ORCP 62

See also annotations under ORS 17.431 and 17.441 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 17.431)

Where court decides to enter special findings, they may be validly entered even though served and filed more than 10 days after decision where they were served and filed within permissible extension period. Frontier Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 262 Or 470, 499 P2d 1302 (1972)

Where premature judgment was entered prior to filing of objections, judgment was deemed entered 30 days after objections were filed for purposes of computing time within which a notice of appeal was filed under ORS 19.255. Tierney v. Duris, 21 Or App 604, 536 P2d 431 (1975)

Failure to hold hearing on objections to proposed findings of fact does not constitute error. T. and T., 33 Or App 463, 576 P2d 844 (1978)

Post-trial objection to general finding of fact does not operate to toll 30-day limit for filing notice of appeal where neither party made request for special findings. Fox & Sons Const. Co. v. Carlton, 42 Or App 689, 601 P2d 835 (1979)

In general

Nothing in this rule authorizes pursuit on appeal of theories wholly different from those on which case was tried or relieves litigant of duty to call potential error to attention of trial court. Sappington v. Brown, 68 Or App 72, 682 P2d 775 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Where husband’s objections to wife’s proposed findings of fact were filed more than ten days after findings were served, objections were of no effect; thus order of court was final when entered, husband’s notice of appeal was late and appeal was precluded. Mathena and Mathena, 72 Or App 578, 696 P2d 587 (1985)

Where plaintiff duly objected to proposed findings submitted by defendant, it is irrelevant whether plaintiff’s own proposed findings were also sufficient. Creager v. Berger, 97 Or App 338, 775 P2d 918 (1989)

Where trial court does not dispose of objections within 30 days, preexisting judgment is deemed entered on 31st day after filing of objections. Minor v. Leisure Lodge, Inc., 154 Or App 301, 961 P2d 915 (1998)

Party that has burden of persuasion at trial is not required to raise, for preservation purposes, claim that party should prevail on evidence as matter of law. Peiffer v. Hoyt, 339 Or 649, 125 P3d 734 (2005)