Derkatsch v. Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, 248 OrApp 185 (2012)

Holding:   While the relevant statute authorized fees from the protected person’s resources for efforts expended during the successful protective proceeding, the statute did not authorize payment of fees for efforts expended in a separate case on behalf of that person prior to the protection order being entered.

1)  Courts resolve issues of statutory construction “by examining the statutory text and context, any pertinent legislative history, and, if necessary, applying maxims of construction.” citing State v. Gaines and PGE v. B.O.L.I. at p. 193.

2)   Paragraphs two (2) and three (3) of the statute require court approval before payment for the services described in those paragraphs. Paragraph one (1) does not require prior approval. This difference in wording in no way prohibits a Court from ordering payment of funds pursuant to paragraph one (1). at pp. 194-95.

3)   Even if the benefits of the separate law suit accrued to the protected person after she received that status, a plain reading of the statute prohibits payment under that statute for work done on a separate law suit prior to the protection order being entered. at p. 197, ftn 6.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!