In re the Marriage of Mahitka

Court of Appeals of Oregon

In re the Marriage of Mahitka

719 P.2d 1305, 79 Or. App. 541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 29, 1986

Docket30180; CA A34742

StatusPublished

This text of 719 P.2d 1305 (In re the Marriage of Mahitka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Marriage of Mahitka, 719 P.2d 1305, 79 Or. App. 541 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Husband appeals an order that denied him relief under ORCP 71B(1) and 71C from a judgment of dissolution that was taken against him by default. The parties executed a property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the judgment. Husband’s motion asserted that the judgment was taken through mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct, and contains errors which ought to be corrected. His concern is over the disposition in the judgment of the jointly owned real property.

The court did not err in denying his motion. In the property settlement agreement, husband and wife agreed that he would receive “the most Easterly seven acres” of the real property and that she would receive the remainder. This is exactly what the judgment provides. Husband claims that as a result of the partition he has no means of access to his seven acres from a public road. If that be true, the problem cannot be resolved in this proceeding.

Affirmed. Costs to wife.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Husband appeals an order that denied him relief under ORCP 71B(1) and 71C from a judgment of dissolution that was taken against him by default. The parties executed a property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the judgment. Husband’s motion asserted that the judgment was taken through mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct, and contains errors which ought to be corrected. His concern is over the disposition in the judgment of the jointly owned real property.

The court did not err in denying his motion. In the property settlement agreement, husband and wife agreed that he would receive “the most Easterly seven acres” of the real property and that she would receive the remainder. This is exactly what the judgment provides. Husband claims that as a result of the partition he has no means of access to his seven acres from a public road. If that be true, the problem cannot be resolved in this proceeding.

Affirmed. Costs to wife.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 P.2d 1305, 79 Or. App. 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marriage-of-mahitka-orctapp-1986.