Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re the Marriage of Rossi

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 22, 1994No. 9104-62706; CA A76338Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEdmonds, J.

I agree with all of the majority’s opinion except its holding that the trial court lacked authority to require wife to file a satisfaction of judgment for one month’s child support to offset husband’s obligation in the event that husband incurs transportation costs during the summer visitation *549period. The majority reasons that the court’s authority to make such an order is circumscribed by the uniform child support guidelines and that, therefore, it must address on remand whether husband’s expense for airfare for the children is a basis for a departure from the otherwise presumed correct…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Smith v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Porter v. HillOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  5. In re the Marriage of DotyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API