Townsend v. Townsend

“An attorney remains an attorney for the adverse party for purposes of service of the notice of appeal, unless, prior to the service of the notice of appeal, written notice under ORS 9.390 that the attorney has withdrawn is received by the party serving the notice of appeal.”

In a general judgment of dissolution, the Court included this clause: “the withdrawal of [husband’s attorney] and [wife’s attorney] is allowed effective the date on which this judgment becomes finally effective to terminate the attorney-client relationship.” The wife timely served the husband’s trial attorney with a notice of appeal. In a motion to dismiss, husband contends that wife’s appeal has no jurisdiction because he was not properly served per ORCP 9B; due to this withdrawal clause, he argues wife should have served him personally with a notice of appeal, not his trial lawyer, since representation had ceased. The Appellate Commissioner granted husband’s motion. Wife petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that service to husband’s trial attorney was proper because she never received a notice of withdrawal. “An attorney remains an attorney for the adverse party for purposes of service of the notice of appeal, unless, prior to the service of the notice of appeal, written notice  under ORS 9.390 that the attorney has withdrawn is received by the party serving the notice of appeal.” The Court reasoned that without written notice of withdrawal, the wife was required to serve the husband’s attorney because he was still presumed to have legal representation. The Court found that the judgment withdrawal clause did not satisfy the ORCP 9.390 written notice requirements because it was ambiguous. Therefore, the Court allowed reconsideration, vacated the order of dismissal, and reinstated the wife’s appeal.