Yogman framework in Oregon

2025House Living Trust v. Thompson, 230 Or App 595, 600 , 217 P3d 228 (2009); see also Farnsworth v. Meadowland Ranches, Inc., 321 Or App 814 , 823 n 5, 519 P3d 153 (2022) (explaining that, under the Yogman framework, extrinsic evidence of the circumstances of contract forma- tion can be considered in determining whether an ambigu- ity exists, as explained in Batzer Construction, Inc. v. Boyer, 204 Or App 309 , 129 P3d 773, rev den, 341 Or 366 (2006)).

2025House Living Trust v. Thompson, 230 Or App 595, 600 , 217 P3d 228 (2009); see also Farnsworth v. Meadowland Ranches, Inc., 321 Or App 814 , 823 n 5, 519 P3d 153 (2022) (explaining that, under the Yogman framework, extrinsic evidence of the circumstances of contract forma- tion can be considered in determining whether an ambigu- ity exists, as explained in Batzer Construction, Inc. v. Boyer, 204 Or App 309 , 129 P3d 773, rev den, 341 Or 366 (2006)).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2019If, based on our review of the text, context, and underlying circumstances, we determine that there is only one plausible interpretation of the disputed provision, "then our analysis is complete and we give the appropriate effect to the parties' intentions." Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, Inc. , 341 Or. 321 , 332, 142 P.3d 1044 (2006) (describing Yogman analysis).

2019If, based on our review of the text, context, and underlying circumstances, we determine that there is only one plausible interpretation of the disputed provision, "then our analysis is complete and we give the appropriate effect to the parties' intentions." Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, Inc. , 341 Or. 321 , 332, 142 P.3d 1044 (2006) (describing Yogman analysis).

2026See e.g., id. at 680 (using an analogy to contracts to illustrate why modifica- tion of a trust was an inappropriate remedy in that case); Samuel v. King, 186 Or App 684, 692 , 64 P3d 1206 , rev den, 335 Or 443 (2003) (applying the Yogman analysis for deter- mining if a contract is facially ambiguous to conclude that the trust at issue was not facially ambiguous).

2026See e.g., id. at 680 (using an analogy to contracts to illustrate why modifica- tion of a trust was an inappropriate remedy in that case); Samuel v. King, 186 Or App 684, 692 , 64 P3d 1206 , rev den, 335 Or 443 (2003) (applying the Yogman analysis for deter- mining if a contract is facially ambiguous to conclude that the trust at issue was not facially ambiguous).

2020Cite as 303 Or App 51 (2020) 67 In this case, the trial court was presented with evi- dence concerning the parties’ negotiations regarding child support and the payment of college expenses that led to the 2014 judgment.

2020Cite as 303 Or App 51 (2020) 67 In this case, the trial court was presented with evi- dence concerning the parties’ negotiations regarding child support and the payment of college expenses that led to the 2014 judgment.

2020Harris, 207 Or App at 738 ; see also Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 297 Or App 775, 787-88 , 444 P3d 1116 (2019) (the content of dis- cussions during contract negotiations qualifies as extrinsic evidence that may be considered under the first step of the Yogman analysis); Batzer Construction, Inc., 204 Or App at 320 (“Evidence of a prior course of dealing is evidence of the circumstances underlying a contract.”).

2020Harris, 207 Or App at 738 ; see also Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 297 Or App 775, 787-88 , 444 P3d 1116 (2019) (the content of dis- cussions during contract negotiations qualifies as extrinsic evidence that may be considered under the first step of the Yogman analysis); Batzer Construction, Inc., 204 Or App at 320 (“Evidence of a prior course of dealing is evidence of the circumstances underlying a contract.”).

2018App. 373 , 376, 195 P.3d 919 (2008) ( Yogman framework governs the interpretation of CC & Rs).

2017We begin by examining the text, context, and extrinsic evidence of “the circumstances underlying the formation of the contract.” Nixon v. Cascade Health Services, Inc., 205 Or App 232, 238 , 134 P3d 1027 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017We begin by examining the text, context, and extrinsic evidence of “the circumstances underlying the formation of the contract.” Nixon v. Cascade Health Services, Inc., 205 Or App 232, 238 , 134 P3d 1027 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2017We apply “the familiar three-step analysis described in Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361 , 937 P2d 1019 (1997), for analyzing contracts.” Copeland Sand & Gravel v. Estate of Angeline Dillard, 267 Or App 791, 794 , 341 P3d 189 (2014), adh’d to on recons, 269 Or App 904 , 346 P3d 526 (2015); Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or App 326, 338 , 129 P3d 738 (2006) (applying the Yogman framework to a settlement agreement).

2014Portland Fire Fighters’Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85 , 94 n 6, 45 P3d 162 (2002), rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (describing ORS chapter 42 rules of interpretation as maxims of construction under Yogman, although observing that some of those rules could be implicated at earlier stages of the Yogman analysis); Criterion Interests, Inc. v. The Deschutes Club, 136 Or App 239, 244 , 902 P2d 110 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996) (applying ORS chapter 42 rules to a deed).

2014Portland Fire Fighters’Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85 , 94 n 6, 45 P3d 162 (2002), rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (describing ORS chapter 42 rules of interpretation as maxims of construction under Yogman, although observing that some of those rules could be implicated at earlier stages of the Yogman analysis); Criterion Interests, Inc. v. The Deschutes Club, 136 Or App 239, 244 , 902 P2d 110 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996) (applying ORS chapter 42 rules to a deed).

2014There is a well-established maxim of construction from property law that helps resolve this question. 6 “When there is an ambiguity in a deed, the general rule is to construe it against the grantor.” Verzeano v. Carpenter, 108 Or App 258, 263 , 815 P2d 1275 (1991), rev den, 312 Or 589 (1992).

2014There is a well-established maxim of construction from property law that helps resolve this question. 6 “When there is an ambiguity in a deed, the general rule is to construe it against the grantor.” Verzeano v. Carpenter, 108 Or App 258, 263 , 815 P2d 1275 (1991), rev den, 312 Or 589 (1992).

2014Portland Fire Fighters’Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85 , 94 n 6, 45 P3d 162 (2002), rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (describing ORS chapter 42 rules of interpretation as maxims of construction under Yogman, although observing that some of those rules could be implicated at earlier stages of the Yogman analysis); Criterion Interests, Inc. v. The Deschutes Club, 136 Or App 239, 244 , 902 P2d 110 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996) (applying ORS chapter 42 rules to a deed).

2014Portland Fire Fighters’Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85 , 94 n 6, 45 P3d 162 (2002), rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (describing ORS chapter 42 rules of interpretation as maxims of construction under Yogman, although observing that some of those rules could be implicated at earlier stages of the Yogman analysis); Criterion Interests, Inc. v. The Deschutes Club, 136 Or App 239, 244 , 902 P2d 110 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996) (applying ORS chapter 42 rules to a deed).