Woodroffe v. State of Oregon

It is improper for a trial court to grant summary judgment on an issue that is not raised in the moving party’s motion. Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or 717, 736, 385 P3d 1074 (2016).

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment, in favor of the state, for legal error. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s conclusion that Plaintiff did not offer admissible evidence that showed a genuine issue of material fact. On appeal, Plaintiff argued the submitted evidence was sufficient to persuade a reasonable juror to determine the State-provided television was not new and therefore the State did not comply with its obligation to provide the Plaintiff with a new television. In response, the State argued the trial court did not err because the Plaintiff signed a “satisfaction of his claim,” which meant he was satisfied with the TV when he received it and thus barring Plaintiff from bringing a claim. It is improper for a trial court to grant summary judgment on an issue that is not raised in the moving party’s motion. Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or 717, 736, 385 P3d 1074 (2016). The Oregon Court of Appeals held that because the State mentioned the satisfaction in its memorandum, but did not move for summary judgment on that ground, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Additionally, the Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to decide whether the State provided Plaintiff with a new or used television and that decision should be left for the factfinder. Dismissal of a claim for enforcement of small claims judgment reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.