Smith v. Johnson

“Even where a trial court has discretion to reach a certain outcome, it may not rely on a mistaken legal premise to reach that outcome.” Anderson v. Sullivan, 311 Or App 406, 413, 492 P3d 118, rev den, 368 Or 702 (2021).

After receiving a favorable judgment in a residential FED action, Tenant appealed the attorney-fee award. Tenant assigned error to the trial court for “barring fees for the justice court proceeding, setting the interest rate at zero percent, and improperly weighing the statutory factors enumerated in ORS 20.075.” “Even where a trial court has discretion to reach a certain outcome, it may not rely on a mistaken legal premise to reach that outcome.” Anderson v. Sullivan, 311 Or App 406, 413, 492 P3d 118, rev den, 368 Or 702 (2021). Regarding the justice court proceeding fees, the Court reasoned that because attorney fees incurred at judicial proceedings are as recoverable as those at circuit court, the trial court did not have discretion to deny them categorically. Regarding the interest rate, the Court reasoned that because ORS 82.010(2) dictates a nine percent interest rate and the trial court gave no explanation for their decision, the trial court erred in imposing a zero percent interest rate. Regarding the statutory factors, the Court reasoned that the parties could revisit the issue on remand. The Court held that the trial court erred in determining the fee amount and in imposing a zero percent interest rate. VACATED AND REMANDED.