Marriage of Dyer, Matter of

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ROSSMAN
• Citation: Marriage of Dyer, Matter of, 699 P.2d 212, 73 Or.App. 515 (Or. App. 1985)
• Decision Date: 01 May 1985
• Parties: In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Esther Katherine DYER, Petitioner, and Ronald Edwin Dyer, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, ex rel. Esther Katherine DYER, Respondent, v. Ronald Edwin DYER, Appellant. D7904-63120; CA A29262.

Page 212

699 P.2d 212

73 Or.App. 515

In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Esther Katherine DYER, Petitioner and Ronald Edwin Dyer, Respondent STATE of Oregon, ex rel. Esther Katherine DYER, Respondent, v. Ronald Edwin DYER, Appellant.

D7904-63120; CA A29262.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted April 10, 1985.

Decided May 1, 1985.

David D. Powell, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was Frank M. Ierulli, Portland.

Terrance L. McCauley, Estacada, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.

ROSSMAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment which held him in contempt of court for failing to make his child support payments, sentenced him to jail and awarded plaintiff attorney fees. We affirm.

In August, 1981, the trial court entered a decree awarding plaintiff custody of the parties' minor child and ordering defendant to pay child support of $300 per month. Defendant appealed, and an order was entered requiring him to pay $300 per month pending the appeal. In July, 1983, after the appeal had been resolved, Dyer and Dyer, 59 Or.App. 562, 652 P.2d 886, rev. den. 294 Or. 295, 656 P.2d 944 (1982), the trial court ordered defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the support orders.

The uncontroverted evidence presented at the hearing was that defendant had never made any payments. He was found in contempt for violating both support orders and sentenced to two consecutive six-month jail terms. The second term was suspended on the condition that he pay or make arrangements to pay the arrearages within six months of his release after the first term. The court also ordered him to pay wife's attorney fees and costs.

All four of defendant's assignments of error violate ORAP 7.19, in that they do not "set out verbatim the pertinent portions of the record" relating to the specific rulings for which review is sought. Without having a basis to determine whether and how the issues were raised in the trial court, we cannot address assignments 1, 2 and 4. Commercial Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Kirk, 66 Or.App. 359, 366, 675 P.2d 1069 (1984). ¹

Assignment 3 can be addressed without searching the record. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his request for a jury trial. He is wrong on the law. A defendant in this type of contempt proceeding has no right to a jury trial under either the Oregon or the federal constitution. State ex rel. Dwyer v. Dwyer, 69 Or.App. 56, 684 P.2d 15, rev. allowed 298 Or. 68, 688 P.2d 846 (1984).

Affirmed. Costs to wife.

1 Specifically, defendant argues in his first assignment that the court erroneously held that he had been properly served,...