Opinion
A165453
07-13-2022
HOPVILLE FARMS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRINITY WILLAMETTE GROWERS, INC. et al., Defendants, and William D. SABOL, individually, Defendant-Appellant.
Elena M. Farley fled the brief for appellants. Michael H. McGean, Martin E. Hansen, and Francis Hansen & Martin LLP fled the brief for respondent.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted May 6, 2022
Polk County Circuit Court 14CV09348; A165453 Daniel Leon Harris, Senior Judge.
Elena M. Farley fled the brief for appellants.
Michael H. McGean, Martin E. Hansen, and Francis Hansen & Martin LLP fled the brief for respondent.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.
SHORR, P. J.
Defendants Trinity Willamette Growers, Inc., Arbor Grove Nursery, Inc., and William Sabol filed an appeal from a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiff Hopville Farms, LLC. That supplemental judgment, however, awards fees and costs solely against defendant Trinity Willamette Growers. After the appeal was filed and the parties filed opening and answering briefs, defendants' attorney withdrew. As a result, the two corporate defendants were dismissed from the appeal, but individual defendant William Sabol was permitted to proceed pro se or with an attorney. See ORS 9.320 (stating that an action may be prosecuted or defended either in person or by attorney, but that a party that is "not a natural person appears by attorney in all cases"). Sabol, however, is not a judgment debtor or person who is otherwise affected as a party to the supplemental judgment that was appealed. As discussed below, we conclude that there is no justiciable controversy between Sabol and Hopville Farms. As a result, we dismiss the appeal.
This appeal was held in abeyance for several years after one of the parties filed for bankruptcy. The appeal was later reactivated after the bankruptcy case was closed.
Indeed, Sabol was not only not adversely affected by the supplemental judgment, he also was not adversely affected by the general judgment. As with the supplemental judgment, Hopville Farms also prevailed in obtaining an award against just Trinity Willamette Growers in the general judgment.
"For a controversy to be justiciable: (1) 'the interests of the parties to the action are adverse' and (2) 'the court's decision in the matter will have some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controversy.'" Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 359 Or. 610, 624, 375 P.3d 490 (2016) (quoting Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402, 405, 848 P.2d 1194 (1993)). As to the supplemental judgment on appeal, Sabol cannot meet that test. Sabol is not adverse to plaintiff Hopville Farms with respect to plaintiffs supplemental judgment that is solely against the corporate entity, defendant Trinity Willamette Growers. See Multnomah Co. v. Reed et al, 203 Or. 21, 23, 278 P.2d 135 (1954) (stating that a "would-be appellant must have a substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation and be prejudiced by the decree or judgment which he wishes to attack"). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.