Johnson v. Landwatch Lane County

Absent allegations or findings of fraud, LUBA was bound to enforce and prioritize the finality of the 2012 LLV and LUBA correctly determined that the county's reliance on LC 14.090(8)(a)(iv) was impermissible.

Landwatch contends that LUBA erred by reversing the 2022 LLV revocation, arguing that the revocation was not an "impermissible collateral attack against the 2012 LLV. Instead, Landwatch argues that the revocation was permissible because it was a "direct attack," allowed under LC 14.090(8)(a)(iv), as if it was an "enforcement proceeding." In December 2011 the O'Dea's applied for a legal lot verification (LLV), and submitted several deeds and property description cards that did not match the official deeds on file with Lane County Deeds and Records. The county did not notice the discrepancies. In 2012 the county approved the application and issued the formal LLV. No appeal was made and the LLV became final. In 2022 the county learned of the discrepancies, concluded that the LLV was obtained with false or misleading information, and revoked the 2012 LLV under LC 14.090(8)(a)(iv). The O'Deas appealed the revocation to LUBA arguing that the decision was an impermissible collateral attack. LUBA reversed and found that the county's use of LC 14.090(8)(a)(iv) was improper because the county effectively granted an unlimited period of time to challenge the 2012 LLV, which was a "final decision" and should not have been disturbed under ORS 197.805. A collateral attack “is an attempt to impeach the decree in a proceeding not instituted for the express purpose of annulling, correcting, or modifying the decree” or enjoining its execution. Morrill v. Morrill and Killen, 20 Or 96, 101, 25 P 362 (1890). Collateral attacks are not permitted because the court or other tri-bunal having jurisdiction over parties and subject matter “has a right to decide every question arising in the case, and, however erroneous its decision may be, it is binding on the parties until reversed or annulled.” Id. at 102. The court held that the county initiated a direct attack against the 2012 LLV. The court reasoned that absent allegations or findings of fraud, LUBA was bound to enforce and prioritize the finality of the 2012 LLV and therefore LUBA correctly determined that the county's reliance on LC 14.090(8)(a)(iv) was impermissible. Affirmed.