About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


54 Or. L. Rev. 390 (1975)
Oregon Survey - Civil Procedure

handle is hein.journals/orglr54 and id is 396 raw text is: OREGON LAW REVIEW the court chose the decision which would protect the court from a flood of litigation. Civil Procedure 1. Service of Process: General or Special Appearance Despite calls for reform,' Oregon procedural law retains numerous archaic features.2 In Thoenes v. Tatro3 the supreme court interpreted usual place of abode in Oregon's substituted service of process statute4 and considered what constitutes a voluntary appearance equivalent to personal service.5 Tatro demonstrates anew the need for procedural reform. Plaintiff sued for personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision which occurred on December 10, 1970. He filed a complaint on Novem- ber 20, 1972. The deputy sheriff served the defendant by substituted service on his mother at the family home the next day. Defendant's par- ents transmitted the papers to the family's auto insurance company with- out informing the defendant of the lawsuit.6 On November 26 or 27 the insurance company's claims manager telephoned plaintiff's attorney and obtained an indefinite extension of time to answer.7 In early December, the insurance company's counsel advised the claims manager that service appeared to be defective and that the request for an extension should be withdrawn. On December 118 the claims manager wrote plaintiff's I See, e.g., Knudsen, The Time Has Come For A Major Change In Oregon's Jabberwocky Code of Civil Procedure, 8 WILL. L.J. 299 (1972). 2 The most obvious and troublesome feature of Oregon procedure is the failure to merge law and equity. Id. at 305. 8 99 Or. Adv. Sh. 3141, 529 P.2d 912 (1974). 4 ORS 15.080(7) (1973) provides: If the defendant cannot be found personally at his usual place of abode, then service may be made to a member of his family over 14 years of age who is at the abode. 5 ORS 15.030 (1973) provides: A voluntary appearance of the defendant shall be equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him. ORS 16.140 defines appearance: A defendant appears in an action or suit when he answers, demurs or files a motion therein, and until he does so appear he shall not be heard in such action or suit .... The supreme court held that ORS 16.140 does not define or limit the term voluntary appearance as it is used in ORS 15.030. Thoenes v. Tatro, 99 Or. Adv. Sh. 3141, 3143, 529 P.2d 912, 915 (1974). Belknap v. Charlton, 25 Or. 41, 34 P. 758 (1893), interpreted an earlier version of ORS 16.140 to the same effect. 6 The record did not reveal when or how defendant became aware of the action against him. 99 Or. Adv. Sh. at 3142, 529 P.2d at 914. 7 This stipulation was oral and was not filed with the court or followed by any motion in court. Id. at 3142, 529 P.2d at 915. 8 The statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. ORS 12.110(1) (1973). December 11 was two years and one day after the date of the injury. [Volume 54, 1975]