Title: Jaeger v. Jaeger
Citation: 224 Or. 281, 355 P.2d 93
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: October 19, 1960

Affirmed October 19, 1960.
Walter H. Evans, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Evans &amp; Kennedy, Portland.
*282 McDannell Brown, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY, GOODWIN and KING, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
ROSSMAN, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the circuit court which overruled a motion made by her, based upon ORS 18.160, to vacate a decree entered June 29, 1959, which granted to her a divorce, awarded her a half interest in all the property owned by the couple and gave the defendant (father) the custody of the two minor children which were born of the union. The children are boys; one was 3 1/2 years old and the other 2 months old at the time of the trial. The answer alleged that the plaintiff was not fit to have the children's custody. The principal subject of controversy in the circuit court was the custody of the children and such is also the principal issue here. The plaintiff claims that the children should have been awarded to her custody.
ORS 18.160 states:
In the trial in the circuit court the plaintiff was represented by capable counsel. She supported her prayer for a divorce with her testimony and also testified as to her fitness to care for the children. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, denied in the main the plaintiff's charges that he had treated *283 her cruelly but asked for no divorce for himself. The parties then stipulated that the trial judge should hear in his chambers outside of the presence of the parties the evidence pertaining to the plaintiff's fitness to be awarded the children's custody. They also stipulated to dispense from that point on with a court reporter. A memorandum opinion of the trial judge which no one challenges as inaccurate states that while these stipulations were being effected "the Court indicated a reluctance to follow the procedure suggested by counsel. It called attention specifically to the rule in Rea v. Rea, 195 Or 252." Notwithstanding the views thus announced by the trial judge the stipulations were effected.
The part of the decree which we will now quote states the manner in which the stipulations were effected and what next occurred:
The plaintiff claims that she did not know when she stipulated with the defendant upon the issue of custody that "this procedure would affect any of my rights of appeal and I did not understand that I was waiving my right to have witnesses against me subject to cross examination." The purported facts set forth in that statement constitute the "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" upon which she moved the circuit court to vacate its decree of June 29, 1959.
In an affidavit which the plaintiff signed in support of her motion to vacate the decree she acknowledged that her counsel "advised me that it would be best to have this testimony heard in chambers for various reasons." Her affidavit added, "I finally agreed to this procedure." The plaintiff's affidavit also states:
We will now quote from a memorandum opinion of the trial judge in which he stated his reasons for *285 denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the decree. The memorandum opinion recites:
At that point the memorandum opinion quoted from the court reporter's notes as follows:
A preceding paragraph quotes ORS 18.160, upon which the plaintiff bases her motion. It will be noticed that the authority there given to relieve a party from an order, judgment or decree is a discretionary power. The words of the section referring to the court, are "in its discretion" and "upon such terms as may be just." Wallace v. Portland Ry. L.P. Co., 88 Or 219, 159 P 974, 170 P 283, referring to the paragraph of our laws just mentioned, declared:
The entry of an order, judgment or decree is a solemn matter. No judge enters a decree or judgment until he has thoroughly analyzed the case and has become completely convinced that his contemplated decision is demanded by the law and the facts. The plaintiff's affidavit indicates that she realized the gravity of the occasion and that the stipulation into which she entered might be crucial. It also discloses that she knew, after she had entered into the stipulation, that the judge was interviewing in chambers, *287 outside of the presence of the parties, witnesses who were familiar with her fitness or lack of it to have the custody of the children. Hence, she knew that cross examination of the witnesses by her attorney was precluded. Yet she assigns as a principal ground for the allowance of her motion, that is under consideration, the fact that the witnesses had not been cross examined. Before the plaintiff entered into the stipulation which we have mentioned she secured the advice of her counsel. After the advice had been given she adopted it. Possibly when she accepted her attorney's advice she did not know the effect which the stipulated procedure would have upon a de novo trial in this court of the issue of child custody. She does not claim that she made any inquiry of her attorney upon that score, or that she knew that if she did not enter into the suggested stipulation the issue concerning child custody could be tried de novo on appeal.
The trial judge had taken pains to call to the attention of the attorneys, if not to the attention of the parties, Rea v. Rea, supra, and to warn them concerning the effect of the contemplated stipulation upon an appeal. If orders, decrees and judgments must be vacated whenever a party avows that he was ignorant of some controlling principle of law or of the possible outcome of some pending legal issue, many decisions of the courts will be endangered.
The brief which the plaintiff filed in this court states:
ORS 9.330 says:
ORS 9.340 provides:
1. It is apparent that the plaintiff does not seek to be relieved from anything that her counsel did. He made no mistake. We must "bind" her, according to ORS 9.330, by the action of her attorney.
It is apparent that the trial judge gave painstaking attention to the plaintiff's motion for the vacation of the decree. As we have seen, he took the unusual care to have the court reporter transcribe for him the colloquy that occurred between court and counsel when the latter proposed that the judge should hear in chambers the testimony of the witnesses who would speak concerning the plaintiff's fitness to have the custody of the children.
Without analyzing this situation further we express our belief that no abuse of discretion took place. We affirm the order that denied the plaintiff's motion.
2. The remaining question is, did the trial judge's interview of the witnesses in chambers, and outside *289 of the presence of the parties, who gave testimony upon the subject of child custody demand a reversal? That issue is settled adversely to the plaintiff-appellant by Omlie v. Hunt, 211 Or 472, 316 P2d 528; Hartnell v. Hartnell, 208 Or 429, 301 P2d 1040; and Rea v. Rea, 195 Or 252, 245 P2d 884.
We find no error. The challenged decree is affirmed. Costs and disbursements will not be allowed to either party.