request for special findings. She should not now be heard to complain that the trial judge did not make more extensive findings.
I dissent.
Warden, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.