Submitted September 30, 2016
County Circuit Court CV991233 Gregory L. Baxter, Judge.
W. Newsom and Gearing Rackner Engel & McGrath LLP fled
the brief for appellant.
F. Gushwa fled the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr,
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
Or.App. 800] TOOKEY, J.
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.
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. 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
"[HUSBAND'S COUNSEL]: Yes."
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 ...