Brown v. Buerger et al

Filing 14

Opinion and Order. The Court AFFIRMS the Order and Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court. Signed on 06/17/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown.Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-00205-BR, 3:15-cv-00206-BR, 3:15-cv-00207-BR (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

REBECCA L. BROWN,
Appellant,

v.
DARYL BUERGER; KAYLEEN BUERGER;
BRUCE HINCHLIFFE; EUGENE
PATTERSON, individually and as
Trustee of the Eugene Patterson
Trust; and KENNETH S. EILER, as
Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate
of Christen M. Brown;
Appellees,

v.
CHRISTEN MARC BROWN,
Debtor.

BRENT G. SUMMERS
Tarlow Naito & Summers, LLP
2501 S.W. First Avenue, Suite 390
Portland, OR 97201
[phone]

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

3:15-cv-00205-BR
OPINION AND ORDER

SHAWN P. RYAN
620 S.W. Main Street, Suite 612
Portland, OR 97205
[phone]
Attorneys for Appellant
JUSTIN D. LEONARD
Leonard Law Group, LLC
111 S.W. Columbia Street, Suite 1100
Portland, OR 97201
[phone]
Attorneys for Appellees Daryl Buerger and
Kayleen Buerger
MICHAEL H. MCGEAN
Francis, Hansen & Martin, LLP
1148 N.W. Hill Street
Bend, OR 97701
[phone]
Attorneys for Appellees Bruce Hinchliffe and
Eugene Patterson

BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Appellant Rebecca L.
Brown's appeal of the United States Bankruptcy Court's Order and
Judgment enforcing a settlement agreement entered into between
Appellant, Debtor Christen Marc Brown, and Appellees.
This Court reviews the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact
for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo.

See In re

Mortgage Store, Inc., 773 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2014).
The parties are familiar with the factual background of this
matter and, therefore, those facts wili not be repeated here.
After a thorough review of the record, the Court does not

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

find any clear error in the Bankruptcy Court's extensive and
detailed factual findings.

In addition, after reviewing the

legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error in
the Bankruptcy Court's legal conclusions that the parties formed
a settlement agreement; that the Statute of Frauds does not apply
and, therefore, does not render the settlement agreement
unenforceable; and that the settlement agreement is not
unenforceable on the basis of mutual mistake or indefiniteness.
Even if the Statute of Frauds governed the settlement
agreement, this Court concludes Appellant would be estopped from
invoking the Statute of Frauds as a defense to enforcement of the
agreement on the basis of partial performance.

Oregon courts

have precluded parties from invoking the Statute of Frauds to
def end against enforcement of a contract
(1) if there is conduct corroborating and unequivocally
referable to the oral agreement sufficient to satisfy
the policy of the statute designed to minimize perjured
claims and the opportunities for fraud, and (2) if
there are equitable grounds for enforcing the contract
whether those grounds are found in facts establishing
the basis for a true estoppel or in facts justifying
the avoidance of unjust enrichment or relief from
fraud.
Conklin v. Karban Rock, Inc.,

94 Or. App. 593, 599 (1989) (quoting

Luckey, et ux v. Deatsman, 217 Or. 628,

633 (1959).

Here

Appellant allowed the Bankruptcy Court and the other parties to
the bankruptcy proceedings to persist in a reasonable belief that
the parties had settled the bankruptcy proceedings for almost

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

seven weeks after the time that Appellant asserts she desired to
withdraw from the settlement agreement that she now repudiates.
During that period, however, Appellant did not pursue the
scheduled trial that was cancelled because of the parties'
announced settlement agreement, and she continued to attempt to
raise the same $550,000.00 that the Bankruptcy Judge found
Appellant was required to pay under the settlement agreement.
Also during that period, Appellees abandoned trial preparation
and settled related matters with other parties on the basis of
their reasonable belief in the existence of a settlement
agreement.

It is apparent that neither Appellant nor the

Appellees would have taken any of these actions in the absence of
the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, on this record the Court concludes there is
sufficient "conduct corroborating and unequivocally referable to
the oral agreement sufficient to satisfy the policy of the
statute designed to minimize perjured claims and the
opportunities for fraud.n

See Conklin, 94 Or. App. at 599.

The Court also concludes there are "equitable grounds for
enforcing the contractn because the other parties to the
settlement agreement also settled related matters pending in
state-court proceedings in reliance on the settlement agreement.
See Conklin,

94 Or. App. at 599.

In light of the fact that

bankruptcy proceedings frequently involve the resolution of

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

multiple debts that are often involved in multiple proceedings,
the parties reasonably relied on Appellant's represented assent
to the settlement agreement in their efforts to resolve all
related matters.

Moreover, there is a strong public policy in

favor of resolving bankruptcy and related proceedings in an
expeditious and comprehensive manner, and, therefore, the efforts
of the parties to resolve all related matters quickly and in
reasonable reliance on the settlement agreement render the
enforcement of the contract to be. equitable.
Accordingly, in the alternative, the Court holds partial
performance and detrimental reliance estop Appellant from
avoiding enforcement of the settlement agreement on the basis of
the Statute of Frauds.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Order and Judgment
of the Bankruptcy Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of June, 2015.

ANNA J. BROWN
.
United States District Judge

5 - OPINION AND ORDER