Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096

Section 20.096(1) allows attorney fees on appeal only when the contract specifically provides for fees on appeal to either party.

McMillan v. Golden · filed 1972-06-14(1)

After considering the terms of OES 20.096 in the light of its legislative history, we hold that in adopting that statute it was the intent of the legislature to allow attorney fees to the prevailing party on either trial or appeal only in the event that the contract “specifically provides” for allowance of attorney fees to either party on either trial or appeal.

Section 20.096(1) provides for attorney’s fees on appeal in a contract dispute.

Rogers v. Harden · filed 1976-03-18(1)

Defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees upon appeal pursuant to ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096 entitles the party in whose favor the final judgment or decree is rendered to reasonable attorney fees on appeal, even if the opposing party obtained a modification on appeal.

UNITED STATES NAT. BANK OF OREGON v. Smith · filed 1981-12-09(1), (5)

Because the final decree in this case, although modified on appeal, affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $5,455, plus interest, as the balance due under the note, the plaintiff was the "prevailing party" for the purposes of ORS 20.096(1) and (5) and was, therefore, entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Section 20.096(1) permits attorney fees on appeal when a party prevails on a lease claim by obtaining a substantial modification of the judgment that finally resolves that claim.

Sheppard v. Smith · filed 1993-03-03(1)

Our decision on that issue is a substantial modification of the trial court judgment and it effectively terminated the proceeding as to defendants’ breach of lease claims. Plaintiffs’ success on those claims was not a temporary victory. Plaintiffs are prevailing parties on appeal under ORS 20.015 and ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096 applies to contracts executed before its September 9, 1971 effective date.

Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Chamberlain · filed 1972-12-21(1)

We are persuaded by the reasoning of the court in Coast Bank and believe that retroactive application of ORS 20.096 is consistent with the legislative intent.

Section 20.096(1) applies retroactively to a note executed before the statute’s effective date, allowing the prevailing defendant to recover reasonable attorney fees.

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Morse · filed 1973-03-23(1)

Defendant’s answer included a prayer for an award of hér attorney fees in the event she prevailed, as provided by OES 20.096(1). Plaintiff contends that the statute does, not apply as the note was executed before its effective date. In Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Chamberlain, 264 Or 187, 504 P2d 722, 725 (1972) we held that the statute would be applied retroactively. Eeversed and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant, including attorney fees in the amount found by the trial court to be reasonable.

Section 20.096 applies to litigation over a contract executed before the section was enacted.

Stark Street Properties, Inc. v. Teufel · filed 1977-03-24(1)

Although the lease agreement was executed prior to the enactment of ORS 20.096, the statute applies to this litigation.

Section 20.096(1) entitles a buyer who prevails in an action to recover a foreclosure-sale surplus to attorney fees when the contract would have allowed the seller fees for collecting a deficiency.

Webster v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation · filed 1973-12-13(1)

In this case we hold that for purposes of the application of ORS 20.096 (1) one of the rights created in the seller under this contract is that upon default he may collect any deficiency which might result if the disposition of the property does not create enough proceeds to satisfy the debt and attorney fees. Similarly, the buyer (the plaintiff) has the right to collect any surplus which might result from the sale and may collect attorney fees if he is the prevailing party under ORS 20.096 (1).

Section 20.096 attorney fees are not costs and need not be claimed in a cost bill.

Sherwood & Roberts-Oregon, Inc. v. Alexander · filed 1974-08-08

ORS 20.096 does not treat attorney fees as costs. ... When attorney fees are not part of costs they do not have to be included in the cost bill.

Section 20.096(1) entitles the prevailing party to attorney fees in a contract enforcement suit when the contract awards fees to one party, even if the prevailing party is not the one named in the contract.

Tindula v. Bauman · filed 1975-03-13(1)

Under ORS 20.096(1) attorney fees may be recovered where the contract provides that attorney fees shall be awarded to one of the parties in a suit or action to enforce the contract. The statute awards the attorney fees to the prevailing party whether or not he is the party specified in the contract.

Section 20.096 makes an award of attorney fees mandatory when an applicable contract provides for them.

Jensen v. Miller · filed 1977-10-25

The awarding of attorney fees pursuant to contractual provisions is made mandatory by statute, ORS 20.096. The trial court did not err in making such an award.

When a contract provides attorney fees to one party, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees even if the contract names the other party.

Bob Secolo Realty, Inc. v. Dunnigan · filed 1978-09-06(1)

Plaintiff appears to respond to the effect that the agreement provides that the court may allow reasonable attorney fees only to plaintiff. ORS 20.096(1) provides: "In any action or suit on a contract, where such contract specifically provides that attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the provisions of the contract shall be awarded to one of the parties, the prevailing party, whether he is the party specified in the contract or not, at trial or on appeal, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to costs and necessary disbursements.” We remand to the trial court for the sole purpose of adjudging reasonable attorney fees for defendant.

Section 20.096 allows a person who successfully defends a contract claim to recover attorney fees even if that person did not sign the contract, when the plaintiff would have been entitled to fees had it prevailed.

Golden West Insulation, Inc. v. Stardust Investment Corp. · filed 1980-07-28(1)

Had plaintiff prevailed at trial, it would have been entitled to an award of attorney fees against Ignatovich. Ignatovich was obliged to hire counsel and defend this suit; since he was able to get a decree dismissing plaintiff’s cause of suit against him, he became a prevailing party. The trial court was correct in awarding him fees pursuant to the contract and ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096(1) allows a prevailing student to recover attorney fees for enforcing any of a school's contractual obligations when the contract gives the school fees for collecting the student's sole obligation to pay tuition.

Jewell v. Triple B. Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1981-04-28(1)

The reciprocal right of the other party to the contract, the student, would be to be entitled to attorney fees in litigation to enforce any of the obligations of the school. We, therefore, hold that attorney fees are awardable to the prevailing party (the plaintiff student) for enforcing any or all of the provisions of the contract containing the obligations of the school.

ORS 20.096 requires an award of reasonable attorney fees when a contractual fee provision covers a suit to reform the contract; the court may not deny fees because the award would be harsh.

U. S. Natural Resources, Inc. v. Gray · filed 1984-02-08

We do not agree that the court had the option to refuse to award attorney fees on the ground it did. In Jensen v. Miller, 280 Or 225, 232, 570 P2d 375 (1977), a suit to reform a land sale contract and a deed, the court stated that “[t]he awarding of attorney fees pursuant to contractual provisions is made mandatory by statute, ORS 20.096.” Under the fee provision of the agreement here, the Grays and Rosenberg are entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

Section 20.096 entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees when a contract awards fees for enforcement to one party, regardless of which party the contract names.

Anderson v. Garrison-Reed Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1984-02-08

Under ORS 20.096, when a contract provides that attorney fees incurred to enforce the provisions of the contract shall be awarded to one of the parties, the prevailing party, whether that party is the party specified in the contract or not, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

Section 20.096(1) allows the prevailing party to recover attorney fees in a covered contract action regardless of which party brought it.

Steidlmayer v. Salishan Properties, Inc. · filed 1985-07-17(1)

Here, the action plaintiff brought is, at least in part, one “to enforce any covenant or condition contained” in the lease. That is the kind of action the attorney fee provision of the lease contemplates, although the provision refers only to such actions brought by Salishan, Inc. It is clear under Jewell that reciprocal recoverabilty of attorney fees is not contingent upon which party brings the action.

Section 20.096 allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees under a security agreement when the opposing party could have recovered fees under that agreement had it prevailed.

Van De Hey v. United States National Bank · filed 1988-06-22

Any attorney fees incurred in prosecuting that counterclaim would have been “in connection with the collection and sale of such collateral” and, had the bank prevailed and sought attorney fees under the provision, the court clearly could have awarded them. ... Under ORS 20.096, plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover them here.

Section 20.096(1) entitles the prevailing party in an action on a contract with an attorney fee provision to reasonable attorney fees, even if the contract names only the other party.

Express Creditcorp v. Oregon Bank · filed 1989-01-25(1)

Under ORS 20.096(1), that provision entitles the prevailing party, whether specified in the contract or not, to recover reasonable attorney fees in addition to costs and disbursements.

Section 20.096 lets a prevailing party recover attorney fees for activities covered by a contractual fee provision when the opposing party could have recovered those fees had it prevailed.

United States National Bank v. Boge · filed 1990-06-20

The reciprocity principle of ORS 20.096 requires that Boge recover the attorney fees that he incurred in connection with those activities of Bank, for which it could have recovered fees if it had been the prevailing party.

Section 20.096(1) allows reciprocal attorney fees only when the contract entitles one party to fees.

Lowenthal v. Stanley · filed 1990-07-25(1)

We have consistently held that one party must be entitled to fees under the terms of a contract in order for another party to be similarly entitled to fees under ORS 20.096(1). ... Neither party, regardless of the outcome, would have been entitled to fees in this case.

A defendant who defeats an action on a note by proving failure of a condition precedent is entitled to attorney fees when the note would have entitled the plaintiff to fees had the plaintiff prevailed.

McLeod v. Fossi · filed 1986-05-14(1)

When, as here, there is an action on a contract against which the defendant successfully defends, both the statute and the policy it embodies require that defendant be entitled to his attorney fees.

Section 20.096(1) permits a prevailing party to seek contractual attorney fees in an action to enforce a contract even if that party did not sign the contract.

Karl's Inc. And Atchley Appliance & Tv, Inc. v. Sunrise Computers, Inc. Digital Equipment Corporation · filed 1990-04-10(1)

Under Oregon law, the prevailing party in an action to enforce the provisions of a contract shall be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs if the contract so provides. Or. Rev.Stat. § 20.096(1). Neither the statute ... nor Oregon case law requires that the prevailing party in such an action be a party to the contract.

Section 20.096(1) makes a contract's one-way attorney-fee provision reciprocal, allowing the prevailing party to recover reasonable fees.

United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Gregory Timber Resources, Inc. · filed 1997-10-30(1)

Where there is a one-way contractual provision for attorneys' fees, as the indemnity agreement has, Oregon law turns it into a two-way provision. Or.Rev.Stat. § 20.096(1) (1993).

Section 20.096(1) makes a contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal, allowing the prevailing party to recover reasonable fees on appeal.

Masonry Industry Trust Administration, Inc. v. Woodburn Masonry, Inc. · filed 1998-04-01(1)

Although the contract speaks only to attorney fees incurred by the Trust, Woodburn argues that those sections are made reciprocal pursuant to ORS 20.096(1). We agree.

Section 20.096(1) does not provide reciprocal attorney fees when the contractual fee provision covers only association actions to collect delinquent assessments and the suit is not such an action.

Taylor v. McCollom · filed 1998-04-29(1)

However, as the trial court noted, that sentence refers only to enforcement actions by the Quail-haven Homeowners Association to collect delinquent assessments, and this action is not one by the Association to collect assessments. Accordingly, reciprocity under ORS 20.096(1) does not apply.

Section 20.096(1) makes a contractual right to attorney fees reciprocal, allowing the prevailing party to recover even when the contract names only the other party.

LITTLE WHALE COVE HOMOWNERS v. Harmon · filed 1999-08-11(1)

We agree that ORS 20.096(1) makes the contractual right to fees created in section 8.6 of the CC & Rs reciprocal.

Section 20.096(1) makes a contractual attorney fee provision in homeowners association covenants reciprocal.

Little Whale Cove Homeowners Ass'n v. Harmon · filed 1999-08-11(1)

We agree that ORS 20.096(1) makes the contractual right to fees created in section 8.6 of the CC&Rs reciprocal.

Section 20.096(1) makes a contractual right to attorney fees reciprocal, allowing the prevailing party to recover fees even when the contract names only the other party.

Wiper v. Fawkes · filed 2005-03-16(1)

ORS 20.096 applies, in turn, to make the right to recover fees under the contract reciprocal.

ORS 20.096(1) makes a contractual attorney fee provision reciprocal, but does not authorize fees when neither party is entitled to them under the contract.

Feffer v. Administrative School District No. 1 · filed 2006-05-10(1)

However, ORS 20.096(1) does not authorize an award of attorney fees to one party when neither party is entitled to an award of attorney fees.

Section 20.096(1) makes contractual attorney fee rights reciprocal but does not independently create a right to fees.

Ricciardi v. Frink · filed 1995-03-08(1)

We agree that ORS 20.096 does not provide an independent basis for an award of fees.

Section 20.096(1) makes a contractual right to attorney fees reciprocal, including fees and collection costs incurred after judgment when the contract would allow the other party to recover them.

Benchmark Northwest, Inc. v. Sambhi · filed 2004-01-21(1)

Under principles of reciprocity, we therefore conclude that defendants are entitled to costs and fees in this case, and the trial court erred in denying them.

Section 20.096(1) makes attorney fees available to the prevailing party in the kind of contract enforcement action covered by a fee provision, regardless of which party brings the action.

Awbrey Towers, LLC v. Western Radio Services, Inc. · filed 2012-04-25(1)

Under Steidlmayer and Jewell, ORS 20.096(1) operated to make attorney fees available to whichever party prevailed in that kind of action, regardless of which party brought the lawsuit.

ORS 20.096 does not provide reciprocal attorney fees when an indemnification clause would not entitle the other party to fees in a breach of contract action between the parties.

PacifiCorp v. SimplexGrinnell, LP · filed 2013-07-24

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our decision concluding that the indemnification clause in the parties’ contract would not entitle plaintiff to recover attorney fees in an action between the parties for breach of contract and affirming the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for attorney fees under the reciprocity statute, ORS 20.096. ... We adhere to our opinion, as modified.

Section 20.096(1) entitles a prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees when the contract provides fees only to the opposing party.

Makarios-Oregon, LLC v. Ross Dress-For-Less, Inc. · filed 2018-09-06(1)

Thus, although the lease provided a contractual basis only for plaintiff to recover attorney fees, defendant had a statutory right to attorney fees by virtue of ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096 makes a unilateral contract attorney-fee provision reciprocal, allowing the party that prevails on the claim to recover fees.

Umpqua Bank v. Charles A. Gunzel III, et ux · filed 2023-02-23

Under Oregon law, a unilateral provision such as this is interpreted to provide bilateral enforcement, meaning that attorney fees and costs will be awarded to “the party that prevails on the claim,” whether that be Umpqua Bank or Charles Gunzel. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 20.096.

Section 20.096(1) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees in a contract action when the other party could have recovered fees had it prevailed, even if the contract’s fee provisions are already reciprocal.

W.G. Barr Management, LLC v. ContekPro LLC · filed 2024-08-15(1)

Thus, since Two Pitchers would have been entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees had it prevailed in this action, section 20.096(1) provides that ContekPro is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party.

Section 20.096(1) makes certain unilateral contractual attorney fee clauses reciprocal but does not independently authorize fees.

In re: Sheila Noel Campbell · filed 2012-08-15(1)

... that statute does not provide an independent basis on which to claim attorneys’ fees; rather, it simply makes certain unilateral attorneys’ fees clauses reciprocal.

Section 20.096 allows reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party in a contract action when the contract provides for enforcement fees; duplicative work may justify reducing the award.

Kahn v. Canfield · filed 2000-02-24

ORS 20.096 (1993) (providing for reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in a contract action when the underlying contract provides for attorney fees for enforcement); ... We are persuaded that, because significant parts of the arguments in the document already had been developed and drafted for plaintiffs’ brief in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs’ lawyers should have been able to produce their response to defendants’ petition for review in, at most, 80 hours. We reduce plaintiffs’ attorney fees request accordingly.

Section 20.096(1) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees when the applicable contract provides for them.

Nopper v. IGD Hospitality, Inc. · filed 2016-04-18(1)

I reject Defendant’s argument that the 2013 Contract cancelled or replaced the prevailing party attorney fee provision in the 2012 Contract. Plaintiff is entitled to fees.

Section 20.096(1) permits attorney fees when a contract provides for them and the fees were incurred to protect rights under that contract.

Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2017-11-30(1)

A party is entitled to attorney’s fees when a contract between the parties provides for the payment of fees. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096(1); see also id. § 20.075(1)–(2); ... Here the contracts specifically provided for fees expended by Wells Fargo in protecting its rights in the property securing the loan and under the security agreement itself. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees or in setting the amount thereof.

Section 20.096(1) does not reimburse a self-represented, nonattorney party for income lost while handling the case.

Parquit Corporation v. Ross · filed 1975-12-26(1)

If a party, not an attorney, represents himself or herself, he might incur some loss because he could have been earning compensation doing something else during that time. Ordinarily, the amount so lost would be insignificant compared to the cost of securing an attorney. We do not believe the legislature intended this loss, if any, to be reimbursed to the prevailing party. The language of the statute, “attorney fees and costs incurred,” does not indicate any intent to include the reimbursement for such loss.

Section 20.096 requires a petition for contractual attorney fees to be resolved before final judgment; those fees cannot be claimed afterward in a cost bill.

Gorman v. Boyer · filed 1976-03-18(1)

Such a petition, however, should be filed and such a determination of attorney fees should be made, either based on stipulation or on evidence offered at such a hearing, prior to the entry of final judgment. As held in Dean Vincent, Inc., an allowance of attorney fees under ORS 20.096, based upon the terms of a contract, is not proper as an allowance of costs in a cost bill to be filed after the entry of a judgment allowing costs.

Section 20.096 requires the court to determine which party prevailed in a contract action before awarding attorney fees under a fee clause.

Wetzstein v. Hemstreet · filed 1976-11-12(3)

In Bruckman v. Breitenbush Hot Springs, 272 Or 1, 9, 534 P2d 971 (1975), we held that the court should determine which party has in fact prevailed. ... In the case at bar, the trial court specifically found that the defendant was the prevailing party and did not err in allowing attorney fees to the defendant.

When a plaintiff pleads contract and quasi-contract claims arising from the same transaction, the plaintiff is the prevailing party if it recovers on either claim; the defendant prevails only if the plaintiff recovers nothing.

American Petrofina Co. of Texas v. D & L Oil Supply, Inc. · filed 1978-08-01(3)

The better alternative is to consider the plaintiff who recovers in such a case to be the prevailing party under the statute and to consider the defendant to be the prevailing party only when the plaintiff takes nothing on account of the transaction.

Section 20.096 does not make a plaintiff the prevailing party on a withdrawn counterclaim that depended on the plaintiff prevailing on his own claim.

Ehler v. Peck · filed 1979-06-12

We held, pursuant to ORS 20.096, that the defendant was the prevailing party and was entitled to an attorney fee. Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Krishell Lab., supra (271 Or 356), is not applicable in this case. Defendant alleged plaintiff owed nothing unless plaintiff prevailed on his claim. When plaintiff did not prevail defendant immediately withdrew his claim.

Section 20.096 treats a plaintiff who obtains final judgment after accepting an offer to allow judgment as the prevailing party entitled to contractual attorney fees.

State ex rel. State Scholarship Commission v. Magar · filed 1979-09-24(3)

Defendant argues that where there is an acceptance of an "offer of compromise” pursuant to ORS 17.055 there is no "prevailing party” as required in ORS 20.096. We disagree. ... Final judgment was rendered for SSC, which is, therefore, the prevailing party and entitled to attorney fees.

A conditional payment into court is not a tender under ORS 20.096.

Mountain Shadow Homes, Inc. v. Gray · filed 1983-01-12

Defendants’ payment of money into court was neither a tender within the meaning of ORS 20.096 nor an offer of compromise within the meaning of ORCP 54E.

Section 20.096 entitles the party receiving the net judgment to attorney fees under a contract’s fee provision when both parties prevail on claims for damages.

Illingworth v. Bushong · filed 1983-03-22

This case is squarely within the general rule: plaintiff prevailed on his claim to recover the $50,000 deposit, and defendants were found to be entitled to $6,500 actual damages, resulting in a net judgment for plaintiff of $43,500. Plaintiff is clearly the prevailing party and should have been awarded attorney fees.

Section 20.096(1) does not entitle a party to attorney fees unless that party prevails.

First State Bank v. Hoehnke Nursery Co. · filed 1983-07-06(1)

The Lofgrens argue that, as the “prevailing party,” they are entitled to attorney fees from Capital under ORS 20.096(1). Under our disposition of the case, they are not prevailing parties and, therefore, are not entitled to attorney fees.

A dismissal without prejudice is a final judgment or decree for purposes of attorney fees under ORS 20.096(3).

Sackett v. Mitchell · filed 1973-02-01(3)

We also hold, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, that a judgment or decree of dismissal without prejudice under ORS 18.220, as in this case, is a “final determination of the rights of the parties,” as defined by ORS 18.010, and is also a “final judgment or decree” for the purpose of the allowance of attorney fees under ORS 20.096(3).

In a contract action with an attorney fee clause, a defendant is the prevailing party under § 20.096 when the plaintiff takes a voluntary nonsuit, even if the nonsuit is without prejudice.

Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Krishell Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1975-02-27(1), (3)

However, defendant was the prevailing party because a voluntary nonsuit terminates the case in a defendant’s favor. Even though the termination was without prejudice and plaintiff could file another case upon the same cause of action, these facts did not prevent defendant from being the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered in that particular ease.

Under ORS 20.096, a mortgagee who obtains payment of the debt sought in a foreclosure suit may be the prevailing party for attorney fees even if the property is not sold.

Bruckman v. Breitenbush Hot Springs, Inc. · filed 1975-05-01

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that plaintiff Bruckman was the prevailing party within the meaning of ORS 20.096 and was entitled to attorney fees as ordered by the court.

Section 20.096 treats a defendant as the prevailing party after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action, whether or not the dismissal required the trial court’s discretion.

Wacker Siltronic Corp. v. Pakos · filed 1982-06-23(5)

We see no indication in the statutory language that the legislature intended such a distinction. A voluntary dismissal of an action has the same effect whether filed more than five days before trial or less than five days before. There is no difference relevant to the application of ORS 20.096(1). We hold that the trial court “rendered” judgment in favor of defendant and that defendant is the prevailing party as that term is used in ORS 20.096(1).

A dismissal without prejudice can be final for purposes of recovering attorney fees under subsection (3).

Meadowbrook v. Groves · filed 1982-10-27(3)

We understand Flying Tiger as restricting the finality language in Sackett to the issue of whether attorney fees are recoverable.

The party entitled to attorney fees under ORS 20.096 need not be the party entitled to costs on appeal.

Nestell v. Ryther · filed 1983-08-10

The prevailing party on appeal entitled to recover costs under ORS 20.310 is not necessarily the party under ORS 20.096 entitled to an attorney fee.

Section 20.096 makes one-sided contractual attorney fee provisions reciprocal and defines the prevailing party by the final judgment; a fee award may be inappropriate when opposing parties prevail on monetary and equitable claims.

Miller v. Safeco Title Insurance · filed 1985-04-15

Oregon law requires courts to apply one-sided contractual attorney fee provisions as if they entitled the prevailing party to such fees. Or.Rev. Stat. § 20.096(1). The term “prevailing party” is defined in both reciprocal and nonreciprocal contractual attorney fee provisions as “the party in whose favor final judgment or decree is rendered.” Or.Rev. Stat. § 20.096; Carlson v. Blumenstein, 293 Or. 494, 651 P.2d 710, 713 & n. 3 (1983). ... Because an award of attorney fees may have been inappropriate under Oregon law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney fees.

A party that receives a net judgment through restitution is not the prevailing party under ORS 20.096(5) when it neither succeeds on a contract claim nor successfully defends against one.

Stanfill v. TAT (U.S.A.) Corp. · filed 1985-11-14(5)

TAT’s argument is accurate but inapposite, because it presumes that the party in whose favor judgment was rendered either successfully brought a claim on a contract or successfully defended against one. TAT, however, did neither. ... Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff is the “prevailing party.”

A party whose claim on a contract is dismissed with prejudice may be a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under ORS 20.096.

Willamette View Associates, Inc. v. Pettibon · filed 1986-11-19

Even though those cases involved the language of ORS 20.096 and voluntary dismissals without prejudice, there is no reason to hold otherwise when the claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Section 20.096(1) entitles a party that prevails on the significant disputed issues in a contract action to reasonable attorney fees when the contract provides for fees.

Ladum v. City of Reedsport · filed 1987-02-11(1)

To determine whether there is a prevailing party, a court weighs “what was sought by each party against the result obtained.” ... Because the court construed the contested clauses in defendant’s favor, it prevailed on the significant disputed issues and the court erred in denying its request for attorneys’ fees.

Section 20.096(1) allows attorney fees to a party who prevails on the part of a claim concerning that party’s property interest.

Packer v. Wardwell · filed 1987-11-12(1)

The court correctly concluded that plaintiff had no lien on Selma’s original interest, because she and Devon owned the property as tenants in common. Therefore, the court was also correct in awarding attorney fees to Selma as the prevailing party on that part of the claim. ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096(5)'s definition of “prevailing party” does not apply to ORS 20.090.

Northwest International Trucks, Inc. v. Schiermeister · filed 1988-02-10(5)

The definition in ORS 20.096(5) specifically does not apply to ORS 20.090.

Section 20.096 permits a prevailing party to recover attorney fees provided by a contract; an objection to those fees cannot be used to challenge the final judgment establishing who prevailed.

Arter v. Spathas · filed 1989-09-13

We disagree. Arter prevailed in the action and was entitled to attorney fees under the contract. ORS 20.096. The judgment making them the prevailing party is final, and Skourtes cannot go behind it to attack its bases.

A party that no longer prevails has a moot claim for attorney fees under ORS 20.096(1).

Mid-River Transportation Services, Inc. v. VanPelt · filed 1993-07-07(1)

Because defendants are no longer the prevailing party, the issue of attorney fees under ORS 20.096(1) is moot.

Section 20.096 entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees when the contract provides for fees; a defendant may prevail after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action.

Franklin Financial v. Resolution Trust Corp. · filed 1995-04-24

Both FFA and the RTC make claims for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Article XXVII of the Lease and Or.Rev.Stat. § 20.096. ... The Oregon statute states that if a contract provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, then the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. ... The nejct inquiry, applying Oregon law, is whether a voluntary dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(l)(i) by FFA makes the RTC a “prevailing party.” In All Am. Distrib. Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 736 F.2d 530 (9th Cir.1984), we determined that an Arizona statute did allow for a finding that a defendant was a prevailing party following a voluntary dismissal of claims by the plaintiff. Here, too, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees in favor of the RTC.

Section 20.096(1) requires an attorney fee award to the prevailing party when a contract provides fees to that party or its functional equivalent.

Quality Contractors, Inc. v. Jacobsen · filed 1996-02-28(1)

We conclude that plaintiffs’ interpretation is more consistent with the language of the contract, and hold that the “party justly entitled” to attorney fees is the “prevailing party.” ORS 20.096(1) therefore applies, making an award of attorney fees mandatory to that party.

When a contract plaintiff recovers nothing and the defendant obtains no damages on its counterclaim, neither party prevails for purposes of attorney fees.

Wilkes v. Zurlinden · filed 1997-02-12(5)

We agree with Wilkes that this case is in a similar posture: Wilkes failed to prove a breach of contract and lost profits and the Zurlindens failed to prove damages. Under those circumstances, neither party prevailed for purposes of an award of attorney fees. The trial court erred in awarding fees to the Zurlindens.

A party does not prevail under section 20.096 when no final judgment favors either party.

Wilkes v. Zurlinden · filed 1998-01-07(5)

In this case, there was no final judgment favoring either party, so neither party can be said to have prevailed.

Section 20.096 permits the party who prevails on covered contract claims to recover attorney fees even if that party does not prevail in the action overall.

Newell v. Weston · filed 1998-09-30(5)

In that light, the legislative history supports the conclusion that the prevailing party who is entitled to recover attorney fees under ORS 20.096 is the party who prevails on the claims that are subject to that statute, without regard to whether the party prevails in the action.

When each party defeats the other’s claim on a contract, both may be prevailing parties under section 20.096(5).

Wilkes v. Zurlinden · filed 1999-06-11(5)

Reference to “the” prevailing party in ORS 20.096(1) and in ORS 20.096(5) does not exclude the possibility of more than one prevailing party when there is both a claim and a counterclaim on a contract and each party succeeds in defeating the other party’s claim for relief.

Section 20.096(5) does not treat a party that defeats a contract claim as a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees when that party had no contract with the claimant.

AutoLend, IAP, Inc. v. Auto Depot, Inc. · filed 2000-09-27(5)

Because there was no contract — by assignment or otherwise — between plaintiff and Auto Depot, Auto Depot was not a “prevailing party” in the sense contemplated by ORS 20.096(5). Therefore, the trial court did not err in failing to award it attorney fees.

A party seeking injunctive relief is not a prevailing party under ORS 20.096 when the injunction never takes effect and the opposing party complies without judicial compulsion.

CONIFER RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. v. Hayworth · filed 2001-09-26(5)

Without an effective order granting plaintiff the injunctive relief it sought, plaintiff could not be a prevailing party under ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096(5) generally defines the prevailing party for a contractual attorney fee provision by the judgment on claims covered by that provision, even when another party wins a separate statutory claim.

CMS Sheep Co., Inc. v. Russell · filed 2002-01-30(5)

In the absence of a contrary intention, it is presumed that the parties intended the reference to “prevailing party” to have the meaning set out in ORS 20.096(5), that is, the “party in whose favor final judgment or decree is entered.” ... The Russells prevailed on the breach of contract claims asserted against them. They are thus the prevailing parties on all claims to which the attorney fee provision in the lease applies and are entitled to an award of attorney fees. The fact that CMS prevailed on the timber trespass claim against the Kingzetts is irrelevant.

A plaintiff who recovers on a quasi-contract claim arising from the same transaction as an alternative contract claim is the prevailing party for attorney fees under § 20.096.

Petersen v. Fielder · filed 2002-11-27(3)

Similarly, here, plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorney fees under former ORS 20.096 (1999). It brought contract and quasi-contract claims for damages arising out of the same transaction and prevailed on the quasi-contract claim.

Section 20.096 makes a contractual attorney fees provision available to whichever party prevails on the issues covered by the contract, even if that party does not prevail in the action as a whole.

Alderman v. Davidson · filed 1998-10-07

The trust deed contains an attorney fees provision that, as a result of ORS 20.096, benefits whichever party prevails on the issues that arise from the trust deed. ... Defendant prevailed on the only portion of the case to which the attorney fees provision applies. She is therefore entitled to recover fees for that portion, without regard to the result in the rest of the case.

Section 20.096 entitles the prevailing party on a contract claim to reasonable attorney fees when the contract provides for fees; a defendant prevails when the plaintiff stipulates to dismiss the claim with prejudice.

Keith Manufacturing, Co. v. Butterfield · filed 2017-06-26

Thus, under Oregon law, Butter-field is the prevailing party with regard to Keith’s claim of breach of contract, based on the filing of the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. But for the procedural barrier identified in the preceding section relating to the absence of a judgment, as that term is understood under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Butterfield would have been entitled to his reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in defending against Keith’s claim of breach of contract.

For purposes of section 20.096, express and implied-in-fact contract theories based on the same conduct and seeking the same damages constitute a single claim when determining the prevailing party.

Mindful Insights, LLC v. VerifyValid, LLC · filed 2019-12-11(1)

For the reasons explained below, we conclude that plaintiff’s separately denominated “claims” for breach of a written contract and breach of an implied-in- fact contract were alternative theories within a single claim for breach of contract, and we affirm the trial court’s rul- ing that plaintiff, not defendant, was the prevailing party on that claim for purposes of ORS 20.077, ORS 20.083, and ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096 does not entitle a defendant to contract attorney fees when dismissal leaves the plaintiff free to refile and gives the defendant no material relief.

City of Portland v. Iheanacho · filed 2022-08-17(1)

Although neither party cites to any relevant precedent from the Oregon Court of Appeals or Oregon Supreme Court, this District has expressly examined the amendments to Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.077 and Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096, and held that they contemplate at least some conducive “adjudication on the merits of the claim.” ... While Indoor Billboard is not binding, the Court finds its reasoning both persuasive and consistent with the overall weight of recent Oregon authority.

When a contract provides for attorney fees to enforce it, § 20.096(1) entitles the party prevailing on a contract claim to reasonable fees, regardless of which party the contract names.

Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLC · filed 2023-09-29(1)

Under Oregon law, a prevailing party shall recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the provisions of a contract when the contract so requires. Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096(1). ... Accordingly, Makarios is the prevailing part on all claims.

Section 20.096(1) allows contractual attorney’s fees to a prevailing party; neither side qualifies when the court dismisses the claims on claim-preclusion grounds without reaching their merits.

Foraker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2024-12-31(1)

Under Oregon law, a prevailing party shall recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the provisions of a contract when the contract so requires. Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096(1). ... Neither party in this case is a prevailing party. The Court did not rule on the merits of the claims, but instead dismissed this case based on claim preclusion. The Court therefore DENIES Intervenor-Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, ECF 672, and DENIES Foraker’s motion for attorney’s fees, ECF 674.

Section 20.096 allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees in an action on a promissory note that provides for attorney fees.

Sheldon v. Sheldon · filed 1999-10-13

However, the estate has prevailed on that claim and under the terms of the promissory note is entitled to recover attorney fees. ORS 20.096; Riccardi v. Frink, 133 Or App 436, 442-47, 891 P2d 1336, rev den 321 Or 268 (1995).

Section 20.096 requires the jury that tried a contract action to determine attorney fees, absent a stipulation for a separate hearing.

Nicoletti v. Damerow Ford Co. · filed 1979-06-11(1)

Whether, under ORS 20.096, the question of attorney fees must be decided by the jury where there has been a jury trial is a question of first impression. ... This language does not specifically state that where the facts of a case are tried to a jury, the jury must also decide attorney fees, but it does say that "attorney fees must be alleged and proven as part of the trial,” which we conclude does not allow a separate hearing on only the issue of attorney fees absent a stipulation. The court also stated "the amount of recovery is a question for the trier of fact,” from which we conclude that if the trier of fact is the court, it will also set attorney fees, but if the trier of fact is the jury, then the jury must determine the attorney fees.

Section 20.096 gives the prevailing party no greater right to attorney fees than an express reciprocal contract provision would give, and that right remains subject to the clean hands defense in equity.

North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver · filed 1979-06-19(1)

In equity all contractual provisions are subject to the defense of clean hands and defendant’s rights under the statute should be no greater than a contractual provision would have afforded him.

ORS 20.096 allows an equity court to deny attorney fees when the claiming party’s fault makes an award unjustified.

Goodman v. Njust · filed 1981-02-03

Thus, ORS 20.096 was applicable under the pleadings. ... We read that as a finding of unclean hands, and North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver, 286 Or 639, 663-667, 596 P2d 931 (1979), is authority for an equity court to deny the application of the statute where the claiming party is not "sufficiently free of fault with respect to the events leading to this litigation to justify an affirmative award to him of attorney fees.” ... We are satisfied that it would be inequitable and unjustifiable to allow defendants to have both their property as enhanced by the plaintiff’s activities and attorney fees.

A party seeking attorney fees under section 20.096 must plead the claim and prove the fees at trial.

Shipler v. Van Raden · filed 1979-08-20(1)

In Pritchett, the Supreme Court held that whenever a statute distinguishes between attorney fees and costs, reasonable attorney fees are recoverable only if they are pleaded and proved at trial. ... Therefore, the award of fees was improper.

ORS 20.096 treats attorney fees separately from costs and requires them to be pleaded and proved at trial.

Shipler v. VanRaden · filed 1979-10-08

However, defendants’ foregoing procedure failed to comply with the requirement of Pritchett v. Fry, 286 Or 189, 593 P2d 1133 (1979), which is applicable, because ORS 20.096 distinguishes attorney fees from costs so they may be recovered "only if they are pleaded and proved at trial.” 286 Or at 193.

In a suit in equity, a party seeking fees under ORS 20.096(1) need not present evidence of the fees until the trial court identifies the prevailing party, unless the trial judge requests it earlier.

Shipler v. Van Raden · filed 1980-03-25(1)

We hold, therefore, that in a suit in equity, unless the trial judge shall otherwise request, no party must present evidence on attorney fees for the purposes of ORS 20.096(1) until the trial court’s decision shall have identified that party who is the prevailing party under the statute.

A party preserves a claim for fees under § 20.096(1) by pleading the statute and seeking fees at trial, even without citing the contract’s fee provision.

Precision Lumber Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp. · filed 1993-12-08(1)

At trial, Humbert argued that it was entitled to attorney fees, without stating a basis for that award. Together with its pleading, that argument is referable to the contract provision regarding attorney fees because that statutory provision only relates to attorney fees under a contract. We conclude that Humbert’s argument was preserved.

A prevailing party need not cite ORS 20.096(1) in its pleadings if it requests attorney fees and alleges facts supporting entitlement to them.

Mitchell v. Pacific First Bank · filed 1994-09-07(1)

Plaintiffs did not refer to ORS 20.096(1) in their pleadings. However, they did request attorney fees, alerting defendant that fees would be sought, and they alleged facts that would entitle them to attorney fees under ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096 does not entitle a plaintiff to attorney fees after the plaintiff accepts an offer of compromise that excludes them.

State Ex Rel. State Scholarship Commission v. Magar · filed 1980-03-04(1)

If, however, as in this case, the plaintiff accepts an offer which, by its terms, does not include an offer for payment of attorney fees, we believe that plaintiff is bound by the terms of the contract which has resulted from his acceptance of such an offer and cannot thereafter contend that he is entitled to attorney fees as the "prevailing party” under ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096(1) permits a party to seek fees under a contract’s attorney fee clause when merger extinguishes the secured debt but leaves the contract intact.

Thompson v. Cantwell · filed 2007-01-05(1)

Finally, we agree with the district court that the merger did not prevent Thompson from enforcing the attorney’s fees clauses in the sale agreement, deed of trust and promissory note. Thus, by operation of Or.Rev.Stat. § 20.096(1), defendants could seek fees under the clauses.

Section 20.096(1) requires reasonable attorney fees for a party that prevails in a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award when the proceeding enforces or interprets a contract with an attorney fee provision.

Moonshadow Mobile, Inc. v. Labels & Lists, Inc. · filed 2025-07-15(1)

The post-arbitration litigation was therefore a proceeding to enforce or interpret the DHA’s arbitration provision. ... When, as here, the conditions of ORS 20.096(1) are met, the award is mandatory and “the trial court has no discretion to deny it, although it does have discretion as to what amount is ‘reasonable.’” Benchmark Nw., Inc. v. Sambhi, 191 Or. App. 520, 523 (2004) (quoting U.S. Nat. Res., Inc. v. Gray, 66 Or. App. 769, 773 (1984)).

Section 20.096 makes contractual attorney’s fee provisions reciprocal but does not extend them to actions the contract does not cover.

Harris v. Cantwell · filed 1980-07-21

If the contract between the parties makes no provision for attorney’s fees they are not recoverable under ORS 20.096. The parties by their agreement may limit the right of the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees to certain instances.

Section 20.096 permits attorney’s fees for a prevailing party in a contract action when an operative contract provides for them.

Peterson v. Harville · filed 1977-11-03

The purchase and sale agreements (PI. Exs. 4 through 9) make no provision for attorney’s fees, nor is there any evidence of such an oral agreement between plaintiffs and Harville. The original promissory note (PI. Ex. 2) does provide for attorney’s fees, but I have already held that the note was never intended by the parties to take effect. The request for attorney’s fees is denied.

Section 20.096(1) makes one-way contractual attorney fee provisions reciprocal, but applies only to litigation enforcing a contract’s provisions, not a tort claim for misrepresentation inducing the contract.

Bliss v. Anderson · filed 1978-10-16(1)

This statute provides no independent basis for defendants-appellants’ claim of attorney fees in this case. First, the purpose of the statute is merely to make one-way contract provisions for attorney fees reciprocal. Second, the statute is expressly applicable only to litigation "to enforce the provisions of the contract.” This is not such a lawsuit. Plaintiff sued in tort for damages which arose from misrepresentation. There is neither a complaint nor a cross-complaint for enforcement of a contract or for damages for the breach of a contract. Hence the petition for attorney fees was properly denied.

Section 20.096 permits a nonparty who successfully defends a claim of liability under a contract to recover attorney’s fees when the contract provides for them.

Shakey's Inc. v. Covalt · filed 1983-04-18

On the breach of the franchise agreement claim, the court applied Oregon law and ruled that a nonparty to a contract could recover under an attorney’s fee provision in the contract and Or.Rev.Stat. § 20.-096 when the nonparty successfully defends against a claim that he or she is liable under the contract. ... In the absence of a ruling by Oregon’s highest court to the contrary, we cannot find clear error.

Section 20.096(1) does not entitle a plaintiff to attorney fees merely because the defendant breached the contract when the plaintiff suffered no injury and has no cause of action.

Dean Vincent, Inc. v. Krimm · filed 1979-03-08(1)

Plaintiff suffered no injury as a result of defendant’s breach and it therefore has no cause of action. There is no basis for nominal damages or attorney fees.

Section 20.096 applies to attorney fee clauses in restrictive covenants, but appellate fees are available only if the covenant specifically provides for them.

Donaca v. Ivall · filed 1980-01-21(1)

Therefore, we find ORS 20.096 applicable to this action. However, attorney fees on appeal are not specifically provided for in the Declaration and are, therefore, not available under ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096 does not provide reciprocal attorney’s fees to a bankrupt who successfully defends a proceeding under former Bankruptcy Act § 17, because that proceeding is not an action on a contract.

In Re James D. Fulwiler, Bankrupt. Donald E. Grove v. Fulwiler · filed 1980-07-30

Fulwiler maintains that Grove was bringing an action on the contract, and thereby bringing himself within the letter of ORS 20.096. ... We conclude that Section 17(a)(2) created a purely federal cause of action designed to implement the policies of the former Bankruptcy Act. Though elements of proof associated with both tort and contract actions may have been present in many non-dis-chargeability proceedings, Section 17 fell into neither classification. ... We concur with the weight of authority in this area, and hold that attorney’s fees were awardable to successful bankrupts under Section 17 only where the creditor brought the proceeding in bad faith or to harass the bankrupt.

Section 20.096(1) permits a nonsignatory to recover attorney fees only if the underlying contract provides fees to the prevailing party in an action on the contract; an indemnity provision does not suffice.

Glaser v. Rock Creek Country Club, Inc. · filed 1984-06-06(1)

Although one who is not a signatory party to a contract may recover attorney fees pursuant to the reciprocity provisions of ORS 20.096(1), see Golden West Insulation v. Stardust Investment Co., 47 Or App 493, 615 P2d 1048 (1980), the underlying contract first must provide for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action on the contract. The contractual provision relied upon here is not such a provision; it is merely an indemnity provision running from Safeco to its insured.

Section 20.096(1) does not authorize attorney fees for every claim involving a contract; defending an implied easement claim is not an action on a contract merely because a land sale contract is involved.

King v. Talcott · filed 1986-08-13(1)

Although it is true that the terms of a land sale contract may be factors in determining whether the grantor intended an implied easement, see Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or 201, 212, 593 P2d 1138 (1979), we do not believe that the legislature intended the phrase “an action or suit on a contract” to include every claim in an action in which a contract is involved.

Section 20.096 permits a prevailing litigant who is not a party to a contract to recover attorney fees under that contract only when the claim is sufficiently related to it.

Cascade International Investment Co. v. Keene · filed 1985-10-02

The award was apparently based on our holding in Golden West Insulation v. Stardust Investment Co., 47 Or App 493, 615 P2d 1048 (1980), that a prevailing litigant who is not a party to the contract may recover attorney fees in an action on a contract that provides for the recovery of attorney fees. See ORS 20.096. ... We also reverse the award of attorney fees to the other defendants. Neither plaintiffs claim against the corporation nor its claim against Trust II was sufficiently related to the contract to warrant the application of the Golden West Insulation rule here.

Section 20.096(1) makes contractual attorney fee rights reciprocal and applies to a prevailing party’s declaratory action concerning rights under the contract.

Flight Dynamics, Inc. v. Questech Capital Corp. · filed 1985-10-30(1)

Had defendant sought a declaration that it was entitled to convert under section 2.1, it would have been an action on a contract to enforce its provisions within the meaning of ORS 20.096(1). The remedial purpose of ORS 20.096(1), to provide “true reciprocity of attorney fees,” requires that plaintiffs reciprocal right be just as broad.

A party seeking reciprocal attorney fees under subsection (1) must prevail on the contract containing the attorney-fee provision.

City of Portland v. George D. Ward & Associates, Inc. · filed 1988-02-10(1)

Management prevailed on the contract which did not provide for attorneys fees. It did not prevail on the indemnity agreement which provided fees and, therefore, cannot rely on ORS 20.096 to claim its attorney fees.

Section 20.096 makes contractual attorney fee rights reciprocal, but a defendant who establishes that no contract existed cannot recover fees under its purported fee provision.

John Deere Co. v. Epstein · filed 1988-05-18

On cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to Epstein under a provision in the contract of sale, which ORS 20.096 makes reciprocal. ... A request for rescission presupposes that a contract does, or at least did, exist, but a defense asserting that there never was an agreement negates the very instrument upon which recovery of attorney fees is contingent.

Section 20.096(1) permits attorney fees for a misrepresentation claim when the plaintiff affirms the contract by seeking damages and the contract authorizes fees for actions connected with it.

Dale A. Price, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellant v. Thomas Seydel and Nalani Seydel, Husband and Wife, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees · filed 1992-04-24(1)

Oregon Revised Statute § 20.096(1) permits the court to award attorney’s fees and costs incurred in proceedings to enforce a contract. ... In so doing the magistrate judge properly applied section 20.096. ... In this case, Price similarly chose to affirm the contract by suing for money damages rather than rescission.

Section 20.096(1) lets either party recover attorney fees when it prevails in an action on a contract with an attorney fee provision, even if the contract grants fees to only one party.

High Tech Diesel, Inc. v. Littleton · filed 1994-04-20(1)

ORS 20.096(1) is a reciprocity statute and gives either party the right to recover fees when it prevails in an action on a contract that includes an attorney fee provision, even if the contract provides for recovery of attorney fees by only one party.

Section 20.096 allows attorney fees in an action on a contract only when the contract provides for attorney fees.

Fernley v. Lloyd · filed 1999-11-10(1)

Because there is no agreement on the record before us that provides for attorney fees to the prevailing party, there is no entitlement to attorney fees under ORS 20.096 either.

Section 20.096(1) requires an operative contractual attorney-fee provision before it can make the right to fees reciprocal.

Care Medical Equipment, Inc. v. Baldwin · filed 2000-12-21(1)

A contract provision allowing for attorney fees is a necessary predicate to the application of ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096(1) allows the prevailing party in a contract action to recover fees for work on affirmative defenses, including defenses abandoned before trial or unsuccessful.

Bennett v. Baugh · filed 1999-11-24(1)

The trial court correctly determined that defendants were entitled to fees for work performed in connection with the affirmative defenses to the contract action, even those that were abandoned before trial or were unsuccessful.

Section 20.096 does not authorize attorney fees for a negligence claim because it applies only to claims based on a contract.

Association of Unit Owners of Bridgeview Condominiums v. Dunning · filed 2003-05-15

The only claim asserted against them was for negligence. ORS 20.096 applies only when a claim is “based on a contract.” There is no other basis for an award of attorney fees to those defendants.

Section 20.096(1) does not make an indemnity clause reciprocal when the clause covers only third-party claims and gives neither party attorney fees for enforcing the contract against the other.

Pacificorp v. SimplexGrinnell, LP · filed 2013-05-15(1)

And, because the indemnity clause would not entitle plaintiff to recover attorney fees in this contract enforcement action, the reciprocity statute, ORS 20.096, does not apply.

Section 20.096 does not authorize attorney fees in litigation when the contract provides fees only for arbitration.

SNJ Online, LLC v. EYEC, LLC · filed 2021-07-28

We reject respondents’ assignment of error in their cross-appeal because the contract does not unambiguously provide for attorney fees in litigation. The prevailing party “[i]n any action or suit in which a claim is made based on a contract that specifically provides that attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the provisions of the contract shall be awarded to one of the parties” is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, and the court does not have discretion not to award them. ORS 20.096. However, whether or not a con- tract “specifically provides” that the prevailing party is enti- tled to attorney fees is a question of law. Eagle Industries, Inc. v. Thompson, 321 Or 398, 405, 900 P2d 475 (1995). Here, the contract states that “[t]he prevailing party in any arbi- tration” is entitled to fees and makes no mention of litiga- tion. (Emphasis added.) Consequently, the trial court did not err in its conclusion that respondents were not entitled to attorney fees under the contract.

A motion for relief from stay is an action based on a contract under ORS 20.096 when it requires the court to determine and enforce contractual provisions.

Michelle Y. Gilgan · filed 2021-09-03(1)

If, however, a motion for relief from stay requires the bankruptcy court to determine and enforce contractual provisions, it follows that the action is one that is “based on a contract” under ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096 creates a substantive right to attorney fees under a contract that provides fees to one party.

Seattle-First National Bank v. Scheiber · filed 1981-03-30(1)

Because attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to ORS 20.096 are not merely costs incidental to judicial administration, awarding them is a matter of substantive, rather than procedural, right.

ORS 20.096 requires a specific contractual right to attorney fees; a general reference to other legal rights is insufficient.

Hanson v. Signer Motors, Inc. · filed 1990-12-26(1)

First, ORS 20.096 does not apply unless there is a specific contractual right to attorney fees. A general reference to other legal rights is not sufficiently specific to trigger ORS 20.096.

Section 20.096(1)’s reciprocal attorney fee provision does not bind the SBA on trust deeds governed by federal law.

Mark v. Kanawha Banking & Trust Co., N.A. · filed 1983-08-09(1)

The SBA is not bound by the reciprocity provision of ORS 20.096(1).

Section 20.096(1) is superseded by federal law in actions to enforce contributions to employee benefit plans.

Vermeer v. Bunyard · filed 1985-02-06(1)

Pursuant to 29 USC § 1144(a), ORS 20.096(1) is superseded by 29 USC § 1132(g)(1), insofar as it relates to actions to enforce contributions to employee benefit plans.

Section 20.096(1) does not authorize attorney fees in an action under section 301 of the LMRA because applying it would conflict with the federal policy of uniformity.

Paddack v. Furtick · filed 1986-02-26(1)

Therefore, ORS 20.096(1) does not provide a basis for the trial court’s award of attorney fees.

Section 20.096 does not apply to attorney fee petitions in actions under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Paddack v. L. W. Hembree Co. · filed 1989-04-12

They argue that the trust agreements allow fees only to the trustees when they pursue delinquent contributions successfully, that they prevailed in establishing Hembree’s delinquency in one of the two cases, and that, under federal law, ORS 20.096 does not apply. We agree with the trustees on the authority of Paddack v. Furtick, 78 Or App 49, 52-53, 714 P2d 1068, rev den 301 Or 240 (1986).

Section 20.096(1) permits an award of reasonable attorney fees in a contract action, including fees for an appeal, even if the award is less than the amount requested.

Karl's, Inc. Atchley Appliance & Tv, Inc. v. Sunrise Computers, Inc. Digital Equipment Corporation · filed 1994-04-07(1)

Although Digital’s counsel no doubt spent the time they claim to have spent on the case, we conclude that an award of less than the amount claimed will be adequate to vindicate Digital’s rights under the Oregon statute and the provisions of the contract. Without elaborating at length on our reasons for the award that we conclude is reasonable in this case, we believe that Digital is entitled to recover the amount claimed for the work its counsel did in the district court proceedings prior to the first appeal ($60,866.50), fees for the work performed in connection with that appeal ($19,140.00), and fees for the work done in the district court on remand (other than for the mandamus proceedings) ($6,000.00), for a total award of $86,006.50.

Section 20.096 makes contractual attorney fee rights reciprocal and bars parties from waiving that protection through a choice-of-law provision when Oregon has a materially greater interest in the dispute.

Capital One Bank v. Fort · filed 2011-04-13(2)

Thus, the legislature made the policy choice that making the right to recover prevailing party attorney fees under contracts containing attorney-fee provisions reciprocal would trump the parties’ freedom to contract. Here, the application of Virginia law effectively allows plaintiff and defendant to waive the reciprocity provided for in ORS 20.096 by entering a contract that entitles only plaintiff to attorney fees and chooses Virginia law as its governing law. Therefore, applying Virginia law would be irreconcilable with a fundamental policy of Oregon.

Section 20.096(1) entitles a prevailing party to reasonable contractual attorney fees, but it does not establish a fundamental Oregon policy against a monetary cap on those fees.

CACV OF COLORADO, LLC v. Stevens · filed 2012-03-14(1)

Rather, the policy rests on two premises: (1) a prevailing party may recover its reasonable attorney fees under ORS 20.096(1) so long as the party has a contractual attorney-fee entitlement and (2) nothing in Oregon law imposes a specific monetary limit on the attorney fees to which the prevailing party is entitled.

Section 20.096’s policy of protecting consumers from one-sided attorney fee provisions does not override a choice of law made by parties with equal bargaining power.

Virgo Investment Group, LLC v. Poggi · filed 2021-03-19

However, where parties of equal bargaining power exercise their “freedom to choose” a given law, Oregon’s policy interest in protecting weak consumers entering contracts for goods and services from one-sided fee provisions does not supersede that choice.

An award of attorney fees under § 20.096(1) is substantive for choice-of-law purposes, so a valid contractual choice of Indiana law can preclude it.

Fiedler v. Bowler · filed 1992-12-09(1)

An award of fees pursuant to ORS 20.096(1) is a matter of substance, not procedure.

Section 20.096 does not override a contract’s choice of another state’s law when applying that law does not violate a fundamental Oregon policy.

Medford Corp. v. Crawford & Co. · filed 1997-07-17

In a decision directly on point, the Oregon Court of Appeal in Fiedler v. Bowler, 843 P.2d 961 (Or.Ct.App.1992), held that application of the choice of law provision in a promissory note, which called for application of Indiana law and thereby displaced the Oregon reciprocal fee statute, did not "circumvent a fundamental public policy of Oregon law." ... We therefore hold that the parties are bound by the choice of law clause of the contract and that the award of attorneys' fees must be set aside.

Section 20.096(1) does not override a contract’s choice of another state’s law when applying that law would not contravene Oregon’s fundamental policy against one-sided attorney fee provisions.

Wolff · filed 2026-04-06(1)

The Court declines to apply ORS 20.096. The Court enforces the parties’ agreed-upon term that attorney’s fees are only recoverable under the 2010 NDA by Wolff.

Section 20.096 does not make a losing defendant liable for contractual attorney fees when the defendant was never alleged to be, and never claimed to be, a party to the contract.

Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC v. Taggart · filed 2014-11-26(1)

We agree with defendants that, under the unusual circumstances presented in this case — where the prevailing plaintiff is a party to a contract but the losing defendant is not and never claimed to be — the agreement, ORS 20.083, and ORS 20.096 do not provide for attorney fees to be charged against the losing party. Neither of the statutes in question works to create liability for attorney fees under a contract against a party who was not alleged to be, and never claimed to be, a party to that contract.