Wilson v. Mack

“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1). “An unpreserved error is reviewable as plain error when (1) the error is one of law; (2) the legal point is obvious, meaning it is not reasonably in dispute; and (3) to reach the error, we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Nickerson, 272, Or App 155, 156 (2015).

Defendant appealed a judgement transferring the real property to plaintiff and dismissing the case. Defendant assigned error to the trial court, arguing that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement because it violated the statute of frauds. Defendant further argued a plain error review is warranted because the transfer of real property must be in writing and the purposes for preservation were met. Plaintiff responded that the statute of frauds issue was not preserved and thus the judgement does not warrant a plain error review. “No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1). “An unpreserved error is reviewable as plain error when (1) the error is one of law; (2) the legal point is obvious, meaning it is not reasonably in dispute; and (3) to reach the error, we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Nickerson, 272, Or App 155, 156 (2015). The Court reasoned that because the statute of frauds issue was not brought during the Aug. 2022 hearing, the issue was not preserved. The Court further reasoned that because the legal point was in dispute and the record lacked clarity, which would force the court to choose between competing inferences, the error is not plain. Therefore, the trial court did not err in transferring the real property to plaintiff and dismissing the case. Affirmed.