and submitted March 16, 2017.
County Circuit Court 15PK42190; A161433 Benjamin S. Johnston,
Judge pro tempore.
Kimberley Hanks McGair argued the cause for appellant. With
her on the briefs was Farleigh Wada Witt.
Glick argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent.
Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Wilson,
Summary: Intervenor, Reliable Credit Association, Inc.
(Reliable), appeals the trial court's order denying its
motion under Multnomah Circuit Court Supplementary Rule
17.035(3) for release of an impounded car in which it claims
a security interest. The city responds that the Court of
Appeals lacks jurisdiction, as the order that Reliable
appeals is not appealable under ORS 19.205(2). Held:
The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over this
appeal. The order that Reliable appealed is not appealable
under ORS 19.205 because the order is not a judgment and thus
is not appealable under ORS 19.205(1), is not an order that
"prevent[ed] a judgment in the action" under ORS
19.205(2), and does not affect a "substantial
right" under ORS 19.205(3).
Or. 362] LAGESEN, J.
parking violation case arising from the City of Portland,
intervenor Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (Reliable),
appeals an order denying its motion under Multnomah Circuit
Court Supplementary Local Rule (SLR) 17.035(3) for release of
an impounded car in which it claims a security interest. But
the order that Reliable appeals is not appealable under ORS
19.205. We therefore must dismiss the appeal.
supplementary local rule, Multnomah County has created a
process by which the city may obtain a court order
authorizing the towing and impoundment of a vehicle for
unpaid parking citations. SLR 17.035(1) (effective Feb 1,
2016). The rule also provides mechanisms to
obtain the release of impounded cars, including a special
mechanism available to a "subsequent bona fide purchaser
for value" of an impounded car:
"A subsequent bona fide purchaser for value of a vehicle
that is towed and impounded under an order of the court for
unpaid financial obligations which all relate to the prior
owner of the vehicle, other than citations incident to the
towing, may request an ex parte hearing to apply for
an order for the release of the vehicle from the impoundment
order without complying with the requirement of section (2)
of this rule [that the person post the total amount of unpaid
financial obligations associated with unpaid parking
SLR 17.035(3)(a). Whether to grant any such request for
release is discretionary with the trial court:
"Following the hearing [required by the rule], the court
may release the vehicle to the subsequent bona fide
purchaser for value without requiring payment of the
outstanding financial obligations by the prior registered
owner arising from unpaid parking citations owed on the
vehicle." SLR 17.035(3)(b) [289 Or. 363] (emphasis
added). If the court denies a request for release under SLR
17.035(3), "then the person may only proceed under
section (2) of this rule for a hearing." SLR 17.035
(3)(b). SLR 17.035(2), in turn, provides:
"Requests for a court hearing on the validity of a
parking citation after receipt of an impoundment notice, or
after impoundment, must be made personally at the Multnomah
County Courthouse. All requests must include the posting of
the total amount of the financial obligations against the
vehicle for parking citations that are unpaid in full or in
part applicable at the time of the request, unless waived by
person who has failed to persuade the trial court to release
an impounded vehicle under SLR 17.035(3) must then request a
hearing under SLR 17.035(2) and first post the amount of
unpaid financial obligations, unless the court agrees to
waive that requirement.
case, defendant Diaz, who has not appeared on appeal, accrued
a large number of parking tickets but did not pay them. This
resulted in a large number of parking violation cases against
him, including the instant case, which led to the city
obtaining a court order to impound Diaz's car. After the
trial court entered a default judgment against Diaz and the
city impounded the car, Reliable, which claims a security
interest in the car, intervened by filing a motion under SLR
17.035(3) for release of the car. Reliable asserted that it
was a "subsequent bona fide purchaser for value"
under the terms of that provision, entitling it to release of
the car without having to pay the fine and fees incurred by
defendant. The trial court denied the motion by order.
Reliable appealed that order, asserting that this court has
jurisdiction under ORS 19.205(2) and assigning ...