Wadsworth v. Talmage
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 70 December 27, 2019 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON John WADSWORTH, individually and as trustee for the RBT Victim Recovery Trust, Plaintiffs, v. Ronald B. TALMAGE and Annette C. Talmage, in Default as of 8/31/2017; Rivercliff Farm, Inc., an Oregon corporation, in Default as of 1/26/2017; and New Century Properties Ltd., in Default as of 8/31/2017, Defendants below, and United States of America, Defendant. (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 17-35805)) (SC S066414) En Banc On defendant’s petition for reconsideration filed October 15, 2019; considered and under advisement on December 3, 2019.* Randolph L. Hutter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C, filed the petition for reconsideration for defendant United States of America. Also on the petition for reconsideration was Jeremy N. Hendon, Washington D.C. William B. Ingram, Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, Utah, filed the response to the petition for reconsideration for plaintiffs. Also on the response was Thomas A. Ped, Williams Kastner Greene & Markley, Portland. ______________ * 365 Or 558, 450 P3d 486 (2019); on certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; certification order dated January 2, 2019; certification accepted January 31, 2019. 16 Wadsworth v. Talmage BALMER, J. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. Case Summary: The federal government petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that a line in the opinion erroneously implied that it had conceded certain facts. The court allowed the petition for reconsideration. Held: The opinion is amended to omit the reference to the government’s concession. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. Cite as 366 Or 15 (2019) 17 BALMER, J. The federal government has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in Wadsworth v. Talmage, 365 Or 558, 450 P3d 486 (2019). The government objects to a sentence in which we described the parties’ positions on whether plaintiffs’ funds were traceable to an interest in real property: “The parties agree that plaintiffs’ funds are traceable to at least the half-interest in RiverCliff that Talmage purchased from wife in 2005, after their divorce.” Id. at 581. The government argues that that sentence implies that the government has conceded that plaintiffs will be able to satisfy their burden of proof with respect to facts relevant to whether their funds can be traced to that interest in the property. The government did not make any such factual concession, and we recognize that the sentence could be read to imply that it did. Accordingly, we replace the sentence quoted above with the following: “Under the facts alleged in the complaint, plaintiffs’ funds are traceable to at least the half-interest in RiverCliff that Talmage purchased from his wife in 2005, after their divorce.” The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
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.
