Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: December 30, 2015 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON GREENWOOD PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; and JEWETT-CAMERON LUMBER CORP., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiffs-Respondents Cross-Appellants, v. GREENWOOD FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; JIM DOVENBERG, an individual; and BILL LEFORS, an individual, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Respondents. Multnomah County Circuit Court 050302553 A135701 On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products, 357 Or 665, 359 P3d 219 (2015). Jerry B. Hodson, Judge. Submitted on remand December 02, 2015. Maureen Leonard and Ron D. Ferguson filed the briefs for appellants-cross-respondents. Robert D. Newell, Kevin H. Kono, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed the answeringcross-opening brief for respondents-cross-appellants. With them on the supplemental brief was Timothy R. Volpert. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge. PER CURIAM On appeal, (1) general judgment affirmed; (2) plaintiffs' attorney fee award in supplemental judgment on breach of contract claim affirmed; (3) defendants' attorney fee award in supplemental judgment on counterclaim for nonpayment of promissory notes remanded for the court to award reasonable expert expenses to defendants. On crossappeal, affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 This case is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court for the second 3 time. Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products, 238 Or App 468, 242 P3d 4 723 (2010) (Greenwood I), rev'd in part and rem'd, 351 Or 604, 273 P3d 116 (2012) 5 (Greenwood II), on remand, 264 Or App 1, 330 P3d 662 (2014) (Greenwood III), rev'd 6 and rem'd, 357 Or 665, 359 P3d 219 (2015) (Greenwood IV). A recitation of the facts 7 would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. 8 Suffice it to say, defendants (Forest Products) raised seven assignments of 9 error on appeal, and plaintiffs (Greenwood) raised a single assignment of error on cross- 10 appeal. The Supreme Court rejected Forest Products' first through fourth and sixth 11 assignments of error in Greenwood II and Greenwood IV. In Greenwood I, with regard 12 to Forest Products' seventh and final assignment of error, we concluded that Forest 13 Products--who was awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party on its counterclaim for 14 nonpayment of the promissory notes--was also entitled to recover expert expenses, and 15 we remanded for the trial court to award reasonable expert expenses to Forest Products. 16 238 Or App at 482-85. We also rejected Greenwood's cross-appeal on preservation 17 grounds. Id. at 485-86. Because Greenwood did not challenge those two determinations 18 in the Supreme Court, see Greenwood II, 351 Or at 615 n 8; Greenwood IV, 357 Or at 19 676-78, we adhere to our reasoning in Greenwood I concerning those determinations and 20 readopt it here. As instructed by the Supreme Court in Greenwood IV, we have now 21 considered Forest Products' fifth assignment of error concerning purported instructional 1 1 error and the part of Forest Products' seventh assignment of error concerning the award of 2 attorney fees to Greenwood, and we reject them without written discussion. 3 On appeal, (1) general judgment affirmed; (2) plaintiffs' attorney fee award 4 in supplemental judgment on breach of contract claim affirmed; (3) defendants' attorney 5 fee award in supplemental judgment on counterclaim for nonpayment of promissory 6 notes remanded for the court to award reasonable expert expenses to defendants. On 7 cross-appeal, affirmed. 2
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.
