The judge's findings
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
him, ) Case No. 0708-09600
Plaintiff,
v.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
me,
Defendant.
Holding:
I find that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not sufficient to carry the burden of proof as to any claims delineated in the complaint.
(First Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract-Exhibit 1)
Specifically, as to the contract in Exhibit 1, I find that the evidence presented is not convincing regarding the signature being valid. I find the handwriting expert testimony unconvincing; the witnesses regarding observing the signature were not credible. The argument that the contract, if not valid as a written contract, was valid as an oral contract, also fails as the terms as testified to are too vague to determine consideration, specific obligations as to amounts to be paid, and the duration of such payments. The testimony of the parties also makes it clear that there is not a “meeting of the minds” as to the terms of this “oral” agreement. Additionally, the testimony of the parties, and the witnesses, is replete with examples of Defendant paying bills and giving money to Plaintiff, and void of any credible accounting by either party. Hence, the Plaintiff has not carried his burden of proof regarding the existence of the contract or the failure of the performance as alleged.
(Second and Third Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract-Exhibit 2)
I find that the evidence regarding the contract in Exhibit 2 is insufficient regarding the breach of performance as to that contract. The evidence presented by Plaintiff is not convincing regarding both the validity of the contract and as to whether it was signed by Defendant. Defendant acknowledged signing this contract as an addendum to a “master/slave” contract sent via e-mail; therefore the validity of the contract itself is in question. However, the almost complete lack of accounting for money spent and/or repaid in relation to this contract leaves the court unconvinced that even if the contract was valid, that any money was owed by Defendant to Plaintiff pursuant to that contract. I also find that the witnesses as to this contract testifying for the Plaintiff, are essentially the same witnesses testifying regarding the first claim, and I find their testimony to be unconvincing on this issue also. The Plaintiffs
testimony regarding the mileage and use of the car subject to Exhibit 2 is not credible.
(Fourth Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract: Credit Card Payments)
I find that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof as to the non-payment of these expenses.
(Fifth Claim for Relief: Dissolution of Domestic Partnership)
The above findings apply regarding the two contracts found in Exhibit 1 and 2. I do not find that those contracts reflect a domestic partnership agreement. The description of the relationship, to the extent that it exists, is found within the e-mails and “master/slave” contracts between the two parties, and I find those to be not enforceable in the context of this lawsuit, and therefore find the Plaintiff has not proven his case for this claim.
(Sixth Claim for Relief: Conversion)
I find that the Defendant had an ownership interest in the dogs, and therefore did not convert the dogs. Plaintiff agreed to sell the dogs to Defendant for $400/each, Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the dogs were not paid for by Defendant.
Date Signed: /.2 - ii °,?
Hon. Alicia A. Fuchs
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
him, ) Case No. 0708-09600
Plaintiff,
v.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
me,
Defendant.
Holding:
I find that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not sufficient to carry the burden of proof as to any claims delineated in the complaint.
(First Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract-Exhibit 1)
Specifically, as to the contract in Exhibit 1, I find that the evidence presented is not convincing regarding the signature being valid. I find the handwriting expert testimony unconvincing; the witnesses regarding observing the signature were not credible. The argument that the contract, if not valid as a written contract, was valid as an oral contract, also fails as the terms as testified to are too vague to determine consideration, specific obligations as to amounts to be paid, and the duration of such payments. The testimony of the parties also makes it clear that there is not a “meeting of the minds” as to the terms of this “oral” agreement. Additionally, the testimony of the parties, and the witnesses, is replete with examples of Defendant paying bills and giving money to Plaintiff, and void of any credible accounting by either party. Hence, the Plaintiff has not carried his burden of proof regarding the existence of the contract or the failure of the performance as alleged.
(Second and Third Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract-Exhibit 2)
I find that the evidence regarding the contract in Exhibit 2 is insufficient regarding the breach of performance as to that contract. The evidence presented by Plaintiff is not convincing regarding both the validity of the contract and as to whether it was signed by Defendant. Defendant acknowledged signing this contract as an addendum to a “master/slave” contract sent via e-mail; therefore the validity of the contract itself is in question. However, the almost complete lack of accounting for money spent and/or repaid in relation to this contract leaves the court unconvinced that even if the contract was valid, that any money was owed by Defendant to Plaintiff pursuant to that contract. I also find that the witnesses as to this contract testifying for the Plaintiff, are essentially the same witnesses testifying regarding the first claim, and I find their testimony to be unconvincing on this issue also. The Plaintiffs
testimony regarding the mileage and use of the car subject to Exhibit 2 is not credible.
(Fourth Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract: Credit Card Payments)
I find that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof as to the non-payment of these expenses.
(Fifth Claim for Relief: Dissolution of Domestic Partnership)
The above findings apply regarding the two contracts found in Exhibit 1 and 2. I do not find that those contracts reflect a domestic partnership agreement. The description of the relationship, to the extent that it exists, is found within the e-mails and “master/slave” contracts between the two parties, and I find those to be not enforceable in the context of this lawsuit, and therefore find the Plaintiff has not proven his case for this claim.
(Sixth Claim for Relief: Conversion)
I find that the Defendant had an ownership interest in the dogs, and therefore did not convert the dogs. Plaintiff agreed to sell the dogs to Defendant for $400/each, Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the dogs were not paid for by Defendant.
Date Signed: /.2 - ii °,?
Hon. Alicia A. Fuchs