breach of fiduciary duty claim in Oregon

2015The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and, on appeal, we reversed because the defendant had not met his burden of proving that the transaction was “‘fair and reasonable to the corporation’ ” and because the trial evidence showed that the transaction was “manifestly unfair to the corporation and its other stockholders.” Id. at 410-11 .

2003That’s the point of it.” 7 This court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs claim for reckless infliction of emotional distress, because the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant’s conduct was anything more than negligent. 312 Or at 27-28 . 8 This court stated in Georgetown Realty, Inc. v. Home Ins.

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002There is also testimony establishing that, as to some purchases of personal items, including the purchase of gifts for plaintiffs wife using defendant’s money, plaintiff routinely paid defendant back, using company money temporarily and only to keep his expenditure a surprise from the recipient of the gift. 11 In Lindland , the court also said, “Breach of the duty of loyalty is established by proof that the agent had a conflict of interest or was self-dealing.” Id. at 327 . 12 This assignment of error raises issues related to those in the fourth assignment of error, namely, what is required to

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

2002Each of the allegations presented to the jury under the breach of fiduciary duty claim involved alleged self-dealing. 13 ORS 93.740 provides, in part, that: “In all suits in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected or brought in question, any party thereto at the commencement of the suit, or at any time during the pendency thereof, may have recorded by the county clerk or other recorder of deeds of every county in which any part of the premises lies a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties, the object of the suit,

1987Dept. of Forestry v. Jepson & Sons Logging Co., 64 Or App 390, 397 , 668 P2d 461 , rev den 295 Or 841 (1983).

1987Dept. of Forestry v. Jepson & Sons Logging Co., 64 Or App 390, 397 , 668 P2d 461 , rev den 295 Or 841 (1983).

1984Following a judgment for the broker, the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court “ ‘did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim— it did not place the burden of full disclosure on the defendants.’ ” 287 Or at 183 .

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or

1979The trial court specifically found that "there was no breach of any fiduciary duties owed by defendants or either of them to plaintiff.” In response, plaintiff notes that if the trial court did consider the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court nevertheless "did not heed the most important consequence of the breach of fiduciary duty claim — it did not place the burden of proving full disclosure on the defendants.” 4 Plaintiff relies on Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198 , 497 P2d 358 (1972); Widing et al v. Jensen, Real Estate Com., 231 Or 541 , 373 P2d 661 (1962); Prall v. Gooden, 226 Or