Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent, and Keme BRAMWELL, Plaintiff, v. Erik ANDERSEN, nka Erik Elder, Appellant, and Peder ANDERSEN, nka Peder Elder, Co-Respondent below
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-10-31
Citations: 177 Or. App. 711
Docket Number: 9108-66723; A111413
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent, and Keme BRAMWELL, Plaintiff, v. Erik ANDERSEN, nka Erik Elder, Appellant, and Peder ANDERSEN, nka Peder Elder, Co-Respondent below.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 177
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 1,
reversed and remanded October 31, 2001
STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent, and Keme BRAMWELL, Plaintiff, v. Erik ANDERSEN, nka Erik Elder, Appellant, and Peder ANDERSEN, nka Peder Elder, Co-Respondent below.
9108-66723; A111413
33 P3d 1070
Michael R. Sahagian argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Kathryn T. Garrett, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this child support proceeding, father appeals from a judgment amending his child support obligation. The state concedes that the trial court erred. We review de novo, ORS 19.415(3), accept the state's concession, and reverse and remand.
Father first assigns error to the trial court's rejection of a collateral attack on a prior stipulated judgment establishing paternity. Father has failed to establish the necessary requisites for setting aside a stipulated judgment, and we reject his arguments without further discussion.
In his second assignment of error, father argues that the trial court erred in determining the amount of his support obligation. The state concedes that the trial court incorrectly calculated father's child support obligation. We accept the state's concession that, in this case, the trial court erred in considering a third-party's income in calculating father's support obligation as a noncustodial parent.
Reversed and remanded.
A discussion of the particular facts and circumstances in this case would not benefit either the bench or the bar.