Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoyt v. American Traders, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 14, 1985No. 84-1701-NJ-2; CA A33635Published

1DissentRichardson, J.

I would hold that the common law doctrine of lis pendens is inapplicable to dissolution cases, and I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the doctrine applies to the dissolution proceeding on which plaintiff bases this action.

The court said in Houston v. Timmerman, 17 Or 499, 21 P 1037 (1889):

“* * * Two things, however, seem indispensable to give [lis pendens] effect: 1. That the litigation must be about some specific thing, which must necessarily be affected by the termination of the suit; and 2. That the particular property involved in the suit ‘must be so pointed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Houston v. TimmermanOregon Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Land Associates, Inc. v. BeckerOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Slauson v. UsherCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  4. Fremont Indemnity Co. v. CorbettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API