City of Troutdale v. Palace Construction Corporation

When the nonmoving party for summary judgment fails to challenge all the grounds for summary judgment made by the moving party on appeal, the court must affirm summary judgment. State v. Stoudamire, 198 Or App 399, 403, 108 P3d 615 (2005); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236, 94 P3d 885 (2004).

The City of Troutdale ("the City") appealed the trial court’s summary judgment for Palace Construction Corporation. The City assigned error to the trial court’s decision to award summary judgment to Palace Construction Corporation and for denying summary judgment to the City. The City argued that it correctly challenged the motion for summary judgment because it challenged the trial court’s ruling based on interpretation of the bond contract and that the City did not need to address the second reason for summary judgment because the trial court never ruled on it. When the nonmoving party for summary judgment fails to challenge all the grounds for summary judgment made by the moving party on appeal, the court must affirm summary judgment. State v. Stoudamire, 198 Or App 399, 403, 108 P3d 615 (2005); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236, 94 P3d 885 (2004). The Court affirmed the summary judgment because it found that the trial court did rule on the second motion for summary judgment, although it said it did not have to rule on it, the trial court did. Since there were multiple bases for summary judgment and the City only challenged some of those bases, the Court affirmed.