Opinion
050302553; A135701.
12-30-2015
GREENWOOD PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; and Jewett–Cameron Lumber Corp., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiffs–Respondents Cross–Appellants, v. GREENWOOD FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; Jim Dovenberg, an individual; and Bill Lefors, an individual, Defendants–Appellants Cross–Respondents.
Maureen Leonard and Ron D. Ferguson filed the briefs for appellants-cross-respondents. Robert D. Newell, Kevin H. Kono, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed the answering-cross-opening brief for respondents-cross-appellants. With them on the supplemental brief was Timothy R. Volpert.
Maureen Leonard and Ron D. Ferguson filed the briefs for appellants-cross-respondents.
Robert D. Newell, Kevin H. Kono, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed the answering-cross-opening brief for respondents-cross-appellants. With them on the supplemental brief was Timothy R. Volpert.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This case is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court for the second time. Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products, 238 Or.App. 468, 242 P.3d 723 (2010) (Greenwood I ), rev'd in part and rem'd, 351 Or. 604, 273 P.3d 116 (2012) (Greenwood II ), on remand, 264 Or.App. 1, 330 P.3d 662 (2014) (Greenwood III ), rev'd and rem'd, 357 Or. 665, 359 P.3d 219 (2015) (Greenwood IV ). A recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public.
Suffice it to say, defendants (Forest Products) raised seven assignments of error on appeal, and plaintiffs (Greenwood) raised a single assignment of error on cross-appeal. The Supreme Court rejected Forest Products' first through fourth and sixth assignments of error in Greenwood II and Greenwood IV. In Greenwood I, with regard to Forest Products' seventh and final assignment of error, we concluded that Forest Products—who was awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party on its counterclaim for nonpayment of the promissory notes—was also entitled to recover expert expenses, and we remanded for the trial court to award reasonable expert expenses to Forest Products. 238 Or.App. at 482–85, 242 P.3d 723. We also rejected Greenwood's cross-appeal on preservation grounds. Id. at 485–86, 242 P.3d 723. Because Greenwood did not challenge those two determinations in the Supreme Court, see Greenwood II, 351 Or. at 615 n. 8, 273 P.3d 116; Greenwood IV, 357 Or. at 676–78, 359 P.3d 219, we adhere to our reasoning in Greenwood I concerning those determinations and readopt it here. As instructed by the Supreme Court in Greenwood IV, we have now considered Forest Products' fifth assignment of error concerning purported instructional error and the part of Forest Products' seventh assignment of error concerning the award of attorney fees to Greenwood, and we reject them without written discussion.
On appeal, (1) general judgment affirmed; (2) plaintiffs' attorney fee award in supplemental judgment on breach of contract claim affirmed; (3) defendants' attorney fee award in supplemental judgment on counterclaim for nonpayment of promissory notes remanded for the court to award reasonable expert expenses to defendants. On cross-appeal, affirmed.