Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Cronin

110 October 21, 2026 No. 1022 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, dba Mr. Cooper, a Delaware limited liability company, and Federal National Mortgage Association, (“Fannie Mae”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Casey N. CRONIN, an individual, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 23CV04280; A185743 Kamala H. Shugar, Judge. Submitted May 20, 2026. Casey Cronin filed the briefs pro se. Thomas N. Abbott and Troutman Pepper Locke LLP filed the brief for respondents. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. KAMINS, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 110 (2026) 111 KAMINS, J. Defendant appeals a judgment, entered pursuant to a settlement agreement, of plaintiff’s quiet title and declar- atory judgment action. On appeal, she raises three assign- ments of error arguing that the trial court should have granted her motion to set aside the judgment because the judgment was (1) infirm due to fraud and misrepresentation; (2) a violation of her right to due process; and (3) infected by attorney misconduct. We affirm. The parties have litigated issues relating to defen- dant’s mortgage and the property securing it across several forums. The proceeding before us arose from plaintiff’s com- plaint seeking to quiet title to the property because defen- dant allegedly failed to make payments pursuant to the loan modification agreement between the parties. After a judi- cial settlement conference, the parties entered into a settle- ment agreement. In that agreement, the parties agreed that defendant would vacate the property by August 14, 2024, and, plaintiff would pay defendant $55,000 in two install- ments, an immediate payment of $10,000 with $45,500 to be placed in in the court registry for payment upon move- out. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment on August 13, 2024, arguing that the settlement was void, and plain- tiff moved to enforce the agreement on September 5, 2024, contending that defendant had not vacated the property as promised. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judg- ment and granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce it. The trial court required defendant to provide the keys to the prop- erty to plaintiff and struck the provision of the settlement agreement that provided a $45,500 payment to defendant. Defendant retained the $10,000 previously provided. Because defendant entered into a settlement agree- ment and accepted payment pursuant to that agreement, she cannot now challenge that agreement on appeal. “[A] n appellant cannot accept the benefits of a judgment and also pursue, by appeal, a course which may overthrow the right to those same benefits.” Nickerson and Nickerson, 296 Or 516, 520, 678 P2d 730 (1984). Although defendant con- tends that she was misled by her attorney as to the value 112 Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Cronin of entering the settlement,1 her acceptance and retention of the $10,000 was her own decision and precludes her from attempting to unwind that agreement on appeal. Lord v. Pettibon, 102 Or App 607, 610, 795 P2d 607 (1990) (“Even if [a party’s] acceptance of the settlement was ‘coerced’ by the court, he did not utilize available statutory procedures to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.”); see also Lemley v. Lemley, 221 Or App 172, 181, 188 P3d 468 (2008) (“ ‘[K]nowing acceptance of the benefit of a transaction rati- fies the act of entering into the transaction. This is so even though the person also manifests dissent to becoming bound by the act’s legal consequences.’ ” (Quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 4.01 comment d (2006).)). Affirmed. 1 Defendant’s allegations against her attorney may sound in malpractice but not in a quiet title action between plaintiff and defendant.