Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. HEARN, 66 Or. App. 490 (1984)

674 P.2d 94

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1984-01-11
Topic
general

STATE v. HEARN, 66 Or. App. 490 (1984) 674 P.2d 94 STATE OF OREGON, Acting by and through the DIRECTOR OF VETERANS'AFFAIRS, Respondent, v. HEARN et ux, Appellants. 43932; CA A26432Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted November 9, 1983 Affirmed in part; remanded in part January 11, 1984 Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County. A.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. HEARN, 66 Or. App. 490 (1984). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. HEARN,66 Or. App. 490(1984)
674 P.2d 94
STATE OF OREGON, Acting by and through the DIRECTOR OF VETERANS'
AFFAIRS,Respondent,v. HEARN et ux,Appellants.
43932; CA A26432
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted November 9, 1983
Affirmed in part; remanded in part January 11, 1984
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County.

A. R. McMullen, Judge.
Charles R. Markley, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Mildred J. Carmack and Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore Roberts, Portland.

Christine L. Dickey, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Determination of default affirmed; remanded to determine amount of judgment.Page 491
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff brought this foreclosure action, contending that defendants were in default of a condition of their state veterans' home loan mortgage by failing to occupy the mortgaged property as their principal residence. The trial court found that defendants were in default, entered a decree of foreclosure and awarded plaintiff judgment for $42,500, plus accrued interest at 6.2 percent per annum, $193 for the cost of a title search and various sums for taxes and the cost of mortgage cancellation life insurance premiums.

Defendants appeal, contending that the evidence does not support a finding of default and that, in any event, the amount of the judgment is not supported by the pleadings or the evidence. Although we conclude that the record shows defendants to have defaulted, we agree that the amount of the judgment is not supported by the record. Plaintiff concedes that the judgment should be modified. We cannot determine with any degree of certainty the proper amount for which judgment should be entered. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings limited to that determination.

Determination of default affirmed; remanded to determine amount of judgment.Page 492