MATTER OF MARRIAGE OF OWENS
Decision Date | 10 July 2002 |
Citation | 182 Or. App. 473,49 P.3d 111 |
Parties | In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Robert Bruce OWENS, Respondent, and Brenda Fern Owens, aka Brenda Velasquez and Brenda McEntire, Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Scott D. MacArthur, Klamath Falls, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. Douglas Osborne, Klamath Falls, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Law Office of Douglas V. Osborne.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and KISTLER, Judges.
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, wife appeals an order vacating a judgment against husband. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion under ORCP 71 B(1) in setting aside the judgment. We affirm.
Attached to the petition are two documents prepared by the parties. The first, entitled Exhibit A, contains the parties' proposed property division as it pertained to personal property. The second attachment, entitled "Agreement to Sell Business Holdings," is an agreement for husband to pay $60,000 to wife at a rate of $1,000 per month for 60 months, for the purchase from her of "50% of the company known as B & B Trucking." The agreement also made husband liable for all current and outstanding debts of the company.
The proposed judgment was signed by the trial court on December 8, 1998.
In early 1999, husband became aware of alleged misrepresentations by wife regarding the financial affairs of B & B Trucking. Husband moved to set aside the judgment on grounds of fraud. The trial court allowed husband's motion and set an appearance date for both parties in order to establish a trial date. In a letter opinion regarding the motion, the court said, "I conclude that [wife] did erroneously represent to [husband] that the bills were current and such fraud was extrinsic because, even though this case was settled, it would have prevented him from fully exhibiting and trying his case because it was a basis for the settlement." On the date set by the court, husband's attorney and wife's attorney appeared. At the hearing, a settlement hearing was scheduled for August 16 and trial was set for September 3, 1999. On June 22, 1999, husband's attorney then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The court allowed the motion.
Husband received the motion and the order allowing the withdrawal of his attorney and informing him of the upcoming settlement hearing and the trial date. However, he did not appear at either proceeding. The operative pleading continued to be the parties' co-petition. ORCP 13 A; ORS 107.085. At trial in September, the trial court heard unrebutted testimony from wife. As a result, it entered judgment in October finding that husband had dissipated the business assets of the marriage. The court also heard testimony from wife that husband had "trashed" at least $18,000 of personal property, including $10,000 of equipment used by wife in her cake decorating business. The judgment entered by the court requires that, "the [husband] shall pay to [wife] a money judgment in the sum of $18,000 as spousal support." The judgment also divides the parties' personal property in essentially the same manner as had been done in the prior, vacated judgment, with a few exceptions that favored wife. The judgment makes no mention of the agreement by husband to purchase half of the business from wife as alleged in the co-petition.
Wife appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in setting aside the judgment. She contends that the trial court abused its discretion because husband is charged with the knowledge that a trial court has the authority under ORS 107.105 to award spousal support in a dissolution judgment. We review a ruling on a motion under ORCP 71 B for an abuse of discretion. Pacheco v. Blatchford, 91 Or.App. 390, 392, 754 P.2d 1219, rev. den. 306 Or. 660, 763 P.2d 151 (1988). ORCP 71 B(1) provides:
"[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or such party's legal representative from a judgment for the following reasons: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[.]"2 (Emphasis added.)
The question in this case is whether husband, who had notice of the proceedings that were going to occur, and who failed to appear out of carelessness, can nonetheless be awarded relief from the judgment on the basis of "surprise."
In support of her argument that the trial court abused its discretion, wife relies on Weaver and Weaver, 119 Or.App. 478, 851 P.2d 629 (1993). In Weaver, the court entered judgment after wife failed to appear at trial. She moved to have the judgment vacated under ORCP 71 B(1)(a). We upheld the trial court's denial of relief, stating:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Artisian Laboratories, Inc. v. SAIF
...64 P.3d 1173, rev. den., 335 Or. 510, 73 P.3d 292 (2003); in reviewing a motion to set aside a judgment under ORCP 71 B, Owens and Owens, 182 Or.App. 473, 49 P.3d 111 (2002); in reviewing the denial of a motion for set-over, State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Garcia, 180 Or.App. 279, 44 P.3d 591 ...
-
Housley and Housley
...720 P.2d 1280 (1986). 4. We take note of a previous decision of this court in which a similar motion was brought. In Owens and Owens, 182 Or.App. 473, 49 P.3d 111 (2002), the trial court granted the husband's ORCP 71 B motion after he failed to appear at trial, and the wife appealed from th......
-
In re Marriage of Cam
...We review the trial court's decision to set aside the judgment under ORCP 71 for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Owens and Owens, 182 Or.App. 473, 477, 49 P.3d 111 (2002). If it had consciously chosen to do so, the trial court could have entered a general judgment dissolving the parties'......
-
Bisaccio v. Hart
...a trial court's decision to set aside an earlier judgment under ORCP 71 for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Owens and Owens, 182 Or.App. 473, 477, 49 P.3d 111 (2002). ORCP 71 B is "predicated on the underlying policy that defaulted parties are entitled to have their day in court, when it......