Barnes & Brennan

Under State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102 (2018), “when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or * * * will not later seek a reversal in the basis of that ruling” the party cannot then complain based on that invited error.

Brennan appealed the award of attorney’s fees to Barnes after the dissolution of their non-marital domestic partnership. On appeal, Brennan argued, inter alia, that the trial court lacked the authority to award attorney’s fees, contending that ORS 107.105, which the court cited in their supplemental judgment, applied only to marital dissolutions. In response, Barnes argued that the fee was authorized for the child custody portion of the case, even if the court cited the wrong statute. Under State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102 (2018), “when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or * * * will not later seek a reversal in the basis of that ruling” the party cannot then complain based on that invited error. The Court found that Brennan repeatedly argued that the trial court had the authority to award attorney’s fees, even citing “ORS 107.105 in several filings.” Whether the court had authority or not, Brennan cannot “be heard to claim for the first time on appeal that the trial court lacked any authority to award fees.” Affirmed.