From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barbour v. Peck

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 11, 1980
606 P.2d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)

Summary

In Barbour v. Peck, 44 Or. App. 363, 606 P.2d 628 (1980), we assessed 10 percent damages against the appealing plaintiffs, although the only monetary recovery in the judgment for defendants was for their costs.

Summary of this case from Cooper v. Maresh

Opinion

No. 184-416, CA 15771

Argued and submitted January 23, 1980

Affirmed February 11, 1980

Appeal from District Court, Multnomah County.

William C. Beers, Judge.

Paul Robeck, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. On the brief was Gary M. Bullock, Portland.

Katherine H. O'Neil, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Ancer L. Haggerty, Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., and Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson Schwabe, Portland.

Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and Richardson, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


This is an appeal from a judgment in a property damage action after a trial to the court. One assignment of error is raised without any attempt to comply with Rule 25.10, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules of Appellate Procedure, and will not be considered. Further, we are asked to reverse a judgment because of insufficiency of the evidence, but plaintiffs failed to raise that matter at trial. Baldwin v. Miller, 44 Or. App. 371, 606 P.2d 629 (1980); see also, Travelers Indemn. v. American Ins., 278 Or. 193, 199, 563 P.2d 684 (1977). Also, we are asked to pass on the credibility of witnesses, and that is not our function in an appeal from a law judgment. Ryland v. Ryland, 214 Or. 548, 551, 330 P.2d 175 (1958).

The only issue properly before us is raised by defendants' request that we apply ORS 19.160 and assess a 10 percent penalty against plaintiffs. We agree that this appeal is wholly frivolous and was taken without probable cause. See Wesley v. Woods, 42 Or. App. 85, 600 P.2d 421, rev den 288 Or. 1 (1979). Under the statute we, unfortunately, are limited to giving defendants a judgment based only on the judgment for costs in the trial court, which was $70.90.

ORS 19.160:

"Whenever a judgment or decree is affirmed on appeal, and it is for recovery of money, or personal property or the value thereof, the judgment or decree shall be given for 10 percent of the amount thereof, for damages for the delay, unless it appears evident to the appellate court that there was probable cause for taking the appeal."

An additional judgment will be entered for $7.09 in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Barbour v. Peck

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 11, 1980
606 P.2d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)

In Barbour v. Peck, 44 Or. App. 363, 606 P.2d 628 (1980), we assessed 10 percent damages against the appealing plaintiffs, although the only monetary recovery in the judgment for defendants was for their costs.

Summary of this case from Cooper v. Maresh
Case details for

Barbour v. Peck

Case Details

Full title:BARBOUR, et ux, Appellants, v. PECK, et al, Respondents

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 11, 1980

Citations

606 P.2d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)
606 P.2d 628

Citing Cases

Cooper v. Maresh

The only monetary awards in the judgment are for costs, attorney fees and sanctions under ORCP 17. Although…

Brown v. Travelodge

We decline to review the merits of the assignments of error. See Castor v. Erlandson, 277 Or. 147, 560 P.2d…