Alderman v. Davidson
Supreme Court of Oregon
954 P.2d 779 (1998)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The plaintiff sold property to the defendant and the parties entered into a contract under which the defendant would pay for the property in installments. The defendant was also required to pay taxes on the property and send receipts of such payments to the plaintiff. The contract provided that if the defendant defaulted, the plaintiff could commence foreclosure proceedings. The defendant frequently sent installment payments to the plaintiff late. While the plaintiff sent letters requesting prompt payment, she always accepted the late payments. Additionally, the defendant did not pay the property taxes for the years 1990 to 1993 and thus did not send tax payment receipts to the plaintiff as was required under the contract. In January 1994, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant indicating that the defendant was in default on the installment payments and tax payments, but the defendant never got the letter. Meanwhile, between January and May 1994, the defendant sent four installment payments to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s escrow agent accepted those payments on the plaintiff’s behalf. Later in May 1994, the plaintiff commenced foreclosure proceedings. The trial court held that the plaintiff had waived her right to foreclose. The court of appeals reversed on the issue of the tax payments, holding that while the plaintiff had waived timely installment payments, she did not waive timely tax payments. The defendant appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gillette, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.