From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curry v. Skipanon Investments Oregon Ltd.

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 18, 1987
732 P.2d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

CC 83-490; CA A38021

Argued and submitted December 12, 1986.

Affirmed February 18, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Clatsop County, Thomas E. Edison, Judge.

Michael J. Gentry, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was Tooze Marshall Shenker Holloway Duden, Portland.

Jeffrey R. Spere, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief was Sussman, Shank, Wapnick, Caplan Stiles, Portland.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Deits, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Plaintiff contends that his interest as the purchaser of submerged real property at a trust deed foreclosure sale gives him effective title to certain docks which are located on the property and in which defendants Jarvis hold a UCC security interest which predates the execution of the trust deed. The only issue is whether the docks are fixtures, in which event plaintiff prevails, or personal property, in which event defendants win. The case was tried to the court on stipulated facts. Defendants appeal from the judgment for plaintiff. We agree with the trial court that the docks are part of the real property under the tests articulated in Marsh v. Boring Furs, Inc., 275 Or. 579, 551 P.2d 1053 (1976), and cases there cited.

The other defendants are not parties to the appeal, and the word "defendants" in the opinion refers to the Jarvises.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Curry v. Skipanon Investments Oregon Ltd.

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 18, 1987
732 P.2d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Curry v. Skipanon Investments Oregon Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:CURRY, Respondent, v. SKIPANON INVESTMENTS OREGON LTD. et al, Defendants…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 18, 1987

Citations

732 P.2d 959 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
732 P.2d 959

Citing Cases

Unigard Ins. Co. v. Metro Metals Nw., Inc.

In other words, the court found that the pier was real property, which means that the dock at issue here is…

Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Metro Metals Nw., Inc.

In other words, the court found that the pier was real property, which means that the dock at issue here is…