Gibson v. Walsh

“For an issue to be preserved for purposes of appeal, it must have been raised with sufficient clarity in the trial court to put the trial court on notice that it needs to rule on the issue and for the opposing party to have an opportunity to address the issue.” Ploplys v. Bryson, 188 Or App 49, 58, 69 P3d 1257 (2003).

Tenant appealed a judgment where the landlord was granted possession of the rented premises. The trial court held that rental of “RV space” did not require electricity be provided and rejected Tenant’s claim that, when Landlord placed a padlock on the electricity supply, Tenant had a defense under a FED action. Tenant argued that ORS 90.394(3) was not complied with when the 72-hour non-payment notice was issued. “For an issue to be preserved for purposes of appeal, it must have been raised with sufficient clarity in the trial court to put the trial court on notice that it needs to rule on the issue and for the opposing party to have an opportunity to address the issue.” Ploplys v. Bryson, 188 Or App 49, 58, 69 P3d 1257 (2003). The Court held that here, Tenant failed to preserve the contention that ORS 90.394(3) was violated because the issue was only ever touched on. Tenant failed to press the issue with “sufficient clarity,” which would have allowed Landlord to fully respond. Affirmed.