Jole v. Bredbenner
Oregon Court of Appeals
768 P.2d 433 (1989)

- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Fred and Betty Bredbenner (defendants) rented a residence from Dorris Jole (plaintiff) on a month-to-month basis. However, the Bredbenners missed a number of rental payments, ultimately owing $4,400 in missed payments. In August 1984, Fred Bredbenner met with Jole and her husband regarding the missed payments. Mr. Jole told Fred that the Bredbenners would need to pay at least $25 a month toward the debt, in addition to their monthly rent. Afterwards, Jole sent the Bredbenners a letter laying out the agreement they had reached. The letter stated that: (1) the rent was due by the 23rd of each month, the original due date, (2) at least, but preferably more than, $25 would be paid each month toward the debt, (3) the Bredbenners would try to pay their rent from the paycheck they received on the 5th of each month, and (4) any late payments would result in eviction. For the next six months, the Bredbenners made regular payments on the debt. Then the Bredbenners told Jole that they were moving. Jole demanded full payment of the remaining debt plus interest. The Bredbenners refused, saying that, as long they made monthly $25 payments on the debt, the August 1984 agreement meant Jole could not make the full balance due. Jole sued. The trial court ruled in favor of the Bredbenners. Jole appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Deits, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.