Chenoweth Law Group LLC Chenoweth Law Group LLC 2026-06-18T10:41:22Z https://www.chenowethlaw.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1201651/2020/06/cropped-SiteID-1-32x32.png by Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[Construction Liens: A Powerful Tool If Used Correctly]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53620 2026-05-14T06:44:03Z 2026-05-14T14:47:52Z For contractors and material suppliers, a construction lien can be one of the most effective ways to secure payment on a project. In many cases, it is the leverage that gets an invoice paid. But it is also a tool that comes with real risk. Oregon’s lien laws are technical, strictly enforced, and unforgiving when misapplied. Small mistakes, whether in timing, notice, or the amount claimed, can jeopardize enforceability or create additional legal exposure. Understanding where liens are effective and where they go wrong is critical.

What a Construction Lien Accomplishes

At its core, a construction lien is a legal claim against real property that secures payment of a debt. Once recorded, the lien encumbers the property, which can make it difficult or impossible for the owner to sell or refinance until the lien is resolved. If the lien remains unpaid, the claimant can file a foreclosure action, asking the court to force the sale of the property and use the proceeds to satisfy the debt. That practical impact is what makes liens so effective. They create direct leverage to resolve payment disputes.

Strict Requirements Leave No Room for Error

Construction liens in Oregon are governed by Chapter 87 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. While the statute provides a clear framework, it also imposes strict compliance requirements. To enforce a lien, a contractor or supplier must properly perfect it—meaning every required step is completed correctly and on time. The most common issues arise around timing and notice, where even small missteps can eliminate lien rights entirely. Key requirements include:
  • Recording the lien within the required timeframe. Depending on the claimant’s role, this is typically within 75 days after last furnishing labor, equipment, or materials, or within 75 days after project completion—whichever occurs first. 
  • Filing a foreclosure action within 120 days of recording the lien. If no lawsuit is filed within that window, the lien expires. 
  • Providing a notice of right to lien when required. In many situations involving parties without a direct contract with the owner, this notice must be properly given to preserve lien rights. 
These requirements are strictly applied. If they are not followed precisely, lien rights may be lost—regardless of whether the underlying claim for payment is valid.

Only Certain Costs Are Properly Lienable

One of the most common and costly mistakes is including amounts in a lien that are not legally recoverable. Examples of items that may raise lienability issues depending on the facts and statutory requirements include:
  • Materials that were never delivered to or used on the project
  • Costs associated with equipment or services that do not qualify under Oregon’s lien statutes
  • Certain preconstruction, administrative, or preparatory activities that may fall outside the scope of lienable work
Because Oregon law requires a true and accurate statement of the amount claimed, overstating the amount in a lien can create enforceability issues and potential additional liability. Filing an invalid or unsupported lien may, in some circumstances, expose the claimant to claims for damages or attorney fees under applicable law. In some cases, property owners may assert additional claims, such as slander of title, depending on the facts and intent involved.

Preserving Leverage While Controlling Risk

When handled correctly, construction liens remain one of the most effective tools available to contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers to compel payment. But they require careful attention to timing, documentation, and the scope of what is claimed. For that reason, lien strategy is often best considered early, before payment issues escalate, so rights are preserved and risk is controlled.

Our Approach

At [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"], we regularly advise contractors, suppliers, and property owners on construction lien rights and disputes. This includes both preserving lien rights during a project and enforcing or challenging liens when conflicts arise. The difference is often in the details. And in lien law, the details matter.]]> by Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[Chenoweth Law Group Announces Aurelia Erickson as Partner]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53597 2026-03-31T17:08:41Z 2026-03-31T17:07:34Z Chenoweth Law Group is proud to announce the promotion of Aurelia Erickson to partner. Since joining the firm in 2021, Aurelia has become an integral part of the firm’s litigation practice, representing clients in complex business, employment, and securities matters across Oregon state and federal courts. With more than a decade of legal experience, she brings a well-developed perspective to her work, grounded in both technical knowledge and practical judgment. Her work is defined by a disciplined, strategic approach and a strong command of the legal and factual issues that shape high-stakes disputes. She works closely with clients to understand their objectives and develop clear, effective strategies tailored to each matter. Over the course of her career, Aurelia has been consistently recognized by her peers, including selection to the Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” list for eight consecutive years—an acknowledgment that reflects the level of work she has delivered over time and the confidence she has earned within the legal community. In addition to her client work, Aurelia plays a meaningful role within the firm, contributing to case strategy, supporting team development, and helping advance the firm’s litigation capabilities. “Aurelia has contributed significantly to CLG in her business litigation practice and in her commitment to our clients," said Brian Chenoweth. "Her promotion to partner recognizes the impact she has already made and the role she will continue to play in the firm’s future.” This next step reflects the firm’s long term business strategy as it adds new partners with an eye toward future growth.]]> by Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[Firing a Shareholder-Employee? You Need a Good Reason]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53595 2026-03-24T18:30:49Z 2026-03-24T14:16:08Z In closely held companies, owners often wear multiple hats. A shareholder may also serve as an executive, a director, or a key employee. That structure can work well—until it doesn’t. When conflict arises, many business owners assume they can simply terminate a shareholder’s employment and deal with ownership issues later. Under Oregon law, that assumption can create serious legal and financial exposure. That risk was on full display in a recent Oregon trial court decision in a case Chenoweth Law Group litigated through trial for a CEO and shareholder. After finding that the shareholder’s removal from employment and management constituted shareholder oppression under Oregon law, the court entered judgment in his favor and awarded $12 million in damages. The court’s ruling offers a clear lesson for business owners: terminating a shareholder-employee without a legitimate, well-supported reason can lead to findings of shareholder oppression and court-imposed outcomes the company did not expect.

In Closely Held Companies, Employment Decisions for Shareholders Are Often Ownership Decisions

For sophisticated business owners, the issue is rarely whether an employee can be fired. The issue is whether the termination is being used—intentionally or not—to shift control, force an exit, or devalue an ownership interest. Oregon law imposes fiduciary duties on those who control closely held companies. Majority shareholders must act with good faith, fair dealing, and full disclosure toward minority owners. When a termination intersects with ownership rights, courts look at whether the decision was made for a legitimate business purpose and whether the process by which it was made was reasonable and fair. In CLG's recent win, the court examined whether actions taken by those in control unfairly disadvantaged a minority shareholder following his removal from employment and management. Having litigated the case, we saw firsthand how closely the court scrutinized not only what decisions were made, but why and when they were made.

“Cause” Must Exist Before the Termination—Not After

One of the most common mistakes in shareholder disputes is attempting to justify a termination after the fact and after claims are asserted. When a shareholder-employee is terminated “for cause,” courts expect:
  • Contemporaneous documentation
  • Consistent reasoning over time
  • Objective support beyond the testimony of interested parties
Courts evaluating these disputes focus heavily on the evidence supporting the stated reasons for termination and the credibility of the testimony offered to explain those decisions. From a litigation perspective, this point cannot be overstated: courts are skeptical of explanations that only appear once litigation begins.

Buy-Sell Agreements Are Not a Safe Harbor If Used Unfairly

Many business owners believe that a buy-sell agreement will resolve disputes cleanly. In reality, courts will not enforce contractual mechanisms in a way that compounds unfairness. In this case, the parties had a buy-sell agreement that for some shareholder terminations required the company's CPA to value the terminated shareholder's shares based on adjusted book value.  After examining the agreement and the surrounding circumstances, the court declined to apply that provision as written, concluding that the language was ambiguous and that applying it would not produce a fair result in the context of the dispute before the court.  Oregon courts retain broad discretion to determine “fair value,” particularly where shareholder oppression is established.

Terminating a Shareholder Can Shift Control to the Court

Once shareholder oppression is found, the dynamics change quickly. In this case, the court ultimately exercised its statutory authority to fashion equitable remedies designed to resolve the ownership dispute, including relief intended to compensate the oppressed shareholder and address the parties’ ownership relationship going forward. For business owners, the lesson is clear: a termination intended to resolve conflict can instead result in the court controlling valuation, timing, and exit terms.

The Strategic Takeaway for Owners and Executives

The takeaway is not that shareholder-employees cannot be terminated. It is that terminating a shareholder requires the same level of strategy and foresight as any major ownership decision. Based on our experience litigating this case, the highest-risk terminations share common traits:
  • Justifications that are developed after the fact
  • Inconsistent application of company agreements
  • Decisions that benefit those in control at the expense of a minority owner
  • Decisions made by the majority that do not follow a fair process, including discussing disagreements and pending termination decisions with the affected shareholder. 
Before taking action, controlling shareholders should ask:
  • Is there clear, documented justification that existed before termination?
  • Are governing documents being applied consistently and in good faith?
  • Are the majority shareholders following a fair decision-making process that involves the affected shareholder?
  • Would this decision appear reasonable and fair to a neutral judge reviewing it years later?
If those questions cannot be answered confidently, the risk is not hypothetical.

Why Firsthand Litigation Experience Matters

Shareholder disputes are rarely decided on technicalities. They turn on credibility, documentation, and whether those in control exercised their authority responsibly. This case illustrates how quickly a decision that may appear to be an internal management matter can evolve into a claim of shareholder oppression when ownership rights are implicated. Chenoweth Law Group regularly advises business owners, executives, and shareholders navigating complex ownership disputes, including matters involving termination of shareholder-employees and fiduciary duties among owners. In closely held companies, how a shareholder exit is handled often matters more than the exit itself.]]> by Jana Triska <![CDATA[A Practical Guide for the Personal Representative]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53594 2026-03-18T21:09:20Z 2026-03-18T19:03:59Z As a probate and estate planning attorney, I’ve long told clients that serving as a personal representative is an honor, a major responsibility, and often a thankless job. A personal representative (PR), sometimes called an executor, is the person (or institution) legally appointed to administer someone’s estate after death. A PR may be nominated in a will or, if there is no will, appointed by the probate court. Last year, I was appointed as the personal representative for the estate of a decedent whose beneficiary lives in Europe. After nearly a year in that role, my early impressions were confirmed. The experience underscored that a successful PR needs strong organizational and communication skills and gave me a deeper appreciation of the scope of the job. It has also helped me better advise families on choosing the right person for the role and guide clients who have been appointed by the court.

An Honor

Being selected by a family member or loved one to serve as their personal representative is a genuine honor. It reflects trust that you will carry out their wishes, manage their affairs responsibly, and look after the people they care about. The job, however, requires diligence and a real commitment. You must carry out the instructions in the will (or follow intestacy law if there is no will), distribute estate assets, pay debts and taxes, protect property for the beneficiaries, and comply with probate laws and court procedures. These duties often overlap and occasionally conflict. In one estate I handled, several beneficiaries inherited a house but disagreed about whether to sell or rent it. At the same time, the probate timeline was advancing and tax deadlines were approaching. My role was to keep everyone informed, provide clear information so they could make an educated decision, and remind them of the time constraints. Good documentation and organizational systems are essential. The role also demands impartiality and transparency, which can be especially challenging if you are both a beneficiary and the PR, and must manage the expectations of siblings and other relatives. Strong communication and interpersonal skills are critical.

Essential Qualities of a Good Personal Representative

  • Trustworthiness and Honesty: A PR must act with integrity, remain impartial, and ensure that actions are transparent and fair to all interested parties.
  • Organization and Diligence: Estate administration involves detailed record-keeping, strict deadlines, and careful attention to legal requirements and court rules.
  • Patience and Conflict Resolution: The PR often works with grieving family members and may need to diffuse tensions or mediate disagreements among beneficiaries.
  • Availability: The role can be time-intensive. The PR must be available to respond to issues promptly and keep the administration moving.
  • Legal and Financial Awareness: While a PR need not be an attorney, basic familiarity with legal and financial concepts is helpful, particularly in larger or more complex estates.

A Significant Responsibility

In broad terms, a personal representative’s core duties include:
  • Taking immediate control of and safeguarding the decedent’s real and personal property.
  • Collecting and inventorying all estate assets.
  • Opening a separate estate bank account and managing estate funds through that account.
  • Notifying creditors and paying valid debts and expenses.
  • Keeping beneficiaries reasonably informed about the estate’s progress.
  • Retaining counsel and filing the will with the probate court, then following all required legal steps.
  • Paying final taxes and ensuring all tax obligations are met.
  • Distributing assets to beneficiaries as directed by the will or applicable law.
  • Acting as a fiduciary at all times—putting the estate’s interests ahead of personal interests and avoiding conflicts of interest.
In practice, you step into the decedent’s financial life without necessarily knowing where they kept passwords, keys, wallets, checkbooks, or credit cards, how many bank accounts they had, or who managed their retirement accounts. The job often requires detective work: reviewing mail, email, financial statements, and personal papers to reconstruct the full picture. It demands time, patience, and a methodical approach. The complexity can vary widely. One estate may simply involve paying final rent on an apartment and closing a checking and savings account. Another may require selling a home, reconciling multiple accounts at several banks, managing rental properties and collecting rents, winding down a business, and ensuring employees receive their last paychecks. The responsibility can be substantial and very time-consuming. The good news is that a PR does not have to do everything alone. You can retain professionals such as attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, and other specialists to help you make informed decisions, carry out tasks efficiently, and provide explanations to family members. In one estate, for example, I spent many hours sorting through roughly ten banker’s boxes containing a mix of business and personal documents spanning more than 20 years. My goal was to identify active bank accounts, determine who the creditors were, and flag items that might have sentimental value. The work was tedious, but it produced the information the family needed and uncovered a manuscript the decedent had been writing, which became deeply meaningful to the beneficiaries. As a fiduciary, the guiding principle is to treat the estate’s assets with the same care and prudence as your own. Ultimately, you are accountable not only to the court but also to the beneficiaries, because your work is for their benefit.

A Thankless Job

Beyond the financial aspects, the PR must manage the decedent’s tangible property. Homes are filled with belongings—from boxes of documents to furniture, artwork, silverware, clothing, toiletries, pets, plants, vehicles, and tools. The PR must decide what to keep, sell, donate, or discard. This can be time-intensive and emotionally sensitive, especially when items have sentimental value for grieving family members. In my practice, I remind myself that I often meet clients at one of the hardest moments of their lives—after the loss of a spouse, parent, or sibling. Most are not at their best. A good PR remains sensitive to grief and family dynamics, stays patient, avoids taking comments personally, and uses strong communication skills to navigate difficult conversations. At the same time, the PR must remain practical and keep the estate moving forward. One of the most helpful decisions I made in a recent estate was to hire a junk hauler—with the family’s consent—to help sort, donate, and remove the remaining items no one wanted. The cost was well worth it and provided real relief to everyone involved.

Practical Steps for Success (Oregon-Specific)

  • Consult an Attorney: Oregon law requires that a personal representative in a formal probate be represented by counsel. An attorney will guide you through the process, help you avoid missteps, and ensure compliance with local rules and procedures.
  • Follow Court Orders and Statutes: The PR must strictly follow Oregon’s probate statutes (including ORS 114.265) and any orders issued by the court. Acting outside your authority can result in legal consequences and personal liability.
  • Communicate with Beneficiaries: Keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the administration but avoid promising distributions or timelines until the court authorizes them.
  • Document Everything: Maintain detailed records of all estate transactions, communications, and significant decisions. Be transparent. Good documentation protects you and makes court reporting easier.
  • Seek Help When Needed: If the estate is complex or disputes arise, do not hesitate to bring in professionals such as attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, or, when appropriate, estate clean-out services.

Avoiding Common Mistakes

A personal representative should take care to avoid these common errors:
  • Distributing assets before the court authorizes distributions, even if the will appears straightforward.
  • Using estate assets or funds for personal purposes.
  • Ignoring creditors or failing to pay valid debts and expenses.
  • Missing court deadlines or delaying required filings.
  • Commingling estate funds with personal accounts.
  • “Borrowing” from the estate account, even temporarily.
  • Withholding information from professionals, beneficiaries, or the court.
Serving as a personal representative is demanding, but with the right mindset, support, and systems, it can also be a meaningful way to honor someone’s life and help their family move forward.]]> On Behalf of Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[When fiduciaries must return ill gotten gains in Oregon]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53522 2026-03-11T17:40:33Z 2026-02-18T15:33:34Z Fiduciaries hold a position of trust, which means you rely on them to act with honesty and loyalty. When a fiduciary abuses that trust for personal gain, Oregon law gives courts a powerful remedy called disgorgement. It forces the wrongdoer to give up money or benefits they obtained through a breach.  Disgorgement does not depend on whether you suffered a financial loss. Its purpose is to strip away any profit tied to misconduct and restore integrity to the relationship.

What disgorgement means in a fiduciary setting

Disgorgement applies when someone in a trusted role violates the duty of loyalty or care. Fiduciaries include trustees, personal representatives, business partners, corporate officers and anyone who manages property or money for someone else.  When a fiduciary enriches themselves through fraud, self-dealing or hidden profits, the court can order them to turn over every dollar they should not have earned. This remedy is not punitive. It is meant to prevent a fiduciary from benefiting from wrongful conduct.  Because fiduciary relationships depend on confidence and transparency, courts view secret profits as especially serious.

Common situations where Oregon courts consider disgorgement

Before a court orders disgorgement, it looks for behavior that violates the core duties of honesty and loyalty. You will often see the remedy in disputes where a fiduciary places personal advantage above your interests. Here are examples of conduct that may lead to disgorgement:
  • A trustee diverts trust opportunities or assets to their own business.
  • A corporate officer uses confidential information to make personal investments.
  • A partner withholds material facts to secure a better share of profits.
  • A fiduciary charges hidden fees or collects unauthorized compensation.
  • A representative completes transactions that benefit family or friends over beneficiaries.
These scenarios show how broad disgorgement can be. The key question is whether the fiduciary gained something they should not have received. 

How disgorgement protects you

Disgorgement gives you a way to hold a fiduciary accountable even when it is hard to measure your exact loss. By focusing on the fiduciary’s enrichment, the law removes any reward tied to the breach.  This helps level the playing field and encourages honesty in relationships built on trust. In complex disputes, especially those involving business interests or trust administration, disgorgement can be the most direct path to a fair outcome.

What you can do next

If you believe a fiduciary gained something they had no right to, you should take steps to understand what happened and what remedies may apply.  Careful review of documents, transactions and communications can reveal whether the fiduciary acted for your benefit or their own.  Speaking with someone who understands Oregon fiduciary law can also help you evaluate the strength of your concerns, clarify the role of disgorgement and decide how to move forward in a way that protects your interests.]]> by Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[Artificial “Intelligence” and Artificial Cases: Oregon Federal Court Sanctions the Use of Fabricated Authority]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53569 2026-02-10T00:10:47Z 2026-02-10T15:19:45Z A Recent Federal Court Decision with Broader Implications In a recent Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky et all, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, the court addressed an issue that is rapidly reshaping litigation risk: the submission of AI-generated legal authority that does not exist. Chenoweth Law Group represented the defendants in the matter. After reviewing the record, the court concluded that briefing submitted by the plaintiffs relied extensively on fabricated case law and quotations, conduct the court found incompatible with Rule 11 and basic obligations of professional responsibility. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice and imposed sanctions, offering clear guidance that extends well beyond the facts of this case.

What the Court Identified

The court found that multiple filings relied on citations to cases that could not be located, as well as quotations falsely attributed to real judicial opinions and secondary authorities. When confronted, counsel attributed the errors to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools. The court rejected that explanation. It emphasized that attorneys—not software—are responsible for verifying the accuracy of the legal authority they submit. The volume, repetition, and persistence of the false citations were central to the court’s decision to impose sanctions.

The Court’s Guidance on AI in Legal Practice

The opinion reflects a growing judicial consensus: generative AI tools are not research platforms. They generate text based on probability, not legal accuracy. As the court explained, requiring judges or opposing parties to determine whether cited authority exists undermines the efficient and fair administration of justice. Rule 11 exists precisely to prevent that burden from shifting onto the court or adverse parties.

Practical Implications for Litigants and Businesses

For clients involved in litigation, this ruling highlights several practical risks:
  • AI-generated errors can materially distort legal arguments until they are identified
  • Holding parties accountable for citing fake legal authority often requires additional motion practice and litigation expense
  • Courts may respond decisively when violations are extensive or unchecked
In this case, the court concluded that dismissal of the plaintiff's case with prejudice was warranted, reflecting the seriousness with which it viewed the misconduct.

Responsible Use of Technology

The decision does not prohibit the use of technology in legal practice. Instead, it reinforces a familiar principle: efficiency tools do not replace professional judgment. At Chenoweth Law Group, technology may assist with drafting or organization, but legal research and citation verification remain attorney-driven tasks. Every authority cited is independently confirmed before it is presented to the court.

Takeaway

This ruling serves as a clear warning that artificial intelligence does not excuse real, human legal work. Verification is a non-delegable obligation, and failure to meet it can have case-ending consequences. For businesses and individuals navigating high-stakes disputes, the decision underscores the value of working with counsel who combine modern tools with disciplined, accountable litigation practices. Good lawyers use technology as an enhancement, but always exercise their professional, independent judgment.]]> by Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[Local Counsel Beware: An Oregon Federal Court Ruling Highlights Real Accountability for Pro Hac Vice Practice]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53545 2026-02-10T00:13:55Z 2026-02-05T20:18:55Z A Recent Ruling from a Case We Handled In a recent Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in the case of Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, the court issued sweeping sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys in a case in which Chenoweth Law Group represented the defendants. The ruling dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, struck their summary judgment briefs from the record, ordered them to pay the defendants' attorney fees, ordered their out-of-state attorney to pay $15,500 in sanctions to the court, and ordered their local Oregon counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him for failing to meaningfully participate in the case. While the outcome resolved the dispute decisively, the broader value of the decision lies in what it clarifies for attorneys practicing in Oregon federal court—including those serving as local counsel for out-of-state lawyers admitted pro hac vice.

The Court’s Focus: Responsibility Cannot Be Delegated

The record showed repeated violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the District of Oregon’s Local Rules, including the submission of briefing that cited 15 non-existent cases to the court and failed to comply with basic procedural requirements. One of the many issues the court addressed was the role of local counsel who acts as a pro hac vice attorney for an out-of-state attorney. Although the court had earlier allowed plaintiffs’ local counsel to withdraw for professional considerations, the court later vacated that order after learning the full scope of the out-of-state counsel's misconduct. Citing Local Rule 83-3, the court emphasized that local counsel must “meaningfully participate” in the case and cannot act as if that rule is a mere formality. The court ordered former local counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him, underscoring that responsibility attaches to filings made while counsel remains of record—even where lead counsel is practicing pro hac vice.

Practical Guidance for Attorneys and Clients

This ruling offers several practical lessons:
  • Local counsel must actively review and understand filings submitted on behalf of a client
  • Association with out-of-state counsel does not dilute ethical or procedural obligations
  • Withdrawal as local counsel may not insulate counsel from scrutiny for prior conduct
For clients—particularly business owners and fiduciaries involved in complex disputes—the decision reinforces the importance of engaging counsel who understand not only the substantive law, but also the court’s expectations around professionalism and compliance.

Why Courts Are Taking This Seriously

Federal courts rely on local counsel as a point of accountability and institutional knowledge. When that role is diminished, the risk of procedural error increases—often at the client’s expense. In this case, the court made clear that it will enforce local rules to protect the integrity of the process, even when doing so requires revisiting earlier procedural rulings.

Takeaway

The lesson from this decision is straightforward: local counsel are accountable participants, not nominal sponsors. Attorneys practicing in Oregon federal court should treat that role with the level of engagement the rules require. For clients, the ruling highlights why careful team structure and disciplined litigation practices matter—especially when disputes carry significant financial or reputational stakes.]]> by Lillian Klein <![CDATA[Attorney Fees in Oregon Business Litigation: Why Procedural Strategy Matters]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53543 2026-02-25T17:44:37Z 2026-01-20T20:47:52Z Rorvik v. Pelecanus, LLC, serves as an important reminder that the right to recover attorney fees depends not only on the contract, but on strict compliance with Oregon’s civil procedure. For Oregon business owners, executives, and professionals involved in litigation, this case highlights how procedural missteps can carry real financial consequences.

Summary of the Case

In Rorvik v. Pelecanus, LLC, the defendants sought to recover attorney fees after prevailing in the trial court. The problem? In their original answer, they failed to properly state the basis for their right to attorney fees as required by ORCP 68.  Although the defendants later amended their answer to cite the specific provision authorizing the right to attorney fees, the trial court denied their fee request, focusing on the deficiencies in the original pleading. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that once the defendants were granted leave to amend their answer, the amended answer became the operative pleading.  The trial court erred by failing to evaluate attorney fee entitlement based on that amended pleading.

The Procedural Trap: ORCP 68

ORCP 68 requires parties seeking attorney fees to affirmatively plead the basis for that right, whether it arises from a statute, contract, or other source.  Common pitfalls include:
  • Failing to cite the specific contractual provision or statute authorizing fees in the relevant pleading,
  • Assuming a general prayer for relief is sufficient, or
  • Overlooking fee allegations in early pleadings.
Although Rorvik confirms that amended pleadings can cure certain defects, businesses should not rely on appellate courts to rescue preventable mistakes.

Why This Decision Matters to Oregon Businesses

While the appellate outcome favored the defendants, the case underscores a broader lesson: attorney fee recovery is technical, and courts strictly enforce procedural rules. For business litigants, this matters because:
  • Attorney fees can exceed the underlying dispute in complex commercial cases.
  • Fee recovery can significantly impact litigation strategy, settlement leverage, and risk assessment; and
  • A valid contractual right to fees can be lost (or at least jeopardized) by pleading errors.
The Rorvik decision reinforces that courts will not “fill in the blanks” when it comes to attorney fee entitlement.  While procedural defects may sometimes be addressed through amended pleadings, parties should not rely on litigation course-correction to protect fee recovery.  Courts expect the legal and contractual basis for fees to be clearly pleaded, and experienced counsel plan for this from the outset. For business owners and professionals navigating disputes, this case reinforces the value of experienced litigation counsel who understand both the substantive law and the procedural rules that govern attorney fees. At [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"], we routinely advise clients on how litigation structure, pleadings, and procedural strategy affect financial exposure.  Fee recovery is not an afterthought; it is part of a broader risk (or reward) management approach. If you have questions about attorney fee provisions, commercial litigation strategy, or how Oregon civil procedure affects your business, Chenoweth Law Group is here to help.]]> by Lillian Klein <![CDATA[Oregon Court of Appeals Reexamines Employer Liability in Bock v. Vigor Works, LLC]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53502 2025-11-17T19:42:46Z 2025-10-28T22:20:35Z Bock v. Vigor Works, LLC, 343 Or App 514 (2025), that underscores how the Oregon Employer Liability Act (ELA) can expose companies to liability for injuries on worksites — even when the injured worker isn’t their direct employee.

The Case in Brief

The plaintiff, an employee of a third-party contractor, was injured while performing repairs on property leased by Vigor Works LLC and Vigor Industrial LLC. He sued Vigor and the property owner, alleging: (1) Employer Liability Act (ELA) violations, (2) common law negligence, and, (3) premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed in part — allowing the ELA claims against Vigor to proceed.

Understanding the Employer Liability Act

The Employer Liability Act is a long-standing Oregon statute that imposes a heightened duty of care on employers and those in charge of work involving risk or danger. Under the ELA:
  • Companies must use every device, care, and precaution practicable to protect workers. ORS 654.305.
  • Liability isn’t limited to a company’s own employees — it extends to any workers exposed to risk under their control or supervision. ORS 654.310.
  • The standard is stricter than ordinary negligence; even a small lapse in safety precautions can lead to liability.
This law means that businesses overseeing or controlling dangerous work can be held responsible for injuries to another company’s employees if they fail to maintain a safe work environment.

Why the Court Reversed

The central question was whether Vigor could be treated as an “employer” under the ELA for an independent contractor’s employee. The Court found that factual disputes remained about Vigor’s control over the worksite and its safety procedures — issues that a jury must decide, not a judge on summary judgment. The Court emphasized that:
  • The ELA imposes greater obligations than ordinary negligence; and
  • If a company has the right to control or direct the work, it may owe those heightened duties under the statute.
By contrast, the Court affirmed dismissal of the common law negligence and premises liability claims, which require proof of ordinary fault rather than the ELA’s “every practicable precaution” standard.

Practical Takeaways for Employers and Property Owners

  • Control matters. Courts will examine who had the right to direct or oversee work, even if the injured person was employed by another company.
  • Contracts and leases should be clear. Defining responsibility for maintenance, repairs, and safety protocols can reduce exposure.
  • Documentation is critical. Records of inspections, safety measures, and oversight can make the difference in litigation.
Landlords can limit risk. The decision affirmed dismissal for the property owner, signaling that lessors may avoid liability when operational control rests solely with the tenant.

What This Means for Businesses

For companies that own or lease space, engage contractors, or operate worksites with third-party vendors, Bock is a reminder that liability may extend beyond your direct employees. Businesses should regularly review their contracts, leases, and workplace safety procedures to ensure responsibilities are clearly allocated and risks are managed effectively. At Chenoweth Law Group, we help businesses and property owners assess liability exposure and strengthen their contracts and operating practices to reduce risk. If you have questions about employer liability or workplace safety obligations, our team can provide guidance tailored to your operations. If you have questions about how the ELA might affect your operations or current litigation, contact [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] to discuss your situation.]]> by Chenoweth Law Group LLC <![CDATA[CLG Wins $12 Million in Shareholder Oppression Claim]]> https://www.chenowethlaw.com/?p=53473 2026-02-05T20:14:15Z 2025-09-17T16:15:12Z