Case ID: or-app_96/html/0545-01.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

Submitted on record and appellant’s brief April 3,
    affirmed May 10, 1989
    In the Matter of the Marriage of GAUTHIER, Appellant, and GAUTHIER, Respondent.
    
    (88-DO-0020-15; CA A50348)
    772 P2d 451
    Carl M. Dutli, Prineville, filed the brief for appellant.
    No appearance for respondent.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Husband appeals a dissolution judgment. The trial court ruled that the “property settlement agreement, dated January 19, 1988, is set aside as inequitable” and ordered husband to pay $400 per month spousal support. Husband contends that the court lacked any basis to refiise to incorporate the settlement agreement in the judgment or to impose spousal support. The record on appeal consists only of the trial court file. We cannot review those contentions on this record. Vale v. Brooks, 235 Or 295, 384 P2d 141 (1963).

Affirmed. No costs to either party.