Newrez, LLC v. Estate of Gary L. Hawkins ( 2022 )

670
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Argued and submitted June 7, affirmed July 7, 2022
NEWREZ, LLC,
fka Penn Financial, LLC,
dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing,
Plaintiff,
and
GREEN STREET PROPERTIES, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
THE ESTATE OF GARY L. HAWKINS et al.,
Defendants,
and
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Respondent.
Lane County Circuit Court
18CV42188; A174190
R. Curtis Conover, Judge.
Mark G. Passannante argued the cause and filed the
brief for appellant.
John Thomas argued the cause and filed the brief for
respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 320 Or App 670 (2022) 671
TOOKEY, P. J.
This is a proceeding involving the distribution of
surplus proceeds after a foreclosure sale on a trust deed on
residential property. Appellant Green Street, claiming an
interest in the property as the grantor’s assignee, appeals
from an order of the trial court denying its motion (1) to
set aside a prior order of distribution of surplus proceeds
to respondent Keybank, a junior lienholder on the property,
and (2) for a distribution of surplus proceeds to Green Street.
In a single assignment of error, Green Street contends that
the trial court erred in entering the prior order of distri-
bution of surplus proceeds to Keybank and in rejecting its
own motion for a distribution of surplus proceeds. Although
Green Street argues that the court’s prior order of distribu-
tion to Keybank was erroneous because Keybank had not
obtained foreclosure of its junior lien, and Green Street’s
interest in the surplus proceeds was therefore superior to
Keybank’s, Green Street does not offer any argument under
ORCP 71—which provides for relief from judgments and
orders—in support of relief from the prior order of distribu-
tion.1 See Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific,
186 Or App 696, 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193, adh’d to on recons,
187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003) (it is not “our proper
function to make or develop a party’s argument when that
party has not endeavored to do so itself”). For that reason,
we reject Green Street’s assignment of error.
Affirmed.
1
Green Street contends that the order of distribution was erroneous, because
Keybank was not entitled to a distribution of surplus proceeds as it had not fore-
closed on its junior lien and its junior lien was foreclosed by the general judgment
of foreclosure. See ORS 88.050. Green Street further contends that, as successor
to the grantor’s trust deed, and in the absence of Keybank’s establishment of its
lien, it was entitled to any surplus proceeds.