Harrington v. Warlick
Harrington v. Warlick
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment
Plaintiff brought an action on a promissory note, seeking principal, interest and attorney fees pursuant to its terms. He moved for summary judgment but, before the motion was heard, he received the entire amount of the principal due on the note by an award of an arbitrator in another case between the parties.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that defendant was not entitled to attorney fees. We agree. The settlement and compromise of a bona fide controversy between the parties constitutes a valid binding agreement and is sufficient consideration to support a new contract. Ruble For. Prod. v. Lancer Mob. Homes, 269 Or 315, 320, 524 P2d 1204 (1974). All rights and remedies of the parties thereafter are only those in the new agreement. See Savelich Logging v. Preston Mill Co., 265 Or 456, 462, 509 P2d 1179 (1973); Ohlson v. Steinhauser, 218 Or 532, 538, 315 P2d 136, 346 P2d 87 (1959); Williams v. Leatham, 55 Or App 204, 637 P2d 1296 (1981), rev den 292 Or
Reversed as to award of attorney fees; otherwise affirmed.
In Harrington v. Warlick, 89 Or App 125, 747 P2d 407 (1987), we granted the trial court leave to enter a final judgment.
Plaintiffs other assignments of error attacking the validity of a settlement agreement have no merit and require no discussion.
The arbitration award is the subject of Harrington v. Warlick. (A43601), 92 Or App 269, 758 P2d 387 (1988).
Even if it could be said that any of the claims under the promissory note somehow survived the settlement, defendant would not be entitled to attorney fees, because plaintiff prevailed in the action on the promissory note.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HARRINGTON v. WARLICK
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published