Court Opinion

ID: 9571190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:42.220413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:15.947859
License: Public Domain

*339BRYSON, J.,
dissenting.
In the case at bar, plaintiff’s attorney had been negotiating with the adjuster for defendants’ insurance company in an effort to settle his client’s claim for injuries sustained while getting out of the defendants’ automobile. No settlement was reached and on December 5, 1969, plaintiff’s complaint was filed, demanding $15,000 general damages and $1,006.65 special damages. On December 11, 1969, the insurance adjuster again contacted the office of plaintiff’s attorney and was granted additional time to make an appearance. The affidavit of associate attorney for plaintiff and the adjuster differ as to what was agreed to between them, but the important fact is that the plaintiff’s counsel did transact business with the adjuster after the filing of the case and some extension of time was granted.
On February 20, 1970, an order of default was entered against defendants and on April 14, 1970, an “application” was filed with the court, seeking the relief demanded in plaintiff’s complaint. On May 20, 1970, the court entered judgment against defendants for $15,000 general damages and $951.65 special damages, the total judgment being slightly less than the full amount demanded in plaintiff’s complaint. The record does not disclose that notice of the order of default, or of the April 14, 1970, “application” for relief, or of the hearing of May 20, 1970, for default judgment was sent to defendants or their insurance company or its adjuster.
On June 2, 1970, defendants filed their motion to set aside the default judgment and tendered an answer setting forth a meritorious defense. The motion was denied.
*340In Ind. Leasing v. Roberts Myrtlewood, 237 Or 376, 378, 391 P2d 744 (1964), this court stated:
“Counsel should apply for ex parte defaults only after scrupulous attention has been given to the relevant statutes, the rules of the court, and the rights of the adverse party. In the case at bar, we assume that the procedure followed by plaintiff’s counsel was inadvertent. In any event, the trial court should have set aside the default when it appeared that unresolved questions of fact remained in the case. [Citations omitted.]”
Snyder v. Consolidated Highway Co., 157 Or 479, 72 P2d 932 (1937), is considered a leading case on the trial court’s discretion in setting aside an order and judgment by default on statutory grounds provided in OPS 18.160. In Snyder, at pages 484-85, this court reversed the trial court’s order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment and held:
“As a general rule the court looks with more favor upon the application for relief of a defendant in default than upon a similar application by a defaulted plaintiff: Capalija v. Kulish, 101 Or. 666 (201 P. 545); McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 136 Or. 168 (298 P. 239).
“Section 1-907, Oregon Code 1930 [now OES 18.160], provides:
“ ‘The court may likewise, in its discretion, and upon such terms as may be just, allow an answer or reply to be made, or other act to be done after the time limited by this code, or by an order enlarge such time; and may also, in its discretion, and upon such terms as may be just, at any time within one year after notice thereof, relieve a party from a judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.’
“In several decisions this court has construed this statute liberally to the end that every litigant shall have his day in court and his rights and *341duties determined only after a trial upon the merits of the controversy. In the case of McFarlane v. McFarlane, supra, where the lower court denied the motion to set aside the default decree, this court reversed the case, and, speaking by Mr. Justice Wolverton, at page 363, said:
“ ‘Ordinarily, if he presents reasonable grounds excusing his default, the courts are liberal in granting relief, for the policy of the law is to afford a trial upon the merits when it can be done without doing violence to the statute and established rules of practice that have grown up promotive of the regular disposition of litigation.’
“The same learned justice construed section 1-907, Oregon Code 1930, in Thompson v. Connell, supra, at page 235, where we find recorded the following language:
“ ‘True, the grant of such relief rests within the discretion of the court, but the discretion here spoken of is an “impartial discretion, guided and controlled in its exercise by fixed legal principles “a legal discretion to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law, and in a manner to sub-serve and not to defeat the ends of substantial justice,” and for a manifest abuse thereof it is reviewable by an appellate jurisdiction.’ See also Fildew v. Milner, supra.
“In McCoy v. Huntley, supra, Mr. Chief Justice Moore, as shown on page 236, said:
“ ‘The authority conferred by statute upon a court to vacate a judgment or a decree ~ * * is not an arbitrary power, to be employed at pleasure in granting or denying the summary relief invoked, but is a legal discrimination, to be exercised in furtherance of justice, and in accordance with the rules of modern jurisprudence.’ ”
Again, in King v. Mitchell, 188 Or 434, 214 P2d 993 (1950), citing Snyder with approval, this court reversed the trial court’s order denying the *342motion to set aside the judgment and stated, at page 442:
“The statute [ORS 18.160] is to be construed liberally to the end that every litigant shall have his day in court and his rights and duties determined only after a trial upon the merits of the controversy. Marsters v. Ashton, 165 Or. 507, 516, 107 P. (2d) 981; Snyder v. Consolidated Highway Company, supra, 157 Or. 484; Peter v. Dietrich, 145 Or. 589, 594, 595, 27 P (2d) 1015; Hanthorn v. Oliver, 32 Or. 57, 62, 51 P. 440, 67 Am. St. Rep. 518.”
The trial court was not wrong in being impressed by the insurance adjuster’s lack of attention to the litigation pending in his court. However, once an attorney grants an extension of time in which to make an appearance, without an order of the court approving such extension, to an opposing attorney or to a party in propria persona or even to an agent of a defendant in a pending action, notice of intention to apply to the court for a judgment by default should be given to the defendant against whom the judgment is to be taken.
In the present case, judgment by default was taken on May 20, 1970. On June 2, 1970, defendants filed their motion to set aside the default judgment and filed a meritorious answer. The record does not disclose that witnesses were missing or that the plaintiff would be prejudiced by a trial on the merits. From a review of the affidavits and the answer filed by defendants, a fair conclusion requires that the default judgment be set aside and the defendants be allowed their day in court to try the case before a jury.
For these reasons I dissent.
O’Connell, C. J., and McAllister, J., join in this dissent.