From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dolson Leasing Co. v. McKee

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 22, 1992
829 P.2d 720 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

A8507-04601; CA A70014

Argued and submitted March 30, 1992

Reversed and remanded with instructions April 22, 1992

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Lee Johnson, Judge.

Robert M. Johnstone, McMinnville, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were George J. Zarzana, James Eduard White and Johnstone Zagar, McMinnville.

Dennis M. Paterson, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Davis Wright Tremaine, Portland.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Durham, Judge.


RICHARDSON, P.J.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate order allowing redemption and to issue order directing issuance of sheriff's deed to appellants.


Appellants, successors in interest to a judgment creditor, appeal from the trial court's order allowing respondents, the debtors' successors, to redeem real property on which appellants had foreclosed and which they had purchased at the subsequent sheriff's sale. Appellants also contend that the court erred by denying their motion for an order directing issuance of a sheriff's deed to the property.

The parties agree that the 180-day period for the exercise of respondents' redemption rights under ORS 23.560(1) expired on April 8, 1991, and that respondents did not initiate the redemption process until at least one day after that. Respondents contend, however, that the delayed redemption was valid, because the sheriff's notice, given them pursuant to ORS 23.515, recited "YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO BUY BACK YOUR PROPERTY ON April 19, 1991." The capitalized language and a blank are part of the form of notice prescribed by ORS 23.515(2). The date was filled in by the sheriff.

Respondents argue:

"It is true that April 7, 1991, was 180 days from the date of the sheriff's sale and that because April 7 was a Sunday, April 8, 1991, would be the date redemption would expire under ORS 23.560(1). Nevertheless, as stated in ORS 174.020, '. . . When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former.' The April 1[9]th date provided by ORS 23.515 is much more specific than the general 180 day requirement provided under ORS 23.560(1). Therefore, [respondents'] redemption rights were o expire on April 19, 1991, not April 8, 1991." (Emphasis respondents'.)

The principal and decisive problem with the argument is that there is no inconsistency between the statutes. ORS 23.515 is a notice provision, and it does not alter the redemption period or the redemption rights delineated in other statutes. The "inconsistency" is between the information inserted in the notice by the sheriff and the information that both statutes required it to contain. The notice form set out in ORS 23.515(2) — and the notice that respondents were in fact given — states, in part:

"The law that gives you the right to buy back your property is found in Oregon Revised Statutes 23.520 to 23.600. You must follow exactly the instructions provided there."

It is settled law that neither a court nor a sheriff has authority to extend the statutory period for exercising redemption rights or, generally, to alter the requirements of the redemption statutes in other ways. Stamate v. Peterson, 250 Or. 532, 444 P.2d 30 (1968); Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Glenn, 100 Or. App. 262, 265, n 3, 785 P.2d 1069, rev den 310 Or. 121 (1990); see also Director of Veterans' Affairs v. Petersen, 308 Or. 632, 784 P.2d 1076 (1989). Respondents had no right to rely on the erroneous date in the notice.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate order allowing redemption and to issue order directing issuance of sheriff's deed to appellants.


Summaries of

Dolson Leasing Co. v. McKee

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 22, 1992
829 P.2d 720 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Dolson Leasing Co. v. McKee

Case Details

Full title:DOLSON LEASING COMPANY, through its successors in interest Jerry D. Hamlik…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 22, 1992

Citations

829 P.2d 720 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
829 P.2d 720