Gary M. Bullock and Associates, PC v. Lear
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: October 29, 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON GARY M. BULLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH LEAR, Defendant-Appellant, and L & M PROPERTIES, Defendant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 120303294 A154286 Henry Kantor, Judge. Submitted on September 19, 2014. Bronson D. James and Bronson James, LLC, filed the brief for appellant. Colin M. Murphy and Gary M. Bullock and Associates, P.C., filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge. PER CURIAM Paragraphs 3B and 3C of general judgment reversed; otherwise affirmed. DESIGNATION OF PREVAILING PARTY AND AWARD OF COSTS Prevailing party: [ ] [X] [ ] Appellant No costs allowed. Costs allowed, payable by Respondent. Costs allowed, to abide the outcome on remand, payable by 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant Lear appeals a general judgment in favor of plaintiff Gary M. 3 Bullock and Associates, PC, that, among other things, voided a deed transferring real 4 property in the state of Washington from Lear to defendant L & M Properties and placed 5 a lien on that property. Lear contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting that 6 relief because, under ORS 14.030, the court lacked authority to grant relief that directly 7 affected title to real property located outside of Oregon. Plaintiff concedes the error. We 8 agree, and accept plaintiff's concession. 9 ORS 14.030 provides that, when an Oregon "court has jurisdiction of the 10 parties, it may exercise [its jurisdiction over them] in respect to any cause of action or 11 suit wherever arising, except for the specific recovery of real property situated without 12 this state, or for an injury thereto." Here, plaintiff alleged a claim against defendants 13 under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act that sought, among other things, to void 14 Lear's conveyance of the Washington property to L & M and to place a lien in favor of 15 plaintiff on the property. The trial court granted the requested relief on plaintiff's 16 fraudulent-transfer claim, which relief is embodied in paragraphs 3B and 3C of the 17 court's judgment. As plaintiff now concedes, the court lacked authority to grant that 18 relief because ORS 14.030 denies to Oregon courts the authority to directly affect the 19 ownership of property located outside of Oregon. Accordingly, we reverse those portions 20 of the judgment. 21 Paragraphs 3B and 3C of general judgment reversed; otherwise affirmed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
