Morgan v. Hart

The question before us is whether the statutes governing litigation over a “way of necessity’ require a plaintiff seeking a way of necessity to pay attorney fees incurred by a landowner whose property is the subject of the route recommended in the required surveyor’s report and who appears in the action, even when the plaintiff did not propose that the way of necessity be located on that landowner’s property. We answer that question in the affirmative and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Morgan v. Hart, 142 Or App 303, 920 P2d 1148 (1996).

As this case reaches us, the…