Marshall v. Cannady

In order “to preserve an argument for appeal, ‘[a] party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.’” Justice and Crum, 265 Or App 635 (2014).

Defendants appealed judgment granting Plaintiffs prescriptive and implied easements over their properties. Defendants assigned error to the trial court’s interpretation of the Cheney factors when it granted easement by implication. On appeal, Defendants argued that the trial court erroneously gave weight “to the fact that it had found a prescriptive easement existed” when it granted the easements, that the evidence was legally insufficient, and that the court failed to make “specific findings of fact and conclusions of law” when it came to the Cheney factors. In response, Plaintiffs argued that the court correctly ruled when it found the prescriptive and implied easements in their favor and that Defendants did not “preserve their argument for appeal.” In order “to preserve an argument for appeal, ‘[a] party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.’” Justice and Crum, 265 Or App 635 (2014). The Court of Appeals held that Defendants did not preserve an argument for appeal because they never argued that the evidence supported a finding in their favor nor did they challenge “the trial court’s finding that the easement by implication conveyed reciprocal benefits to the conveyor and the conveyee.” Affirmed.