Agrons v. Strong

The trial court may permit a Plaintiff to amend his complaint under ORCP 23 B if the trial court in its determination decides that the presentation of the merits of the action will not be subserved by the amendment, nor will the admission of such evidence prejudice the adverse party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits.

Brett and Rebecca Strong (Defendants) appealed a general judgment awarding title of an area of land to Bernard Agrons (Plaintiff) by adverse possession. The Strong’s assigned error to the trial court’s ruling which permitted Agrons to amend his complaint, under ORCP 23 B, to include an adverse possession claim after the close of Strong’s evidence at trial. The Court of Appeals reviewed the ruling for an improper exercise of discretion. Under this standard, the Court determines whether the court’s ruling to allow Agron’s motion to amend would subserve the presentation of the merits of the action or substantial prejudice the adverse party in maintaining an action or defense upon the merits. The Court found that neither the merits of the action would be subserved by Plaintiff’s amendment nor would Defendant be substantial prejudiced, as such the trial court did not err in granting Plaintiff’s amendment. Affirmed.