legal meaning in a particular context, courts generally will adopt that meaning if the term is not differently defined in the contract. See Anderson v. Jensen Racing, Inc., 324 Or 570, 579, 931 P2d 763 (1997) (applying well-recognized statutory meaning of term “prevailing party” to the use of that as a single concept consisting of “reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the prosecution or defense of an action other than for legal services, [including] the fees of officers and witnesses[.]” A fee for the services of an expert witness is not a cost or disbursement within the meaning of that provision. Guinasso v. Pacific First Federal, 89 Or App 270, 280, 749 P2d 577, rev den, 305 Or 672 (1988); Hancock v. Suzanne Properties, Inc., 63 Or App 809, 814-15, 666 P2d 857 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Section XVI of the premarital agreement
holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable holding that the detail provided in a fee application is of paramount importance to the courts determination that the requested fees should be allowed holding that fees of witnesses for purposes of orcp 68 a2 means the statutory fee provided by ors 44415 holding that orcp 68 defines costs and disbursements for purposes of dissolution actions holding that even though attorneys fees were not properly awardable under rule 68 costs excluding fees were mandatory