The Posting Begins for Oregon Real Estate Deskbook

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

Excerpted from Oregon Real Estate Deskbook (OSB Legal Pubs 2014, in progress), chapter 6 Recording and Priorities.

By Chas Cleveland Abbe,
state underwriting counsel, Fidelity National Title Group, Portland.

To learn more about recording and priorities, go to BarBooks™, where you can also see what other chapters of this new book have been posted.

§6.5 OREGON’S RECORDING LAW

Oregon’s basic race-notice recording law is stated in ORS 93.640. Stripped of document types other than “conveyance,” ORS 93.640(1) states:

Every conveyance . . . affecting the title of real property within this state which is not recorded as provided by law is void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real property, or any portion thereof, whose conveyance . . . is first filed for record, and as against the heirs and assigns of such subsequent purchaser.

This phrasing protects (1) a subsequent purchaser (2) in good faith (3) for valuable consideration (4) who records first. The Oregon Supreme Court has grafted lack of notice onto the good-faith requirement. Thus, a subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer must take its interest “in good faith for value and without notice of the outstanding interests.” High v. Davis, 283 Or 315, 332–33, 584 P2d 725 (1978) (emphasis added). This was not always true. See § 6.10-1 (purchaser status, good faith, and valuable consideration).

The word conveyance in ORS 93.640(1) is construed broadly to include any document in the form of a conveyance, such as a mortgage, and is not limited to documents that transfer legal title. Watson v. Dundee Mortgage & Trust Inv. Co., 12 Or 474, 8 P 548 (1885). Nevertheless, ORS 93.640(1) expressly refers to the following: “conveyance, deed, land sale contract, assignment of all or any portion of a seller’s or purchaser’s interest in a land sale contract or other agreement or memorandum thereof affecting the title.” This phraseology “includes mortgages, trust deeds, and assignments for security purposes or assignments solely of proceeds, given by purchasers or sellers under land sale contract.” ORS 93.640(1). “Memorandum” is defined in ORS 93.640(1) and ORS 93.710(3).

The same race-notice language applies to an assignment of a sheriff’s certificate of sale of real property on execution or mortgage foreclosure if the assignment is not recorded within five days after its execution. ORS 93.640(2), ORS 93.530.

Other statutes omit the good-faith and valuable consideration language of ORS 93.640. In large measure, these statutes simply expand or clarify the roster of documents eligible for recording. For example, ORS 93.710(1) sets forth several additional recordable documents and notes that recordation of these documents constitutes notice to third persons of the rights of the parties irrespective of whether the party granted such interest is in possession of the real property. That said, the bona fide purchaser doctrine developed under ORS 93.640 is favored in the case law.

Under ORS 93.806, recordation of “[a]ny instrument creating a lien on unpaid rents and profits of real property . . . constitutes notice to third persons, and shall otherwise have the same effect as recordation pursuant to ORS 93.710.” This statute goes on to state that an instrument recorded under ORS 93.710 (as well as one recorded under ORS 93.806) “shall not be voidable by and shall not be subordinate to the rights of . . . [a] subsequent bona fide purchaser of real property.”

Recordation of a judgment affecting land “is notice to all persons” of the judgment and proceedings through which the judgment was recorded. ORS 93.730. A notice of pendency of an action creates notice at recording: “From the time of recording the notice, and from that time only, the pendency of the suit is notice, to purchasers and encumbrancers, of the rights and equities in the premises of the party filing the notice.” ORS 93.740. The recorded notice will cut off those persons whose interests are unrecorded and unknown, as well as those persons whose interests arise after recording of the notice. To support a notice of pendency, the action must be filed in court, and the subject of the action “must be an actual interest in real property, not merely a speculative future one.” Doughty v. Birkholtz, 156 Or App 89, 95, 964 P2d 1108 (1998) (recorded notice was wrongful when only pending proceeding was an administrative claim before the Construction Contractors Board); see Vukanovich v. Kine, 251 Or App 807, 285 P3d 733 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 203 (2013) (recorded notice was wrongful when a breach of contract claim for membership interest in a limited liability company that owned property did not “involve, affect, or bring into question any interest in the [real] property” identified in the notice); see generally § 6.8-1.

For judgment liens, ORS 18.165 establishes special rules that supersede previous statutes and case law. ORS 18.165 states:

    (1)     If a judgment with lien effect under ORS 18.150, 18.152 or 18.158 is entered or recorded in a county before a conveyance, or a memorandum of a conveyance, of real property of the debtor is recorded in that county, the conveyance of the judgment debtor’s interest is void as against the lien of the judgment unless:

    (a)     The grantee under the conveyance is a purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration, the conveyance is delivered and accepted before the judgment is entered or recorded in the county where the property is located and the conveyance or memorandum of the conveyance is recorded within 20 days after delivery and acceptance of the conveyance, excluding Saturdays and legal holidays under ORS 187.010 and 187.020;

    (b)     The judgment creditor has actual notice, record notice or inquiry notice of a conveyance of the debtor’s interest to a grantee when the judgment is entered or recorded in the county;

    (c)     The conveyance by the debtor is a fulfillment deed entitled to priority over the judgment under ORS 93.645; or

    (d)     The conveyance is a mortgage, trust deed or other security instrument given by the debtor to secure financing for the purchase by the debtor of the real property described in the conveyance.

    (2)     For the purpose of subsection (1)(a) of this section, a memorandum of conveyance must contain the date of the instrument being memorialized, the names of the parties, a legal description of the real property involved and a description of the nature of the interest created. The memorandum must be signed by the person from whom the interest is intended to pass, and be acknowledged or proved in the manner provided for the acknowledgment or proof of deeds.

    (3)     As used in this section:

    (a)     “Conveyance” means a deed, a land sale contract, an assignment of all or any portion of a seller’s or purchaser’s interest in a land sale contract or any other agreement affecting the title of real property within this state, including a trust deed, a mortgage, an assignment for security purposes or an assignment solely of proceeds, given by a purchaser or seller under a land sale contract or given by a person with title to the real property.

    (b)     “Grantee” means:

    (A)     The person deemed to be the mortgagee under a trust deed pursuant to ORS 86.715; and

    (B)     Any other person to whom the interest that is the subject of a conveyance is intended to pass.

Various instruments not covered by the above provisions of ORS chapter 93 gain benefits or effect from recording. The following is a partial list of such instruments and the corresponding statutes. Additional instruments can be found in ORS 205.246 and the listing of involuntary liens can be found in § 6.9-3. Note that the law may accord special priorities to the liens associated with some of these instruments.

Instrument Citation
1 Writ of execution on real property ORS 18.870
2 Fixture filing and certain other UCC filings ORS 79.0501, ORS 205.246(1)(a)
3 Mortgage discharge ORS 86.120
4 Trust deed notice of default and other non-judicial foreclosure documents ORS 86.705 to 86.815
5 Correction of error for withdrawing a trust deed reconveyance or a trust deed trustee’s deed ORS 86.722, ORS 205.246(1)(z)
6 Subdivision or partition plat ORS 92.140, ORS 205.246(1)(u)
7 Order of vacation ORS 92.234, ORS 271.150, ORS 368.356
8 Request for notice to real property manager ORS 93.265
9 Department of Human Services or Oregon Health Authority request for notice of transfer or encumbrance ORS 93.268, ORS 411.694, ORS 416.350, ORS 205.246(1)(w)
10 Power of attorney ORS 93.670, ORS 696.030
11 Patents, judgments, official grants of land ORS 93.680
12 Documents, orders, decrees of the United States District Court ORS 93.760
13 Bankruptcy petitions, orders, and decrees ORS 93.770, ORS 205.246(1)(x)
14 Transfer on death deed; instrument revoking transfer on death deed ORS 93.948–93.979
15 Death certificate ORS 205.130(2)(c), ORS 432.124
16 Rerecording to correct a previously recorded instrument ORS 205.244
17 Written warranty agreement for new commercial or residential structure ORS 701.605, ORS 205.246(1)(y)
18 Affordable housing covenant ORS 456.280
19 Notice or order by the State Forester requiring reforestation of specific lands ORS 527.710, ORS 527.680, ORS 93.710(2)
20 Notice of designation of substantial damage to residential structure by flooding; notice of remedy of substantial damage ORS 105.780, ORS 205.246(1)(bb)–(cc)

Recordation has no effect unless the recordation is specifically required or authorized by statute. ORS 87.920 states that “except where filing of the document is specifically required or authorized by statute, no document filed for recording . . . shall create a lien or encumbrance upon or affect the title to the real or personal property of any person or constitute actual or constructive notice to any person of the information contained therein.” ORS 87.920 is not limited to ORS chapter 87 liens. The statute was enacted into law by the legislative assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 87 or any series therein by legislative action. See ORS Preface, viii (2001).

Because the recording statutes are applied liberally, the impact of ORS 87.920 is unclear. The statute probably has a bearing on types of documents well outside the bounds of the recording statutes, for example, a notice of pendency of action recorded when no action is filed or a claim of lien for a lien not recognized under Oregon law. See § 6.7-1 (types of documents that may be recorded); § 6.8-1 (effect of recording).

Practice Tip: The differences between ORS 93.640 and ORS 93.710 and similar sections demonstrate the importance of prompt recording. The use of an escrow agent and the purchase of title insurance are two important means by which grantees and lenders may protect themselves against subsequent adverse claimants who win the race to the recorder. With an escrow, release of the consideration may be conditioned on title insurance coverage to the date of recording. With title insurance, a party may obtain indemnification against matters missed in a check of the recorder’s records.

A covenant for a private transfer fee is barred from recording, and a requirement for such a fee is void. Certain exemptions apply. ORS 93.269.

Certain discriminatory restrictions are barred from a conveyance or a contract to convey and are “void and unenforceable.” An affected owner may petition the circuit court to remove the provision from the title. ORS 93.270, ORS 93.272.

 

Kill Your Darlings

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

By Ian Pisarcik, Legal Publications Attorney Editor

The phrase “kill your darlings, kill your darlings” has been attributed to numerous writers, including William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, and Anton Chekhov. The phrase, however, likely originated with British writer and University of Cambridge Professor Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch who urged students to kill their darlings in a 1913 lecture (reprinted in On the Art of Writing). Irrespective of the source, the implication remains the same: get rid of the fluff.

But how do you identify which of your darlings ought to be pulled from the text and burned at the stake?

University of California Davis School of Law Professor Richard Wydick suggests distinguishing between working words and glue words. Working words carry the meaning of the sentence. Glue words hold the working words together. Glue words are necessary but, like fine cabinetry, working words can be carefully selected, cut, and shaped to fit together with scarcely any glue. Take a look at the following sentences:

The ruling by the trial  judge was prejudicial error for the reason that it cut off cross-examination with respect to issues which were vital.

The trial judge’s ruling was prejudicial error because it cut off cross-examination on vital issues.

In the first sentence, 11 of the 24 words are working words. In the second, clearer and more concise sentence, 11 of the 15 words are working words.

In addition to distinguishing working words from glue words, you can become adept at killing your darlings by:

  • Avoiding compound prepositions (e.g., in the event that = if);
  • Cutting clauses to phrases (e.g., while the trial was in progress = during the trial);
  • Avoiding redundant phrases (e.g., added bonus, last will and testament);
  • Avoiding lawyerisms; and
  • Using the Track Changes feature of Word to compare drafts (particularly helpful to those hesitant to kill their darlings).

Killing your darling won’t be painless. But it is a simple way to improve your writing. Perhaps Stephen King put it best when he stated, “kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart, kill your darlings.” Anyone who has read King’s Tommyknockers, the 800 page doorstop featuring killer vending-machines, would be quick to call this a case of doing as one says and not as one does. That’s fine. Take his advice. Or if you prefer, take the advice of William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Anton Chekhov. . .

What’s That Author Trying to Say?

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

By Linda L. Kruschke, Director of Legal Publications

OSB Legal Publications contain several types of author commentary, including practice tips, queries, and caveats. But did you ever wonder what the differences are? Or if there is any rhyme or reason to the headings of our author commentary?

We do provide authors with guidelines on using the various categories of author commentary, and our Attorney Editors are trained to recognize which category is appropriate in a given situation. But even so, if you, the reader, don’t know the difference, all our efforts are in vain. So here, at last, is the definitive description of each category of author commentary in OSB publications. These descriptions are what we provide to our authors for guidance.

•    Caveat: Use a caveat to caution the reader about an exception to the rule stated in the text, a pitfall in practice not easily discerned from the substantive law, or a development in a separate but related area of the law that may contradict or render ineffectual the rule stated in the text.

•    Comment: Use a comment to point out your analysis or opinion on the rule stated in the text or to add a side issue.

•    Example: Use an example to provide a hypothetical situation that illustrates the rule stated in the text.

•    Note: Use a note to bring to the reader’s attention a point of law or other fact that deserves special emphasis, or that is not directly related to the law being discussed in the text but that may affect it.

•    Practice Tip: Use a practice tip to describe a practice-oriented suggestion.

•    Query: Use a query when raising a question about the point of law previously discussed in the text. The reader appreciates an author’s attempt to answer the query.

Is there another type of author commentary that would be helpful to you in your practice? If so, let us know by leaving a comment below. We will consider adding it to the list of descriptions we provide to our authors and encourage them to use it.

A Beautiful Hypothetical

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

By Ian Pisarcik, Legal Publications Attorney Editor

There is a scene in the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind where John Nash’s wife Alicia, played by Jennifer Connelly, discovers that the door to an abandoned tool shed at the edge of the property in a grove of trees has been left ajar. Alicia enters the shed and discovers that the walls are covered with newspaper and magazine clippings. Random words and numbers are scribbled in black marker over the clippings. Thin agricultural rope connects words, images, and numbers. It is in this moment that Alicia realizes the extent of her husband’s mental illness. Though John Nash believes that the clippings are part of a code that can be deciphered in order to identify the exact position of a nuclear bomb being transported somewhere on the eastern seaboard, Alicia sees the installation for what it is: the rambling scrawls of a man deep in the throes of schizophrenia.

This scene often comes to mind when I read complex hypotheticals or doctrinal illustrations that identify parties by unrelated letters, or worse, switch between unrelated letters, proper names, and normative categories. The following is a common example:

A, a contractor, agrees to build a house for B. C, a subcontractor, agrees with A to lay the foundation for $50,000. C supplies goods and services worth $25,000 for which contractor made progress payments aggregating $15,000 as required by the subcontract. C then breaches by refusing to perform further. A reasonably spent $40,000 to have the work completed by D, another subcontractor. C sues A for reasonable value of benefits conferred and the contractor counterclaims for breach of contract. Should plaintiff recover the benefit conferred on defendant for which plaintiff has not been paid?

The above hypothetical distracts the reader and creates unnecessary cognitive demands for two reasons:

  1. Meaningless letters, and
  2. A lack of consistency.

The solution to this problem often depends on the subject matter and the audience. Normative categories (e.g., general, plaintiff) are often helpful in contract hypotheticals written for other lawyers. For example:

General agrees to build a house for owner. Sub agrees with General to lay the foundation for $50,000. Sub supplies goods and services worth $25,000 for which General made progress payments aggregating $15,000 as required by the subcontract. Sub breaches by refusing to perform further. General reasonably spent $40,000 to have the work completed by someone else. Sub sues General for reasonable value of benefits conferred and General counterclaims for breach of contract. Should Sub recover the benefit conferred on General for which Sub has not been paid?

Ohio First District Court of Appeals Judge Mark Painter, on the other hand, urges lawyers drafting briefs to remember that parties have names. Judge Painter notes that “when we use procedural titles, the reader must translate to understand what we mean.” Moreover, “the procedural titles change throughout the case, but names remain the same.” Also, “using names humanizes your client.” Finally, Judge Painter urges lawyers to be consistent. He notes that he once read a brief stating “Defendant-Appellant Mary Jones (hereinafter usually referred to as Jones).” Usually?

Whether you decide to use normative categories or proper names depends on the situation. But unless you want to turn your reader’s office into a mock-up of John Nash’s tool shed, avoid using meaningless letters, or switching heedlessly between meaningless letters, normative categories, and proper names.

New Law for Commitment of Person with Mental Illness

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

Excerpted from Criminal Law (OSB Legal Pubs 2013), chapter 15 Mental Illness and Incapacity.

By Harris Matarazzo, sole practitioner.

To learn more about this new legislation, go to BarBooks™.

§ 15.13-3(g) Extremely Dangerous Person with Mental Illness
§ 15.13-3(g)(1) In General

The 2013 Legislature enacted Senate Bill 421, which created a new classification of individual subject to a civil-commitment proceeding: “extremely dangerous person with mental illness.” ORS 426.701–426.702. See Or Laws 2013, ch 715. Although the new law appears in ORS chapter 426 along with other provisions relating to civil commitments, the underlying basis for this proceeding is previously adjudicated criminal conduct, or pending allegations of such activity. This could include a situation in which a person was found to lack the capacity to go to trial. Persons committed by the court pursuant to this law are subject to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB), the same agency responsible for overseeing persons found “guilty except for insanity” under ORS 161.295. See ORS 426.701(3).

Comment: As such, this legislation combines elements of both criminal law and civil law and, although sharing some procedural features, should not be confused with other civil commitments.

The discussion in § 15.13-3(g)(2) to § 15.13-3(g)(10) highlights the differences between Oregon’s longstanding bases for civil commitment and a commitment initiated on the basis of “extreme danger.” Otherwise, the procedures remain the same.

§ 15.13-3(g)(2) Who May Be Committed as an Extremely Dangerous Person with Mental Illness

A person is subject to commitment as an extremely dangerous person with mental illness if:

(1)    The person is “extremely dangerous,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(A);

(2)    The person is at least 18 years old, ORS 426.701(1)(a)(A);

(3)    The person has a “mental disorder that is resistant to treatment,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(B);

(4)    Because of that mental disorder, the person committed one of the following acts described in ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C):

(a)    “Caused the death of another person,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C)(i);

(b)    “Caused serious physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous weapon,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C)(ii);

(c)    “Caused physical injury to another person by means of a firearm as defined in ORS 166.210 or an explosive as defined in ORS 164.055,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C)(iii);

(d)    “Engaged in oral-genital contact with a child under 14 years of age,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C)(iv);

(e)    “Forcibly compelled sexual intercourse, oral-genital contact or the penetration of another person’s anus or vagina,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C)(v); or

(f)    “Caused a fire or explosion that damaged the protected property of another, as those terms are defined in ORS 164.305, or placed another person in danger of physical injury, and the fire or explosion was not the incidental result of normal and usual daily activities,” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(C)(vi);

(5)    The person is “exhibiting symptoms or behaviors of a mental disorder substantially similar to those that preceded the [specific criminal] act,” ORS 426.701(1)(a)(B); and

(6)    Because of the mental disorder, the person (a) “[p]resents a serious danger to the safety of others by reason of an extreme risk that the person will inflict grave or potential lethal physical injury on other persons,” and (b) “[u]nless committed, will continue to represent an extreme risk to the safety of other persons in the foreseeable future,” ORS 426.701(1)(a)(C).

The statute does not define the term mental disorder, but the statute provides that the mental disorder must be “resistant to treatment.” ORS 426.701(3)(a)(B). Furthermore, the statute provides that a mental disorder does not include a disorder “manifested solely by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct” or a disorder “constituting solely a personality disorder.” ORS 426.701(1)(b).

Qualifying conditions are deemed to be “resistant to treatment” if the person “continues to be significantly impaired in the person’s ability to make competent decisions and to be aware of and control extremely dangerous behavior” after (1) “receiving care from a licensed psychiatrist and exhausting all reasonable psychiatric treatment” or (2) “refusing psychiatric treatment.” ORS 426.701(1)(c).

New Look for Criminal Jury Instructions

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

By Dean Land, Legal Publications Attorney Editor

Although no one has been keeping track, State v. Mills, 354 Or 350, 312 P3d 515 (2013), probably holds the record for the case that necessitated changes to the most jury instructions. Mills is the Oregon Supreme Court case holding that venue is no longer an issue for the jury. And, as anyone familiar with Oregon’s Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions knows, most of the instructions list the elements of particular crimes, beginning with the venue element: “The act occurred in _______ County, Oregon.”

After Mills came down, the Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions Committee had to remove the venue element from 381 instructions. It also withdrew three other instructions that addressed specific venue situations. So Mills accounted for changes to 63% of the instructions in the book (and a headache for a certain staff member of the Legal Publications department).

Rest assured, all those changes and more are incorporated in the 2013 Supplement to the Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions. The supplement is available for preorder at a discounted price through January 24 (and at full price thereafter), and the updated instructions will be posted on BarBooks™ by the end of January.

Who Wants Real Estate?

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

By Linda L. Kruschke, Director of Legal Publications

In A Charlie Brown Christmas, after Lucy complains that she never gets what she really wants for Christmas, Charlie Brown asks her what it is she wants. Lucy replies, “Real estate.”

That’s what some of our bar members have been saying, too. They want updated editions of our Real Estate Series books. Unfortunately, they won’t get them for Christmas this year, but a completely revised Real Estate Deskbook will be available by this time next year.

The Real Estate and Land Use Section created a subcommittee, which became the editorial review board, to tackle a reorganization of the existing real estate books that OSB Legal Publications publishes. With the exception of Documentation of Real Estate Transactions, these books were last updated in 2001 to 2003, so they are in need of an overhaul. Plus there is some overlap among the five real estate titles (Fundamentals of Real Estate Transactions, Principles of Oregon Real Estate Law, Real Estate Disputes, Regulation and Taxation of Real Estate, and Documentation).

The new editorial board is comprised of Tom Bahrman, Dustin Klinger, Dina Alexander, Andy Davis, and Phillip Joseph. This team has reorganized the current real estate books, combining chapters that covered the same topics and planning the addition of new chapters to touch on topics not addressed before. They also determined that four chapters from Foreclosing Security Interests more logically fit within a comprehensive Real Estate Deskbook. Then they took on the daunting task of lining up authors for the 64 chapters of this five-volume resource.

There is still a lot of work to be done, but quite a few authors have already submitted their chapters for review by the editorial review board, and in-house editing has begun. As more chapters are submitted, reviewed, edited, and given final author approval, we will begin posting chapters to the BarBooks™ online library. But if you are itching for a hard copy, you’ll have to wait, but you can definitely put it on your wish list for next year.

Jury Instructions Demystified

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

Here in Legal Pubs we get a lot of questions about the Oregon Uniform Civil and Criminal Jury Instructions. People want to know whether the set they have is up-to-date or how to put a kit together. This post will answer those questions and more so that jury instructions will finally be demystified.

Jury instructions are written and revised by the Uniform Civil Jury Instructions Committee and the Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions Committee. Each committee has 15 or 16 members, each serving a 3-year term.

The committees work throughout the year on instructions to be included in a supplement released each year in January (or sometimes early February). It can be a little confusing because the supplement released in January 2013, for example, is dated 2012 because it includes the instructions worked on during 2012.

What do I need to have a full set of the Uniform Civil Jury Instructions or the Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions?

A full set of the Uniform Civil Jury Instructions includes the 2005 revision with 2006-2009 annual supplements (shrink-wrapped in one package), plus the annual supplements released in 2010, 2011, and 2012. In January 2014, the 2013 annual supplement will be added to this set.

A full set of the Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions includes the 2009 revision plus the annual supplements released in 2010, 2011, and 2012. In January 2014, the 2013 annual supplement will be added to this set.

You can preorder a copy of either of the 2013 supplements now from the Bar’s online bookstore. You will be billed when your order ships.

I’m missing the 2011 and 2012 supplements. Can I just buy the 2013 supplement in January 2014 and be caught up?

No. Each supplement contains a different set of instructions. If you don’t get the 2011 and 2012 supplements, then you will be missing any instructions that were new or revised in those years. You can purchase prior supplements by contacting the Legal Publications Administrative Assistant Jenni Abalan at 503-431-6345.

How can I avoid missing supplements in the future?

If you know you want to get either the Uniform Civil or Criminal Jury Instructions every year, you can ask to be added to our Standing Order list. Just send us an email at [email protected] with your name, bar number or firm name, which jury instructions you want on Standing Order, and the number of copies you want. We’ll take care of the rest and bill you when each supplement is shipped.

How do I assemble a set of jury instructions if I’m just getting started with a whole new set?

You must always assemble the jury instructions in date order. In other words, first put the revision (or, in the case of the civil instructions, the 2005 revision w/2006-2009 supplements shrink-wrapped set) into your binder. Then start with the next annual supplement, which would be the 2010 supplement for both books, and follow the Directions in the front of the supplement regarding what to remove from the binder and what to add. Then move to the 2011 supplement and again, following the Directions provided, remove and add instructions. Continue with the remaining supplements in date order.

You may find that as you insert later supplements you are removing instructions you just put in. This happens when the committee works on and finalizes the same instruction during more than one committee year.

Do I have to wait until a supplement is released to get all of the instructions that one of the committees completes each year?

No, you don’t have to wait. Each new or revised instruction that one of the committees completes is posted to the BarBooks™ online library shortly after it is approved by the committee. Notice of newly posted instructions will be posted here on our blog and on the homepage of BarBooks™. You can download the individual new instructions one at a time or download the zip file of all of the most current instructions from the table of contents page for either the Uniform Civil or Criminal Jury Instructions.

I often need a certain jury instruction that isn’t included in the uniform instructions book. How can I suggest that the committee add this instruction?

If you know of a jury instruction that is needed but not included in either the Uniform Civil or Criminal Jury Instructions book, send us an email at [email protected]. We will pass your suggestion on to the current chair of the relevant committee for consideration by the committee.

Legal Publications Is Now Blogging!

Posted on | by Linda Kruschke

OSB Legal Publications now has a blog! In the coming months we will be sharing information from our publications, news about what’s happening at BarBooks™, kudos to our wonderful authors and editorial review board members, and much more. If there is something you’d like to know about OSB Legal Publications, just let us know.