Uhde and Uhde

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 12-26-2013
  • Case #: A147493
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: ORTEGA, P.J. for the court; Sercombe, J.; and Hadlock, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

If a party is deemed to have not appeared in front of the court, they are not entitled to proper service or the opportunity to object under ORCP 68 C.

Wife appeals the supplemental judgment that terminated husband’s spousal support obligations to wife, set wife’s child support obligations to husband, and awarded husband attorney fees after sanctions were imposed under ORCP 46 B. After the 2003 dissolution judgment and subsequent appeals by both parties, husband obtain orders to compel discovery of Wife’s financial records with her new husband in 2009. Wife failed to comply with the court’s orders to compel on several occasions, which resulted in the court striking all of the Wife’s pleadings and she was deemed to have not appeared. Husband was granted relief, including the full amount of attorney fees. Wife argues, under ORCP 68 C (4)(a)(ii) and (b), that she should have been properly served the attorney fee statement and given an opportunity to object. The Court held that because Wife was “deemed to have not appeared,” Wife was considered “in default for failure to appear,” and there Husband was not required to serve her with his attorney fee statement and the court was not required to allow her to object. Affirmed.

Advanced Search