22 Dic Heritage Props., LLC v. Wells Fargo Lender, Letter.A beneficial
Jester , 316 Otherwise
Tara J. Schleicher , Portland, contended the cause to have respondent . Together with with the temporary were Jason Ayres , Eryn Karpinski Hoerster , and you may Promote Garvey Desktop computer.
Plaintiff Lifestyle Features, LLC appeals of an attempt judge buy granting rest from a general judgment that had verified a keen arbitration and money honor. step 1 Plaintiff instituted arbitration proceedings to respond to a property argument which have offender Wells Fargo, Letter.Good. , as trustee of your own MASTR Investment Recognized Ties Believe 2007-NCW Mortgage Violation-Using Certification Collection 2007-NCW. Whenever defendant didn't come in the new arbitration and you may subsequent prima facie hearing, the newest arbitrator inserted a prize during the plaintiff is the reason favor, as well as the demonstration legal affirmed one prize for the a general wisdom. But not, brand new judge later booked the newest judgment pursuant to help you ORCP 71 B (1) (c) and (e) and you will ORCP 71 C toward accused 's actions, concluding that honor is "grossly an excessive amount of" together with result of scam from the plaintiff see page. On interest, plaintiff argues that the legal erred when you look at the putting away the new view, and you will argues the courtroom "lacked legislation to set away the brand new judgment around ORCP 71 C , lacked power to create aside this new wisdom below ORCP 71 B (1) (c) , and you will misapplied ORCP 71 B (1) (e) ." Even as we explain lower than, we end that the trial court did not err within the means aside this new wisdom pursuant to help you ORCP 71 B (1) (c) , and therefore affirm.
WELLS FARGO Lender, N
On summary of an order granting a movement to create away a wisdom , i state the brand new undisputed factors on light really positive to help you brand new moving party , here defendant . Wershow Co. v. McVeety Devices Co. , 263 Or. 97, 103 , five hundred P.2d 696 ( 1972 ) ; discover and Kerridge v.