Court Opinion

ID: 9548853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:09:48.395523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:29.110238
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.
(Pro Tempore), specially concurring.
I do not concur with that part of the majority opinion which holds that there cannot be a trial de novo on particular limited points without bringing upon appeal the entire record. The majority may be right, but in my opinion insufficient research has been made to determine whether the long-standing rule which it follows is still viable under our present revised appellate procedure. However, I reach the same result by a different means.
The plaintiff designated only a partial record in her notice of appeal and failed to include therein, as required by ORS 19.029 (l)(e), “A plain and concise statement of the points on which the appellant intends to rely * * On appeal the appellant may rely on no other points than those set forth in such statement unless he designates the entire record, in which case he need not make any statement of points. The reason appellant must include such points in his notice of appeal or be barred from raising them on appeal is that in the absence thereof respondent has no means *208of protecting his record by designating any balance of the record which may relate to them.
On appeal plaintiff relies on two points: (1) there were insufficient pleadings to justify the court’s determination that defendant Burke was entitled to money advanced for the benefit of the property in the event it should be sold during Burke’s life estate; (2) there was no evidence from which the court could find that the defendant Burke was entitled to a life estate. The insufficiency of the pleadings can probably be raised without any statement of points. The majority disposes of this contention satisfactorily. The second point was not included in plaintiff’s notice of appeal or in any subsequent statement provided for by OR.S 19.029. As a result, this court cannot give it consideration because we do not have the entire record and defendant had no notice upon which she could designate any balance of the record which might relate to that point.
For this reason, I concur with the result of the majority opinion.