Sugiyama v. Arnold

“Discussion off the record of matters as to which issues on appeal could raise is ill-advised, either because no official record is made of the matters or because whatever record that is made often is summary in nature.” State v. Williams, 322 Or 620, 624 (1996).

Plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her negligence claims against Defendant with prejudice. Plaintiff raises two assignments of error. The first being that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte, and the second that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a small discovery sanction on the defendant. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that she preserved her claims of error by filing written objections to the proposed sua sponte and the small discovery sanction judgments on February 7. “Discussion off the record of matters as to which issues on appeal could raise is ill-advised, either because no official record is made of the matters or because whatever record that is made often is summary in nature.” State v. Williams, 322 Or 620, 624 (1996). The Appellate Court held that Plaintiff’s objections to the proposed judgments were more akin to a motion to reconsider and therefore her objection to the proposed judgment did not preserve her claims. The Court also held that since there is no record that the trial court had granted summary judgment sua sponte, under Williams, they refused to hold that a court erred on something that there is no record of doing. Affirmed.