Legal Opinion

Piatt v. Medford Highlands, LLC

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 4, 2001No. 990489-E-1; CA A108752PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, J.

Defendants Carl Sauls and Matthew Sauls appeal from summary judgment for plaintiff in an action to enforce a promissory note and foreclose a trust deed securing the note. The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a joint payee of the note, was authorized to enforce the note without the consent of the Sauls, the remaining joint payees, who were joined as defendants pursuant to ORCP 29 A. We hold that plaintiff was authorized to enforce the note and, therefore, we affirm.

The relevant facts in the summary judgment record are undisputed. In 1996, plaintiff and Carl Sauls conveyed real…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Community Bank v. JonesOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Schranz v. I. L. Grossman, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  5. Security Bank v. ChiapuzioOregon Supreme Court · 1987

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. James v. ReconTrust Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API