Legal Opinion

In re the Marriage of Haimovitz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 13, 1999No. 96-3620-D-2; CA A102356PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Husband appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage. ORS 107.105. We affirm because husband’s arguments on appeal appear to focus on the terms of an amended judgment that was entered at a time when the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

On March 26, 1998, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage. The property distribution under the judgment provided, in part:

“[Wife] is awarded a 1.2% interest in the Haimovitz Family Limited Partnership, to be taken out of [husband’s] 7.2%, leaving him with a 6% interest.”

The trial court did not award spousal support to either party.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gillespie v. KononenOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Propp v. LongOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Smith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas · 1894
  4. In re the Marriage of ConleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. DreyerOregon Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. LavitskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. State v. LavitskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  3. State v. LavitskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API