In re the Marriage of Haimovitz
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Gillespie v. KononenOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Propp v. LongOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Smith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas · 1894
- In re the Marriage of ConleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
- State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. DreyerOregon Supreme Court · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. LavitskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- State v. LavitskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- State v. LavitskyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000