Summary
concluding that Abercrombie resolved the historical uncertainty as to whether the type of evidence described in ORS 42.220 should be admitted to aid the court in determining if an ambiguity exists
Summary of this case from Anderson v. DivitoOpinion
CC90-92; CA A81541
On appellant's motion for reconsideration filed September 21, 1995 reconsideration granted; opinion ( 136 Or. App. 239, 902 P.2d 110)
Modified and adhered to as modified October 18, 1995. Petition for review denied January 23, 1996 ( 322 Or. 489)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wasco County, John V. Kelly, Judge.
Thomas H. Tongue, G. Kenneth Shiroishi, and Dunn, Carney, Allen, Higgins Tongue, for motion.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.
DEITS, P.J.
Reconsideration granted; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
Defendant moves for reconsideration of our opinion. 136 Or. App. 239, 902 P.2d 110 (1995). Among its arguments is that our statement that "[d]efendant does not assert that the deed is not an integrated writing," id. at 245 n 4, is factually inaccurate. The statement does not precisely capture our intended meaning. We correct it to read: "Defendant makes no argument that the deed is not an integrated writing, except an implicit argument that depends for its success on the correctness of other arguments that defendant makes."
We have considered and reject the other contentions in the motion.
Reconsideration granted; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.