Case ID: or-app_24/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued January 19,
    affirmed February 3,
    reconsideration denied February 25, petition for review denied March 31, 1976
    In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Marriage of CLARK, Respondent, and CLARK, Appellant.
    
    (No. 79300, CA 5071)
    544 P2d 1066
    
      George N. Gross, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Brown, Burt & Swanson, Salem.
    
      Sam F. Speerstra, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Rhoten, Rho-ten & Speerstra, Salem.
    Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Thornton, Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
   PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify so much of a decree of a dissolution of marriage as pertains to the support appellant is required to pay to his former wife. We agree with the trial judge that the evidence does not disclose such change of circumstance as would justify a modification. Rowley v. Rowley, 232 Or 285, 375 P2d 84 (1962); Brown v. Brown, 1 Or App 543, 464 P2d 706 (1970).

Affirmed. No costs to either party.