Tualatin Meadows Apts. v. Dotson

345 Or. App. 764

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: A185955
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

764 December 17, 2025 No. 1093

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

TUALATIN MEADOWS APARTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cameron DOTSON and all other occupants, Defendant-Appellant, and Sydney SADLER, Defendant. Washington County Circuit Court 24LT18318; A185955

Drake Hood, Judge Pro Tempore. Submitted October 31, 2025. Cameron Dotson filed the brief pro se. Also on the brief was defendant Sydney Sadler. Geoffrey B. Korol and Warren Allen LLP filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. HELLMAN, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 764 (2025) 765

HELLMAN, J. In this forcible entry and detainer (FED) action, tenant, appearing pro se, appeals a judgment of eviction, in which the trial court awarded restitution of the premises to landlord. Although tenant’s brief identifies several disagree- ments with how the trial court ruled, including whether the trial court properly denied various motions filed by tenant, the brief does not establish that the trial court committed any legal error in entering the judgment. Moreover, although the “appellant bears the burden of providing a record suf- ficient to demonstrate that error occurred,” Ferguson v. Nelson, 216 Or App 541, 549, 174 P3d 620 (2007), tenant did not designate a transcript of the trial court proceedings as part of the record. Consequently, the record is insufficient for our review. See Universal Ideas Corp. v. Esty, 84 Or App 541, 544, 734 P2d 408 (1987) (explaining that the assign- ment of error was unreviewable where the appellant did not designate a transcript of the proceedings and the appellate arguments did not “turn solely on questions of law”); see also ORS 19.365(5) (“If the record on appeal is not sufficient to allow the appellate court to review an assignment of error, the appellate court may decline to review the assignment of error[.]”). Because tenant has not identified any reversible error, we affirm. Affirmed.