Assoc. Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condo v. Warren

A motion for reconsideration of a summary judgement does not constitute a motion for a new trial within the meaning of ORS 19.255(2) and ORCP 64.

In front of the Washington County Circuit Court, defendant ("Warren") moved for summary judgment, which was granted. Plaintiff ("Timbercrest") then filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling. Prior to the trial court issuing its decision on this motion, the court entered judgment and Timbercrest filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, the trial court denied Timbercrest's motion for reconsideration, but Timbercrest did not file a new notice of appeal. Warren then argued that Timbercrest's motion for reconsideration constituted a motion for new trial and, consequently, Timbercrest's appeal was premature, and that it should have been dismissed for want of timely notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that Timbercrest's motion for reconsideration did not render the appeal a nullity, and that it did possess jurisdiction over the appeal. After examining case law, legislative history, and statutory text, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that because a summary judgment proceeding is something quite different and distinct from trial itself, Timbercrest's motion for reconsideration was not tantamount to a motion for a new trial under ORCP 64. Accordingly, the timing requirements of ORS 19.255(2) did not control, and Timbercrest's notice of appeal was timely filed. Affirmed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.