Legal Opinion

Kim v. Park

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 3, 2004No. 0101-00700; A117419PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Defendants appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting strict foreclosure and attorney fees to plaintiff. Defendants argue that the trial court erred when it concluded that plaintiffs earlier failure to comply with a contractual requirement did not preclude plaintiff from obtaining the remedy of strict foreclosure. They also assign error to the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiff, arguing that defendants are the only parties entitled to attorney fees or, alternatively, that both defendants and plaintiff are entitled to attorney fees. We review the trial court’s grant of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. GarzaOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Wasserburger v. American Scientific Chemical, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Blondell v. BeamOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Matter of Estate of BisioCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  5. McKeon v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Venture Properties, Inc. v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. Pistol Resources, LLC v. McNeelyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API