(Reasons given below for particular actions of the Uniform Trial Court Rules Committee are not approved by the committee, but are abstracted by the Reporter from committee discussions.)
The Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR) Committee is authorized to make recommendations to the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court about proposals for changes to the UTCR. Before the UTCR Committee makes final recommendations to the Chief Justice for changes to the UTCR, the initial recommendations are published for public comment, see UTCR 1.020.
At its fall meeting on October 13, 2000, the UTCR Committee made initial recommendations to the Chief Justice on proposals for changes to the UTCR. The initial recommendations of the UTCR Committee are described below in this notice.
This notice solicits public comment on the recommendations and proposals. Written comments should be submitted to:
Any comment on the actions set out below must be received by the UTCR Committee on or before the date of its spring meeting (shown below) to consider public comment. Comment may be made both on proposals to make UTCR amendments, whether conditionally approved or conditionally disapproved, and on other actions taken by the committee or set out below. At the spring meeting, the committee may consider amendments to proposals, may reconsider proposals entirely, may reconsider conditionally disapproved proposals, and may reconsider other actions taken by the committee whether or not the actions resulted in proposed changes to the UTCR.
The committee will review timely received public comment on these actions before the committee makes final recommendations to the Chief Justice on proposals or changes. Any final recommendations made by the committee and adopted by the Chief Justice will take effect August 1, 2001, and will be published in the Oregon Appellate Courts Advance Sheets in June 2001 (No. 11).
UTCR REPORTER NOTE: FUTURE UTCR COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The following dates are the current regularly scheduled dates for future meetings of the full UTCR Committee:
SPRING MEETING: April 27, 2001, in Salem, at the Office of the Oregon State Court Administrator. At the spring meeting, the committee will review public comment on proposals in this notice and will make final proposals to the Chief Justice for UTCR changes to take effect August 1, 2001. NOTE: Scheduled so that this meeting does not conflict with the Annual Spring Judicial Conference meeting which is currently scheduled for April 2-4, 2001.
FALL MEETING: Currently scheduled for October 19, 2001, in Salem, at the Office of the Oregon State Court Administrator. At the fall meeting, the committee will review proposed and existing SLR and make recommendations to the Chief Justice on disapproval of SLR under UTCR 1.050. This one-day meeting is also the only meeting currently anticipated in the 2001-02 UTCR cycle at which the committee intends to accept proposals to make recommendations for UTCR changes that would take effect August 1, 2001. Meeting dates for the following year are scheduled at the fall meeting. NOTE: This meeting date may be subject to change. The Oregon Circuit Court Judges annual fall conference appears likely to be scheduled for October 21-23, 2001. At its spring meeting, the committee will discuss whether its fall meeting is likely to conflict with the conference and needs to be moved. If moved, the UTCR fall meeting would likely be moved to October 12 or 26, 2001. If the meeting date is changed, the change will be announced with the final published changes for the UTCR in 2001.
QUICK SUMMARY OF FALL 2000 ACTIONS
Committee-proposed changes. The following summarizes proposals conditionally approved by the committee as recommended changes to the UTCR (they are explained more fully under the "Committee Actions Taken, Conditionally Approved Changes That Would Amend UTCR" in Section A. below):
1. UTCR 3.170, amend to allow recovery of fees from Pro Hac Vice attorneys.
2. UTCR Appendix of Forms, amend to add a form of accounting for UTCR 9.160.
Committee disapproved proposals. The following summarizes proposals conditionally disapproved by the committee. These are proposals or issues that came before the UTCR committee on which the committee is currently NOT recommending any change to the UTCR (they are explained more fully under the "Committee Actions Taken, Conditionally Disapproved Proposals" in Section B. below):
1. UTCR 2.010(9), proposal to amend to change numbering of exhibits.
2. UTCR 2.030(2), proposal on cases under advisement for long periods of time.
3. UTCR 3.170, proposal on Pro Hac Vice attorneys and Oregon professionalism standards.
4. UTCR Chapter 5, proposed new UTCR on deposition guidelines.
5. UTCR 5.050, proposal on parties appearing by phone.
6. UTCR Chapter 6, proposal to require parties whether the other party opposes the motion.
7. UTCR 10.090, proposal to amend to better relate to UTCR 5.100.
Other actions taken. The following summarizes actions taken by the committee that are not subject to reconsideration at its regular spring meeting. These are proposals or issues that came before the UTCR Committee on which the committee has already taken final action (they are explained more fully under the "Other Actions Taken by the Committee" in Section C. below):
1. UTCR subcommittee on probate still open (Deras, Lamvik, Reynolds members).
2. UTCR subcommittee on pretrial conference rules continued (Shipsey member).
3. UTCR subcommittee on UTCR to standardize parent education program rules discontinued.
4. Thank State Court Administrator for report on pro se forms and activities.
5. At fall 2001 meeting, review sanctions created in SLR along with UTCR 1.090 sanctions.
6. Review UTCR Chapter 10 for conflicts with ORS chapter 813.
7. At fall 2001 meeting, consider UTCR on appointment of arbitrators to replace SLR.
8. Committee to explore electronic means of providing information about committee actions.
9. UTCR subcommittee to rewrite UTCR 3.170 discontinued.
NOTE ON FORMAT OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UTCR: Material proposed to be taken out of existing UTCR sections is bracketed. New material proposed to be added to existing UTCR is underlined. New material in entirely new sections is not underlined, unless for emphasis. Repealed UTCR are not set out.
FALL 2000 ACTIONS OF THE UTCR COMMITTEE
A. COMMITTEE ACTIONS TAKEN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVED PROPOSALS THAT WOULD AMEND UTCR. The following are conditionally approved proposals. The committee actions on these proposals resulted in proposed changes to the UTCR by the committee. The committee may reconsider whether these merit UTCR changes or other action at its spring meeting:
1. Amend UTCR 3.170 to allow for collection of fees for Pro Hac Vice admission (temporary admission to allow an attorney licensed in another state, but not Oregon, to appear on a case or in an administrative proceeding in this state).
ACTION TAKEN. Conditionally approve amending UTCR 3.170. (From agenda item B.4. and pages 851 and 852 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. Karen Garst, Executive Director of the Oregon State Bar (OSB), made a presentation to the committee about different ongoing discussions with the OSB, the Campaign for Equal Justice, the Oregon Law Foundation, and key elected officials about ways to address needs for additional funding to allow Legal Aid to provide legal services for those who can't afford to pay for needed legal services. She noted that several other states had provided revenue for this purpose by charging a fee for Pro Hac Vice attorneys. There was discussion about how this concept and about how the proposal related to current statute and Supreme Court authority. There was discussion about the process by which a fee would best be handled, given the workload of courts and the fact that UTCR 3.170 also applies to administrative proceedings. Ms. Garst indicted the need to discuss this issue with the legislature and with the Supreme Court. She made the proposal now so that it would be on the UTCR Committee's agenda for its spring meeting if a UTCR change was necessary.
VOTE. Motion 1, to send out proposal as conditionally approved (without deciding on the concept) for purposes of generating public comment, providing a forum for continuing discussion, and preserving a place on the spring agenda for discussion and possible action, as necessary at that time: pass by consensus of those present.
The proposal would amend UTCR 3.170 to add a new paragraph (g) to subsection (1) of that rule as follows:
UTCR 3.170 ASSOCIATION OF OUT-OF-STATE COUNSEL (PRO HAC VICE)
(1) An attorney authorized to practice law before the highest court of record in any state or country ("out-of-state attorney") may appear on behalf of a party in any action, suit, or proceeding pending in this state even though that attorney is not licensed to practice law in this state, if the attorney satisfies all of the following requirements:
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(g) The out-of-state attorney must submit proof that any fees provided by law for appearance under this rule have been paid.
(2) * * *
* * * * *
2. Amend UTCR Appendix of Forms to add a form of accounting for UTCR 9.160.
ACTION TAKEN. Conditionally approve adding new form to UTCR Appendix of Forms. (From agenda item B.7. and pages 854 to 867 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. On August 1, 2000, a number of changes to UTCR Chapter 9 took effect resulting from a proposal to the UTCR Committee in the 1999-2000 UTCR cycle. One of these rules, UTCR 9.160, establishes form for accountings that must be accepted by all judicial districts. At its spring 2000 meeting, when the UTCR Committee made its final recommendations on UTCR 9.160 (which were adopted), the committee discussed the need for a form to use for purposes of that rule. There was no form in final draft at that time.
Subsequent to the spring meeting, a number of interested parties (including: Judge Welch, Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Rita Cobb; Sam Friedenberg; Jennifer Todd; and others) worked on developing a form for that purpose. The proposed form, which was represented to the committee as having been reviewed and approved by the Estate Planning Section of the OSB, the Elder Law Section of the OSB, and the OSB Board of Governors was presented as this proposal. The committee discussed the form at length, made a few language clarifications, and is sending the form out for comment.
VOTE. Motions 2 through 13 to conditionally approve proposed form with changes: pass by consensus of those present.
The proposed new form to be added to the UTCR Appendix of Forms is attached at the end of this document.
B. COMMITTEE ACTIONS TAKEN, CONDITIONALLY DISAPPROVED PROPOSALS. The following are conditionally disapproved proposals. The committee actions on these proposals did not result in proposed changes to the UTCR or other recommendation for change by the committee. The committee may reconsider whether some of these merit UTCR changes or other action at its spring meeting:
1. Proposal to amend UTCR 2.010(9) to change how exhibits are numbered.
ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made on the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B.2. and pages 848 and 849 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. This issue was brought to the committee by a letter from Mr. Thomas Christ. Mr. Christ noted that the rule now requires each page of exhibits to be identified by the word "Exhibit" or "Ex" at the bottom right-hand corner, followed by an arabic numeral identifying the exhibit number and another arabic numeral identifying the page number. He proposed, instead, that the exhibits be included in an appendix and that each page of the appendix be numbered consecutively. He finds the current system confusing, particularly in cases involving large numbers of exhibits.
Some members thought the proposal was a good idea and noted that the committee's own materials were so numbered for ease of use. Discussion included discussion of whether a rule change was necessary. Some thought the proposal was confusing. It was noted that this sometimes creates problems in deposition exhibits. The general consensus was that additional identifiers are not now prohibited on exhibits by the UTCR. There was a feeling that people could address this under the current rule.
VOTE. NO MOTION.
There was no draft of language presented with the proposal.
2. Proposal to amend UTCR 2.030(2) to address how attorneys should respond when cases have been under advisement for a long time.
ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made on the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B.3. and page 850 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. This issue was brought to the attention of the committee by former Chief Justice Edwin Peterson. He noted discussions with lawyers in which they felt that UTCR 2.030 didn't work because they felt the "all parties" language in the rule required a letter to be signed by "all parties," and sometimes lawyers from other parties wouldn't sign the letters (particularly when delay favored their position). He wondered if there should be an addition to UTCR 2.030 pointing out the duty of the lawyer or party.
The committee discussion of this issue noted that the committee did not feel that all parties needed to sign the letter under the rule. They felt that the requirement to call the length of advisement fell upon "all parties," but that any lawyer could send their own letter advising. It would be up to the other parties to assure their own compliance with the rule. The committee did note that there appeared to be a reluctance by attorneys to "nudge" a judge, but that the reason the rule was created was to establish a duty on the part of attorneys to do so. As the committee felt that the duty was individual and all parties were not required to sign the letter, they did not feel an amendment was necessary.
VOTE. NO MOTION.
The following draft language was presented with the proposal as an amendment to add as a new subsection (3) to the existing UTCR 2.030:
"UTCR 2.030 (3). The letter to the trial judge or Chief Justice may be on the letterhead of any lawyer in the case, or on no letterhead. Every party and every lawyer for a party, upon request of another party or lawyer for another party, must sign the letter."
3. Proposal to amend UTCR 3.170 on Pro Hac Vice attorneys (temporary admission to allow an attorney licensed in another state, but not Oregon, to appear on a case or in an administrative proceeding in this state) and Oregon Attorney Professionalism standards.
ACTION TAKEN. A motion was made on this proposal that died for lack of a second, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item D.1. of the committee's fall meeting, no materials attached.)
REASON. This issue was raised in the previous year by a Multnomah County Bar committee report which suggested that all Pro Hac Vice attorneys should be required to certify that they had read and would comply with the statement of professionalism adopted by the Supreme Court (located on page 368 of the OSB 2000 Membership Directory). The committee discussion focused on the aspirational nature of the statement of professionalism. The committee noted that the nature of the language might make the statement difficult to enforce and was concerned about potential for people trying to enforce the statement under UTCR 1.090 if it were made part of the UTCR. The validity of the concern about professionalism was noted as was the need for people to be aware of the statement and to read it. There was discussion about whether including the statement as an appendix to the UTCR would help increase awareness of the statement.
VOTE. MOTION 79, to include the statement in the UTCR as an appendix, fails for lack of a second.
There was no draft language presented with the proposal, but the statement is found at page 368 of the OSB 2000 Membership Directory.
4. Proposal to add a new UTCR to UTCR Chapter 5 establishing deposition guidelines.
ACTION TAKEN. A motion was made on this proposal that died for lack of a second, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B.1. and page 683 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. After review of the SLR, Committee Member Steve Larson raised this issue as a local SLR that might make a good UTCR. He noted that the committee had discussed this issue before. He also noted that a number of different judicial districts were apparently attempting to address this issue in different ways. Multnomah and Marion Counties had both addressed this in their own fashions, and now another judicial district was addressing the issue. Would this be good to standardize statewide? The committee was not sure this was yet ready for standardization and felt it would be better to see how this issue developed in local courts.
VOTE. MOTION 79, to add the Umatilla SLR 5.005 to the UTCR as a new UTCR, fails for lack of a second.
There was no draft language presented with the proposal, but the Umatilla SLR 5.005 reads as follows:
"5.005 DEPOSITION GUIDELINES
"(1) Scope of Deposition
"ORCP 36B(1) provides that any matter not privileged may be inquired into during a deposition if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This standard will be interpreted broadly by the Sixth Judicial District bench. If unreasonable or bad faith deposition techniques are being used, the deposition may be suspended briefly and a motion to limit pursuant to ORCP 39E may be made and heard by a judge.
"Most objections are typically reserved until trial. Under ORCP 41C, only errors that can be obviated, removed, or cured are waived unless a reasonable objection is made during the deposition. ORCP 39D creates a mechanism so that the attorney whose question is objected to may accept the objection as an invitation to correct an alleged defect in the question. Rejection of the invitation may result in exclusion of the question and answer at trial. Attorneys should not state anything more than the legal grounds for an objection to preserve the record. Objections should be made without comment to avoid contamination of the answers of the witness. Argument in response to the objection is neither necessary or desirable.
"(3) Instructions Not to Answer
"The only basis for an instruction not to answer a question reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is in response to an attempt by the attorney taking the deposition to inquire into an area of privacy, right, privilege, an area protected by the constitution, statute, work product, or questioning amounting to harassment of the witness. Any objection to the form of the question or the responsiveness of the answer can be preserved with a brief objection.
"(4) Deposition Disputes
"The parties should be able to resolve deposition disputes. If the parties have a problem that cannot be resolved without the assistance of the court, they should briefly suspend the deposition and contact the Presiding Judge, or designee, for hearing, either on or off the record, by phone or at the courthouse.
"(5) Pending Questions
"If a question is pending, it shall be answered before a break is taken, unless the question involves a matter of privacy right, privilege, an area protected by the Constitution, statute, or work product.
"(6) Persons Present
"Any party may attend a deposition. Non-party witnesses are excluded at the request of any party."
5. Proposal to amend UTCR 5.050 on attorneys appearing by telephone.
ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made on the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B.5. and page 853 of committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. This issue was brought to the committee's attention by Lloyd W. Helikson, a Eugene attorney. Mr. Helikson wrote the Chair of the UTCR Committee to express concern because when a motion is set to be heard by telecommunication under UTCR 5.050, all parties are not required to appear by telecommunication. He felt that this provided an advantage to persons who appear in person while other parties appear telephonically.
The committee discussed the issue and noted that apparently some persons are not aware in advance that a request for telephonic hearing does not mean that, if the motion is granted, all parties will not be on the telephone. The committee felt that the real issue was that people should be aware of this and adjust their approach accordingly, as the request for telephonic hearing was primarily for their convenience. Most felt that this did not present a real issue of unfairness.
VOTE. NO MOTION.
There was no draft language presented with the proposal, but the letter did suggest that if a motion indicating that an argument by telephone is requested and all requirements for telephonic hearing are met, the arguments should take place with all persons appearing by telephone unless the person opposing the hearing by telecommunication indicates an objection in the response and the court sets the hearing to be in person based on the objections.
6. Proposal to amend UTCR Chapter 6 to require parties to say in a motion whether the other party opposes the motion.
ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made on the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B.6. of committee's fall meeting, no materials submitted.)
REASON. This issue arose in the 1999-2000 UTCR cycle, and a committee member asked for it to be placed on the 2000 fall agenda for consideration. The issue arises because UTCR 5.010 requires parties to make a good faith effort to confer with the other parties concerning the issues in dispute. Some judges have mentioned in the past that it might facilitate this rule if parties were required in the motion to say whether the other party opposes the motion, so the judges would know. It was discussed as a possible amendment to UTCR Chapter 6 because some judges note that this is also a problem in criminal cases (UTCR Chapter 5 applies to civil cases). If there is no contact between parties and the required attempt to contact is simply pro forma (with the accompanying certification that contact was "attempted"), it may create unnecessary work for judges and judicial staff. Some feel that if the parties have actually consulted as required by the rule, then you would know the other party's position and should be required to provide that information. A number of members think this is an issue that may be most appropriate for an SLR in judicial districts where the problem is arising, so that local courts could address their particular concerns individually and solve what may be a local problem locally.
VOTE. NO MOTION.
There was no draft language presented with the proposal.
7. Proposal to amend UTCR 10.090 regarding entry of judgment on how it relates to UTCR 5.100.
ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made on the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. But, a related motion was made, see item 6., below, of other actions taken. (From agenda item B.8. and pages 863 and 864 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. This issue was raised to the committee by a letter from Judge Milo Pope of the Circuit Court in Baker County. In the letter Judge Pope expressed concern that UTCR 10.090 (which requires judgment within 7 days of the hearing on review of a DMV implied consent suspension) did not realistically accommodate the process required by UTCR 5.100 (which requires proposed judgments in civil cases to be mailed out to opposing parties in advance of submission to the court, sometimes up to 7 days in advance).
The committee discussed the issue. They noted that the original UTCR 1.090 appeared to be an attempt to keep the appeal of a suspension order on a DMV implied consent ruling in the tight time lines originally contemplated by ORS 813.410 to 813.470. They noted that there had been substantial amendment of that ORS series since the original adoption of the UTCR provision. They were not comfortable that the language in UTCR Chapter 10 was any longer completely consistent with the statutory intent and that a piece-meal modification of the type suggested would be of any assistance. Rather than do a one-time shot at what might be a larger problem, they declined to make a motion on this proposal and requested the UTCR Reporter to do a more complete review of the current relationship between UTCR Chapter 10 and the implied consent hearing procedures in ORS chapter 813 (after the next legislative session, when more changes to implied consent are likely to be considered) and bring a more complete proposal back to the committee at its fall 2001 meeting (including a proposal to address the issue raised by Judge Pope) on how to make UTCR Chapter 10 consistent with the intent of the statutory implied consent provisions.
VOTE. NO MOTION. But, there is a related motion, see item 6., below, of other actions taken.
There was no specific draft language presented with the proposal, but the letter did suggest that the problem would be eased if UTCR 10.090 were amended to say "decision" rather than "judgment" and that this would be more realistic.
C. OTHER ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE. The following are actions taken by the UTCR Committee that do not require or recommend a change to the UTCR. Comments or suggestions may be made on the actions taken. The committee will consider comments on these actions at its spring meeting:
1. The subcommittee on probate issues is continued. Deras (Chair), Lamvik, and Reynolds are on the subcommittee. No action taken to discontinue, and there are probate issues which will continue to come before the committee in the foreseeable future.
2. A subcommittee to propose a UTCR on pretrial conference rules is continued. Shipsey is the sole member of the subcommittee. No action taken to discontinue. This issue is to be placed on the agenda for fall 2001.
3. A subcommittee on developing UTCR to standardize parent education programs, where appropriate, is discontinued. Miller, Henry, and Campbell were the subcommittee members. By consensus of those present.
4. The committee expressed its appreciation to the State Court Administrator for the report on forms and procedures established for pro se domestic relations cases.
ACTION TAKEN. The UTCR Committee expressed its appreciation to the Office of the State Court Administrator for having Ms. Sydlik come to the committee and keep the committee advised on what was going on with pro se forms and procedures in domestic relations cases. (From agenda item C.1. and pages 878 and 883 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. BeaLisa Sydlik, Family Law Senior Policy Analyst, Court Community Justice Services Division, of the Office of the State Court Administrator (OSCA) made a presentation to the committee about forms that the OSCA had developed in consultation with the State Family Law Advisory Committee (SFLAC) to provide model family law forms for use by self-represented litigants in family law proceedings statewide. One of the reasons for making the presentation is that some of the forms had used the exemption under UTCR 2.010(15) from some of the UTCR requirements in order to keep the forms simple and short, but still standardized. Ms. Sydlik explained how the forms still appeared to meet the spirit of the UTCR.
There was committee discussion about the forms and format. Some of it specific. There was questioning about the need to apply the UTCR exemption for these OSCA forms. Strong support was expressed for the need for uniform forms in the self-represented domestic relations arena. There was some discussion about the underlying policies of making divorce too simple. Appreciation was expressed for the work that went into the forms. There was discussion of computer access to these forms and how they would be made accessible. The extensive process of review, opportunity for comment, and judicial and attorney involvement in development was explained. Some commented on the need to make sure the print wasn't too small and the lines to close to read. On the whole, the committee felt the effort was headed in the right direction and appreciated being brought up-to-date on what was happening.
VOTE. MOTION 14, to thank the Office of the State Court Administrator for the report. Passes by consensus of those present.
5. The committee proposes to review all SLR that appear to impose or create sanctions and how they relate to UTCR 1.090 at its fall 2001 meeting.
ACTION TAKEN. The committee voted to place the issue of SLR that appear to create sanctions and how these relate to UTCR 1.090 on the agenda for fall 2001. (From agenda item D.3. of the committee's fall meeting materials, parent education subcommittee report and review of SLR.)
REASON. After review of the SLR for fall 2000 and the oral report of the Subcommittee on Standardizing Rules for Parental Education Programs, the committee had a substantial concern about the relationship between SLR that impose sanctions and UTCR 1.090. In the past, the committee has recommended disapproval of such SLR as being inconsistent with and in conflict with UTCR 1.090. This year they were reluctant to do so on a statewide basis because of their concern of how it might affect some local court programs that rely on these sanctions to be effective. The committee decided that, in fall 2001, they needed to review all of the SLR that appear to impose sanctions. Their initial feeling was that they would recommend to amend UTCR 1.090 in a way that would allow appropriate sanctions for all UTCR/SLR violations and then recommend disapproval of any SLR that attempted to establish a sanction. But, they wanted to keep an open mind about how to approach this next year. They postponed any action until next year to provide people an adequate opportunity to make suggestions before the committee started considering any specific proposal.
VOTE. MOTION 81, to place the issue of UTCR/SLR sanctions on the agenda of the fall 2001 meeting.
6. The committee requested the UTCR Reporter to do a review of the current relationship between UTCR Chapter 10 and the implied consent hearing procedures in ORS chapter 813 (after the next legislative session, when more changes to implied consent are likely to be considered) and bring a proposal back to the committee at its fall 2001 meeting (including a proposal to address the issue raised by Judge Pope at the fall 2000 meeting) on how to make UTCR Chapter 10 consistent with the intent of the statutory implied consent provisions.
ACTION TAKEN. The committee requested the UTCR Reporter to do a review. (From agenda item B.8. and pages 863 and 864 of the committee's fall meeting materials.)
REASON. See discussion above under conditionally disapproved proposal item B.7.
VOTE. MOTION 76, to have the UTCR Reporter do a review and make a proposal at the next fall meeting, passes by consensus of those present.
7. Placed the issue of whether there should be a UTCR on appointment of arbitrators because a lot of counties have the same rule. MOTION 55.
ACTION TAKEN. Placed item on agenda for fall 2001 meeting.
REASON. During SLR review, member Steve Larson noted the large number of local courts that appear to have an SLR on the process of selection of arbitrators (like Baker SLR 13.081). He wondered if there should be a statewide UTCR on the subject to eliminate the need for separate rules in each judicial district.
VOTE. MOTION 55, to place consideration of a UTCR on appointment of arbitrators like Baker SLR 13.081 on the agenda for fall 2001. Motion passes by consensus of those present.
8. From agenda item C.2. of the fall agenda. The committee discussed, and would like to explore, ways to make people aware of what is going on with the committee . . . to become more electronically accessible . . . possibly to have ways to allow electronic "discussions" about proposals or ideas to take place. And, where possible, to allow for the public to comment electronically. If possible, the committee would like to try to get proposals to the UTCR Committee and committee recommendations on the internet for public comment and discussion. The committee is looking for suggestions on how to do this, and solicits public comment and suggestions.
9. The UTCR subcommittee to rewrite UTCR 3.170 on out-of-state attorney appearance is discontinued (Rapoport and Campbell members). Consensus of those present.
A fiduciary accounting in conformance with UTCR Chapter 9
shall be in substantially the following format.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF _______________
|In the Matter of the||)||Case No. __________|
|[ ] Conservatorship [ ] Estate of||)|
|(Mark which applies)||)||__________ ACCOUNTING|
Accounting Period. This accounting covers the period from _________________, 20___ , through ________________, 20___ ("the accounting period").
Prior Balance. The total value of the estate assets, as reflected in the inventory or as of the last date of the previous accounting (whichever is most recent), was $_______________.
Bonding. (Mark one:)
[ ] No bond has been required in this estate. The court waived the requirement of a bond by order dated _______________. (Skip to section 5 below)
[ ] A bond has been required in this estate. The current amount of the total bond, including riders, is $___________. (Continue to subsection (a) of this section)
(a) The total value of estate assets as of the last date of this accounting period is $ __________
(b) The income in the estate estimated to be received during the next accounting period is $ __________
(c) Total of (a) and (b) $ __________
(d) The current value of all estate assets that have been restricted by court order are: $ __________
The date(s) of the court order(s) restricting assets is/are: $ __________.
(e) TOTAL (amount to be bonded) $ __________
Change in Amount of Bond. The Fiduciary asks the court to change the amount of the surety bond or the restriction of assets as follows:
(Check all that apply)
[ ] No Change.
[ ] Reduce the bond to $ __________.
[ ] Increase the bond to $ __________.
[ ] Restrict the following assets:
[ ] Remove the restriction from the following assets:
Asset Schedule. The Asset Schedule is attached as Exhibit 1. This is a summary that lists all assets that existed during the accounting period.
Receipts and Disbursements. The lists of receipts and disbursements for all assets are attached as Exhibit 2 to Exhibit _______. (Attach a separate exhibit for each asset listed in the Asset Schedule which has receipts or disbursements during the accounting period.) Also attached are depository statements for each bank or investment account, showing the beginning and ending balance of the account for the accounting period. (No depository statement is needed showing the beginning balance if it was provided to show the final balance in the previous accounting.)
Vouchers. (Choose (a), (b), or (c). Note: some courts will not waive the voucher requirement. Check with your local court.)
(a) [ ] Vouchers showing every payment are also attached in Exhibit 2 to Exhibit __________ to the receipts and disbursements for any account from which payments were made.
(b) [ ] The Fiduciary asks the court to waive the requirement of filing vouchers for this accounting. The vouchers for this accounting are located at the following address: ____________________. The vouchers will continue to be maintained and be available for examination at that location for one year after the closing of this estate.
(c) [ ] Vouchers are waived by court rule.
Return of Vouchers and Depository Statements. (Choose (a) or (b).)
(a) [ ] The Fiduciary does not want to receive back the vouchers or depository statements, if any.
(b) [ ] Upon approval of this accounting, the Fiduciary requests that the court return the vouchers and depository statements in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Changes During the Accounting Period. During the accounting period, the following changes in the assets or financial circumstances occurred: (Examples include corrections to previously declared values, omitted assets, the closing of an account, the sale or purchase of an asset, a significant change in living expenses, or a stock split.)
Disclosures of Dealings with Related Parties. During the accounting period, the following transactions occurred between the estate and the Fiduciary, a member of the Fiduciary's family, a friend of the Fiduciary or the Fiduciary's family: (Examples include payment for services, rent, reimbursement of expenses, gifts, and any other like transactions.)
Fees. Insert any information regarding requests for fiduciary or attorney fees and costs.
Notices. Insert information addressing the Fiduciary's notice requirement.
WHEREFORE, the Fiduciary prays for an order of this court:
1. Approving the annual accounting;
2. Changing the required amount of the surety bond and asset restrictions as shown to be necessary and appropriate by this accounting.
(3. If fees are requested, include approval for them here.)
Signature of Fiduciary
Title: (Mark one of the following)
[ ] Conservator
[ ] Personal Representative
Printed Name of Fiduciary
|STATE OF OREGON||)|
|County of _______||)|
Signature of Fiduciary
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of _______________, 20___.
Notary Public for Oregon
|Exhibit No.*||Description of asset||Beginning value||Value of Later-acquired asset||Value at Disposition||Current (ending) value||Restricted/order date|
* The Exhibit Number corresponds to the Receipts and Disbursements exhibit number for each asset that has receipts or disbursements during the accounting period.
Attach additional pages if needed.
The Receipts and Disbursements exhibit for each separate asset includes any of the following that exists for the asset: receipts, account statements, disbursements, and vouchers (unless waived by the court). Each exhibit also includes a reconciliation. Exhibits can be typed on blank paper using substantially the same format as this form.
Asset (State here which asset): __________
|Date||Source of receipt||Description||Amount|
|Date||Check #||Name (payee)||Description||Amount|
Value at beginning of accounting period $ __________
(Attach copy of opening depository statement for this asset)
Total Receipts (total of all pages for this asset) $ __________
Total Disbursements (total of all pages for this asset) $ __________
(Attach vouchers proving disbursements)
Current Value (value at end of accounting period) $ __________
(Attach copy of closing depository statement for this asset)
If the Current Value does not equal the depository statement balance, please explain.