equitable conversion doctrine in Oregon

2012It was subject to sufficient exceptions that this court concluded in Heider v. Dietz, 234 Or 105, 114 , 380 P2d 619 (1963), that “equitable conversion is not a condition of property for all purposes, but is only a name given to a situation resulting from the application of equitable doctrines to special states of facts.” Second, regardless of the existence of a doctrine of equitable conversion, “the legislature is free to define words to mean anything that it intends them to mean.” Patton v. Target Corp., 349 Or 230, 239 , 242 P3d 611 (2010).

2012It was subject to sufficient exceptions that this court concluded in Heider v. Dietz, 234 Or 105, 114 , 380 P2d 619 (1963), that “equitable conversion is not a condition of property for all purposes, but is only a name given to a situation resulting from the application of equitable doctrines to special states of facts.” Second, regardless of the existence of a doctrine of equitable conversion, “the legislature is free to define words to mean anything that it intends them to mean.” Patton v. Target Corp., 349 Or 230, 239 , 242 P3d 611 (2010).

2014Security State Bank v. Luebke, 303 Or 418, 423 , 737 P2d 586 (1987).

2014Security State Bank v. Luebke, 303 Or 418, 423 , 737 P2d 586 (1987).

2012See also U.S. National Bank v. Boge, 311 Or 550, 557 , 814 P2d 1082 (1991) (“[t]he legislature was free to displace the common law”); State v. Couch, 341 Or 610, 619 , 147 P3d 322 (2006) (“the term ‘wildlife’ means whatever the legislature says that it means,” regardless of what it meant at common law).

2012See also U.S. National Bank v. Boge, 311 Or 550, 557 , 814 P2d 1082 (1991) (“[t]he legislature was free to displace the common law”); State v. Couch, 341 Or 610, 619 , 147 P3d 322 (2006) (“the term ‘wildlife’ means whatever the legislature says that it means,” regardless of what it meant at common law).

2012It was subject to sufficient exceptions that this court concluded in Heider v. Dietz, 234 Or 105, 114 , 380 P2d 619 (1963), that “equitable conversion is not a condition of property for all purposes, but is only a name given to a situation resulting from the application of equitable doctrines to special states of facts.” Second, regardless of the existence of a doctrine of equitable conversion, “the legislature is free to define words to mean anything that it intends them to mean.” Patton v. Target Corp., 349 Or 230, 239 , 242 P3d 611 (2010).

2012It was subject to sufficient exceptions that this court concluded in Heider v. Dietz, 234 Or 105, 114 , 380 P2d 619 (1963), that “equitable conversion is not a condition of property for all purposes, but is only a name given to a situation resulting from the application of equitable doctrines to special states of facts.” Second, regardless of the existence of a doctrine of equitable conversion, “the legislature is free to define words to mean anything that it intends them to mean.” Patton v. Target Corp., 349 Or 230, 239 , 242 P3d 611 (2010).

2011Cassidy v. Pavlonnis, 227 Or App 259, 262 , 205 P3d 58 (2009).

2011Cassidy v. Pavlonnis, 227 Or App 259, 262 , 205 P3d 58 (2009).

1987Although courts uniformly applied the equitable conversion doctrine to the vendor-purchaser relationship, for example, in determining right to possession, see, e.g., Senior Estates v. Bauman Homes, supra, 272 Or at 583-84 , the doctrine did not necessarily carry over into cases involving third party creditors. “[NJeither this court nor other courts actually apply the doctrine of equitable conversion automatically.

1987Although courts uniformly applied the equitable conversion doctrine to the vendor-purchaser relationship, for example, in determining right to possession, see, e.g., Senior Estates v. Bauman Homes, supra, 272 Or at 583-84 , the doctrine did not necessarily carry over into cases involving third party creditors. “[NJeither this court nor other courts actually apply the doctrine of equitable conversion automatically.

1986On the other hand, the money is treated as the personal estate of the vendor, and is subject to the like mode of disposition by him.” (Quoting 2 Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 1212.) In Sheehan v. McKinstry, et al, 105 Or 473, 483 , 210 P 167 (1922), decided not long after the enactment of ORS 88.120, the Supreme Court explained: “Under an executory contract for the sale of realty, equity regards the real beneficial and equitable ownership of the land as vested in the vendee, the vendor merely holding the legal title as security for the purchase price.” Words used in a statute which have a se

1986On the other hand, the money is treated as the personal estate of the vendor, and is subject to the like mode of disposition by him.” (Quoting 2 Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 1212.) In Sheehan v. McKinstry, et al, 105 Or 473, 483 , 210 P 167 (1922), decided not long after the enactment of ORS 88.120, the Supreme Court explained: “Under an executory contract for the sale of realty, equity regards the real beneficial and equitable ownership of the land as vested in the vendee, the vendor merely holding the legal title as security for the purchase price.” Words used in a statute which have a se

1986In Walker v. Goldsmith, 14 Or 125, 137 , 12 P 537 (1886), explaining the doctrine of equitable conversion, the Supreme Court stated that the purchaser under a land sale contract “[i]s treated as the owner of the land, and it is devisable and descendible as his real estate.

1986In Walker v. Goldsmith, 14 Or 125, 137 , 12 P 537 (1886), explaining the doctrine of equitable conversion, the Supreme Court stated that the purchaser under a land sale contract “[i]s treated as the owner of the land, and it is devisable and descendible as his real estate.

1984This is because of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” 292 Or at 777-78 .

1984(Emphasis in original.) The court concluded: “ORS 12.110(1) is not applicable either because the action does arise on contract[ 5 ] or because the injuries here were to the interests of ‘another’ in real property and the action to recover damages for those injuries is especially enumerated in ORS 12.080(3).” 292 Or at 778-79 .

1974Putnam et ux v. Jenkins et ux, 204 Or 691 , 285 P2d 532 (1955).

1974Putnam et ux v. Jenkins et ux, 204 Or 691 , 285 P2d 532 (1955).

1963McGinley v. Forrest, 107 Neb 309, 186 NW 74 , 22 ALR 567 (1921).

1963McGinley v. Forrest, 107 Neb 309, 186 NW 74 , 22 ALR 567 (1921).

1963The briefs and argument were centered upon the apparent conflict between May v. Emerson, 52 Or 262 , 96 P 454 , 96 P 1065 (1908), and the recent case of Panushka v. Panushka, 221 Or 145 , 349 P2d 450 (1960).

1963The briefs and argument were centered upon the apparent conflict between May v. Emerson, 52 Or 262 , 96 P 454 , 96 P 1065 (1908), and the recent case of Panushka v. Panushka, 221 Or 145 , 349 P2d 450 (1960).

1960Our cases such as Manning v. U. S. National Bank, 174 Or 118 , 148 P2d 255 , 153 ALR 922 (1944) and Erickson v. Erickson, 167 Or 1 , 115 P2d 172 (1941), recognize that the right of survivorship can be created by the agreement of the parties.

1960Our cases such as Manning v. U. S. National Bank, 174 Or 118 , 148 P2d 255 , 153 ALR 922 (1944) and Erickson v. Erickson, 167 Or 1 , 115 P2d 172 (1941), recognize that the right of survivorship can be created by the agreement of the parties.

1960Our cases such as Manning v. U. S. National Bank, 174 Or 118 , 148 P2d 255 , 153 ALR 922 (1944) and Erickson v. Erickson, 167 Or 1 , 115 P2d 172 (1941), recognize that the right of survivorship can be created by the agreement of the parties.

1960Our cases such as Manning v. U. S. National Bank, 174 Or 118 , 148 P2d 255 , 153 ALR 922 (1944) and Erickson v. Erickson, 167 Or 1 , 115 P2d 172 (1941), recognize that the right of survivorship can be created by the agreement of the parties.

1928This court, speaking through Mr. Justice Bean, in Security Savings Co. v. MacKenzie, 33 Or. 209 ( 52 Pac. 1046 ), said: “ # # Under an agreement for the sale of land, the vendor has, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, a so-called ‘equitable lien’ upon the property for the unpaid purchase money; and courts of equity have always exercised jurisdiction in the case arising under such contracts to enforce such lien and foreclose the rights of the delinquent vendee.” The principle is so well established we deem it unnecessary to cite any further authorities; the same doctrine has been many

1928This court, speaking through Mr. Justice Bean, in Security Savings Co. v. MacKenzie, 33 Or. 209 ( 52 Pac. 1046 ), said: “ # # Under an agreement for the sale of land, the vendor has, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, a so-called ‘equitable lien’ upon the property for the unpaid purchase money; and courts of equity have always exercised jurisdiction in the case arising under such contracts to enforce such lien and foreclose the rights of the delinquent vendee.” The principle is so well established we deem it unnecessary to cite any further authorities; the same doctrine has been many

1924We believe her interest was personal property under the doctrine of equitable conversion: Collins v. Creason, 55 Or. 524 ( 106 Pac. 445); Miles v. Hemenway, 59 Or. 318 ( 111 Pac. 696 , 117 Pac. 273 ); Sections 1266-1268, Or.

1924We believe her interest was personal property under the doctrine of equitable conversion: Collins v. Creason, 55 Or. 524 ( 106 Pac. 445); Miles v. Hemenway, 59 Or. 318 ( 111 Pac. 696 , 117 Pac. 273 ); Sections 1266-1268, Or.

1924We believe her interest was personal property under the doctrine of equitable conversion: Collins v. Creason, 55 Or. 524 ( 106 Pac. 445); Miles v. Hemenway, 59 Or. 318 ( 111 Pac. 696 , 117 Pac. 273 ); Sections 1266-1268, Or.

1924We believe her interest was personal property under the doctrine of equitable conversion: Collins v. Creason, 55 Or. 524 ( 106 Pac. 445); Miles v. Hemenway, 59 Or. 318 ( 111 Pac. 696 , 117 Pac. 273 ); Sections 1266-1268, Or.