West Hills Development Co. v. Doughman

In deciding whether there is authority to make an agreement, “those dealing with the governmental body must know the extent of their authority.” Harsh Investment Corp. v. State Housing Division, 88 Or App 151, 744 P2d 588 (1987), rev den, 305 Or 273 (1988). The county code and WCRO 2010-098 expressly provided that, “credit eligibility determinations shall be determined by the Director.” WCC 3.17.070 (TDT); WCRO 2010-098, Attachment A, A, § 070 (NBTSDC).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s judgment that upheld Defendant’s decision to not grant Plaintiff credits for the total costs of roadway improvements. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s determination that Defendant was not allowed to grant credits for the total costs of roadway improvements and that county staff had no authority to make a binding, enforceable agreement. On appeal, Plaintiff argued Defendant misinterpreted the county code by determining Defendant could not allow greater credits to Plaintiff than was stated under the code. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the county staff had either actual or apparent authority when it made an oral agreement to reimburse Plaintiff for the total costs of roadway improvements. In response, Defendant argued that it did not state it was not allowed to grant greater credits, rather Defendant stated it had discretion as to whether it would grant greater credits, but there was no “affirmative duty” to do so. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff provided no evidence that the Director provided county staff with any authority to make a binding agreement. In deciding whether there is authority to make an agreement, “those dealing with the governmental body must know the extent of their authority.” Harsh Investment Corp. v. State Housing Division, 88 Or App 151, 744 P2d 588 (1987), rev den, 305 Or 273 (1988). The county code and WCRO 2010-098 expressly provided that, “credit eligibility determinations shall be determined by the Director.” WCC 3.17.070 (TDT); WCRO 2010-098, Attachment A, A, § 070 (NBTSDC). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in upholding Defendant’s decision because Plaintiff provided no evidence that it “had no reason” to know that the county staff lacked authority when the county code expressly stated determinations of credits was to be determined by the Director.