McConnell v. Sutherland

I respectfully dissent, because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant’s loan did not “finance the acquisition of real property.” Nothing in the plain language of ORS 82.025(3) requires that the loan be made directly to the purchaser of the real property. The buyer’s purchase of plaintiffs home was contingent upon satisfaction of plaintiffs ex-husband’s judgment lien on the property. Defendant’s loan allowed plaintiff to satisfy that lien, which in turn allowed the buyer to purchase the property. Therefore, defendant’s loan was ‘ ‘made to finance the acquisition of real…