Court Opinion

ID: 9602837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:00:37.66722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:51.378603
License: Public Domain

BRAND, J.,
specially concurring.
Plaintiff instituted suit for divorce against his wife. The original answer of the defendant referred to “all of his [plaintiff’s] belongings including the real and personal property * * * in which defendant herein had an interest * * It also alleged that “plaintiff is possessed of real and personal property in Jackson County. ’ ’ The plaintiff was thereby put on notice that his real property might be subjected to orders of the court. The only real property shown by the evidence to have belonged to the plaintiff in the divorce case was Lots 12 through 16, Block 7, Central Point, Jackson County, Oregon. At the trial of the divorce case the answer was amended to describe the real property as above set forth. In my opinion the trial court erred in entering a decree based upon the amendment which had not been served as required by OCLA, § 1-708. Under the circumstances of this particular case, *308the error was not jurisdictional and the decree was not subject to collateral attack.