Payne v. Kersten

The granting of summary judgment based on issue preclusion happens only when, “it can be conclusively determined from the record that all of the requirements for issue preclusion are satisfied.” See Johnson & Lechman-Su, P.C., 272 Or App at 246.

Plaintiff appealed from the trial courts determination that Plaintiff had no authority to pursue claims on behalf of the Payne Living Trust and that Defendant was entitled to judgment as matter of law because Plaintiff had no “genuine issue of material fact” in respect to damages. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant based on issue preclusion and trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of the Trust. On appeal, Plaintiff argued his individual malpractice claims against Defendant were separate from claims brought on behalf of the Trust and because of the below standard legal advice from Defendant, Plaintiff was entitled to damages. In response, Defendant argued the trial court did not err because plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence opposing summary judgment and issue preclusion resolved Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. Additionally, Defendant argued that Plaintiff had been removed as Trustee of the Family Trust so could no longer bring claims on its behalf. The granting of summary judgment based on issue preclusion happens only when, “it can be conclusively determined from the record that all of the requirements for issue preclusion are satisfied.” See Johnson & Lechman-Su, P.C., 272 Or App at 246. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in dismissing claims brought on behalf of the trust and its beneficiaries, but the trial court did err in granting summary judgment for the Defendant on the basis of issue preclusion because not all requirements of issue preclusion were met.  

Reversed and remanded as to claims brought in individual capacity; otherwise affirmed.