U.S. Bank National Association v. Vettrus

Under ORCP 47(c), the moving party “bears the burden of persuasion at trial as well as “the burden of producing evidence to establish that [claim] as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.” Wieck v. Hostetter, 274 Or App 457, 470 (2015).

In foreclosure proceedings, Defendant, Vettrus, appealed and assign error to the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, U.S. Bank. On appeal, Vettrus argued that U.S. Bank had failed to meet its in foreclosure proceedings Vettrus argued that U.S. Bank did not sufficiently show that it provided him with written notice of his default and the acceleration of all amounts due as dictated in the trust deed between the parties. U.S. Bank argued, as matter of law, that it’s agent’s standard declaration and a copy of a noncompliant letter being attached to the its motion for summary judgment satisfied its burden of proof of proof. However, the record did not establish that U.S. Bank had provided Vettrus with the relevant notice requirements prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings. Under ORCP 47 C, on a motion for summary judgment, to determine whether the moving party has met its burden of producing evidence that establishes their claim as a matter of law, a court must view the record “in a manner most favorable to the adverse [(non-moving)] party.” Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408 (1997). The moving party “bears the burden of persuasion at trial as well as “the burden of producing evidence to establish that [claim] as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.” Wieck v. Hostetter, 274 Or App 457, 470 (2015).  The Court of Appeals determined that U.S. Bank did not provide the Vettrus with the necessary notice as required in the trust deed. Thus, U.S. Bank failed to meet the necessary threshold to prevail on its summary judgment motion. Reversed and remanded.