Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that compliance with ORCP 9 B's manner-of-service requirement is a mandatory prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction. Because the husband served the notice of appeal on his wife but not on her attorney, the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an appellant's failure to serve a notice of appeal on the opposing party's attorney, as required by ORCP 9 B, is a jurisdictional defect.
- Whether timely service on the opposing party alone satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of ORS chapter 19.
Holdings
- Compliance with the manner of service specified in ORCP 9 B is a mandatory requirement of appellate jurisdiction. When the opposing party is represented, the appellant must timely serve the notice of appeal on that party's attorney.
Key quotations
“Compliance with the manner of service specified in ORCP 9 B is mandatory requirement of appellate jurisdiction.” (355 Or. at 753)
“Those cases control this one. ORCP 9 B specifies how an appellant must serve a party when that party is represented. The appellant must serve the party’s attorney.” (355 Or. at 758)
Factual background
The Clackamas County Circuit Court entered a restraining order against Heikkila on May 9, 2013. Heikkila's attorney filed a notice of appeal on June 10, 2013, and mailed a copy to J. A. H., but did not serve her attorney, who represented her throughout the litigation. J. A. H. moved to dismiss the appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Procedural history
The Clackamas County Circuit Court granted J. A. H.'s petition for a restraining order against Shawn Dean Heikkila. Heikkila timely filed a notice of appeal and served it on J. A. H. but not on her attorney. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, denied reconsideration, and the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.