From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shelton and Shelton

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 23, 2004
197 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

reviewing question of law in dissolution case for legal error

Summary of this case from In re the Marriage of Dahl

Opinion

C932441DR; A119483.

On respondent's petition for reconsideration filed November 23, 2004. Appellant's response to petition for reconsideration filed December 1, 2004. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion (196 Or App 221, 100 P3d 1101 (2004)) clarified and adhered to as clarified February 2, 2005.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County.

Donald R. Letourneau, Judge.

Margaret Leek Leiberan, and Case Dusterhoff, LLP, for petition.

Kristin Winnie Eaton, and Yates, Matthews Associates, P.C., contra.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge pro tempore.

Brewer, C.J., vice Leeson, J. pro tempore.


DEITS, J. pro tempore.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.


In our original opinion in this case, we modified the trial court's parenting schedule. Mother now seeks reconsideration. We adhere to both our original opinion and disposition, allowing reconsideration only to clarify two issues.

Mother is primarily concerned that our original opinion leaves unresolved many issues that were resolved by the trial court's parenting plan. Mother's concern is misplaced and flows from her misunderstanding that we "reversed" the trial court's parenting schedule. As stated consistently several times in our former opinion, we modified the trial court's parenting schedule; we did not reverse it. Shelton and Shelton, 196 Or App 221, 224, 232, 235, 110 P3d 1101 (2004). When this court modifies the judgment of a trial court, but otherwise affirms, as we did here, the unmodified provisions of the judgment remain in effect. The particular issues raised by mother are addressed in the trial court's judgment and should be resolved by reference to that judgment.

It appears that it would be helpful to the parties to address an issue concerning summer parenting time. Although it is our view that that issue is unambiguously resolved by our original opinion, we clarify that, except for each parent's two-week block of uninterrupted parenting time, the regular parenting schedule set out in our original opinion is to be followed during the summer.

We reject mother's other arguments without discussion.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.


Summaries of

Shelton and Shelton

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 23, 2004
197 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)

reviewing question of law in dissolution case for legal error

Summary of this case from In re the Marriage of Dahl
Case details for

Shelton and Shelton

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Marriage of Karen Lynese SHELTON, nka Karen Lynese…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 23, 2004

Citations

197 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)
105 P.3d 944

Citing Cases

Niman and Niman

In Shumake, which arose from a nonequitable civil action, the defendant challenged an award of an enhanced…

In re the Marriage of Dahl

Although our review of the evidence in dissolution cases is de novo, the first question — whether a…