Expanding “Wrongful Taking” under ORS 124.110(1)(a): Improper Motive, Improper Means and Elder Abuse Liability

1. Introduction

Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC, 373 Or 621 (2025), arises from a dispute between 71 purchasers of “lifetime” membership camping contracts at Osprey Point RV Resort and the entity that bought the campground and refused to honor those contracts. Most plaintiffs were over 65 and many lived full time at the resort. After a four-day jury trial in Coos County Circuit Court, the jury found for plaintiffs on both breach of contract and elder abuse claims. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the contract verdict but reversed the elder abuse verdict. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to determine (1) whether defendant was bound by the membership contracts as an equitable servitude, and (2) whether refusal to honor those contracts constituted “wrongful” taking under the elder abuse statute, ORS 124.110(1)(a).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Masih, held:

Breach of Contract: The trial court properly denied defendant’s directed-verdict motion. Plaintiffs’ complaint was implicitly amended to conform to the evidence—treating the membership contracts as equitable servitudes binding on the successor owner—even though they were unrecorded. Defendant failed to preserve any objection to that amendment or the corresponding jury instructions.
Elder Abuse (ORS 124.110(1)(a)): The Court of Appeals erred in requiring that elder abuse liability be limited to traditional theft or fiduciary scenarios. The statute was intended to protect vulnerable persons from any “wrongful” taking or appropriation of money or property. Drawing on the common-law tort of intentional interference with economic relations, “wrongfully” encompasses conduct carried out by improper motive or improper means. Here, a reasonable jury could find that defendant purchased the property at a deep discount, with full knowledge of the senior members’ enforceable interests, then repudiated those interests for its own financial advantage. That conduct supports liability for wrongful taking under the elder abuse statute.

The Supreme Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both claims.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Knepper v. Brown, 345 Or 320 (2008) – standard for reviewing a directed verdict motion.
Woodbury v. CH2M Hill, 335 Or 154 (2003) – inferences drawn in favor of the non-movant.
LDS Development LLC v. City of Eugene, 280 Or App 611 (2016) – successor not bound by predecessor’s agreement absent privity or assignment.
Bates v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 362 Or 337 (2018) – ORS 124.110(1)(b) does not apply to routine insurance claim delays.
Church v. Woods, 190 Or App 112 (2003) – defines “wrongfully” as improper motive or means, borrowing from tort of wrongful interference.
Top Service Body Shop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 283 Or 201 (1978) – wrongful interference may arise from improper motive or improper means.
Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or 487 (1999) – clarifies improper-means standard requires violation of an objective rule or standard.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. Breach of Contract. Because the trial court treated plaintiffs’ contracts as equitable servitudes binding successive owners, it instructed the jury on the four elements of a covenant running with the land. Defendant never challenged that amendment of the pleadings or the jury instructions—either below or on appeal. Under ORCP 23 B and settled appellate practice, the Court of Appeals declined to reverse the contract verdict.

B. Elder Abuse (ORS 124.110(1)(a)). The statute authorizes civil liability when any person “wrongfully takes or appropriates money or property of a vulnerable person.” The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ adoption of the “improper motive/improper means” framework from Church. Legislative history shows the statute was designed to close gaps in criminal and tort remedies that failed to protect seniors from relatives, caregivers or “phony contractors” who exploited vulnerable adults. Accordingly, “wrongfully” must include acquisitions by deceit, misrepresentation or other wrongful means, or conduct motivated improperly by the intent to deprive seniors of their property interests.

On the facts, substantial evidence supported submission to the jury. Defendant purchased the campground at a $1 million discount with actual notice of plaintiffs’ unrecorded but enforceable interests. It then repudiated the contracts, triggering both breach of contract and a “wrongful” taking under the elder abuse statute. No directed verdict was warranted.

3.3 Potential Impact

Confirms that ORS 124.110(1)(a) applies broadly to protect seniors from wrongful takings by any party, not just fiduciaries.
Reinforces that a party acting with improper motive or means—even in an arm’s-length transaction—can face treble damages and attorney fees if the victim is 65 or older.
Places a premium on due diligence by purchasers who acquire property encumbered by unrecorded interests affecting vulnerable persons.
Signals to trial courts and litigants that “wrongful” under the elder abuse statute tracks tort principles of improper motive and improper means.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Equitable Servitude: A promise regarding land use that “runs with the land,” binding successors even if the covenant is unrecorded, when certain elements are met.
Improper Motive/Improper Means: From the tort of wrongful interference, referring to conduct like deceit, misrepresentation, or acting solely for financial gain at the expense of another’s legal rights.
Directing a Verdict: A procedural ruling where a judge decides no reasonable jury could find for one party on a claim.
Elder Abuse Statute (ORS 124.100–124.140): Grants a civil cause of action for persons 65 or older when their money or property is wrongfully taken, with remedies including treble damages, injunctions, and fees.

5. Conclusion

Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC breaks new ground by confirming that Oregon’s civil elder abuse statute reaches wrongful takings by improper motive or means—even in arm’s-length transactions with non-fiduciaries. Buyers of property subject to unrecorded rights held by vulnerable persons must recognize that repudiating those interests may constitute “wrongful” conduct under ORS 124.110(1)(a). The decision underscores the comprehensive and protective nature of civil remedies for elder abuse in Oregon, ensuring that seniors are not left without recourse when their property interests are exploited.