Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Mears

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 1, 2017

Liberty Ann JONES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Scott V. MEARS, Respondent-Appellant.

          Submitted September 30, 2016

         Umatilla County Circuit Court CV991233 Gregory L. Baxter, Judge.

          Andrew W. Newsom and Gearing Rackner Engel & McGrath LLP fled the brief for appellant.

          Dean F. Gushwa fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary: Husband appeals a supplemental judgment modifying his child support obligation. Husband argues that the trial court erred in imputing to him potential income of $80, 000. Before the trial court entered the supplemental judgment that husband now appeals, husband withdrew his objection to the trial court's imputation of potential income. Held: Because husband withdrew his objection to the trial court's imputation of potential income, husband invited the purported error. As a result, the Court of Appeals declined to consider the merits of his assignment of error.

         Affrmed.

         [285 Or.App. 800] TOOKEY, J.

         Husband appeals a supplemental judgment entered in February 2015 that modified his child support obligation. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred in imputing to him potential income of $80, 000. Because we conclude that husband invited that purported error, we affirm.

         Husband and wife have one child. In 2013, husband moved to modify his child support obligation, arguing that there had been a substantial change in his economic circumstances that permitted the court to recalculate the parties' child support obligations. Following a hearing on that motion, the trial court issued a letter opinion in which it set husband's child support obligation by imputing to him potential income of $80, 000 per year. In May 2014, the trial court entered a supplemental judgment (the May 2014 judgment), incorporating the findings from its letter opinion.[1] Thereafter, husband moved to set aside the May 2014 judgment. In January 2015, the trial court held a hearing on husband's objections to the May 2014 judgment. At that hearing, the trial court stated:

"THE COURT: As I look through the original pleadings, the issue that was raised was that notice wasn't given.
"In the pleadings that were just proposed to me, the memorandum, I am told that [husband] does not object to the $80, 000 income imputed to him in the current order; neither does he object to the present child support order, is that correct?
"[HUSBAND'S COUNSEL]: Yes."

         The hearing continued and the parties discussed other issues, including whether husband acted in bad faith by failing to fund child's trust fund. At the end of that hearing, the trial court again reaffirmed its understanding, "In today's pleadings, [husband] no longer contests the $80, 000 income, [285 Or.App. 801] nor does he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.