Rodrigues and Gerhards

When a judgment is unambiguous, the judgment is given force by its “clear terms.” Anderson and Anderson, 65 Or. App. 16, 19, 670 P.2d 170 (1983); see Tough and Tough, 259 Or. App. 259, 270, 313 P.3d 326 (2013).

Wife, Rodrigues, appealed a judgment holding Husband, Gerhards, not in contempt for failing to pay the agreed amount of spousal support.  In 2011, the trial court issued a judgment of dissolution of marriage where Husband would pay Wife transitional spousal support.  In 2013, a supplemental judgment was issued that reduced Husband’s monthly support to Wife, which was followed by an appeal that reversed and remanded the transitional spousal support but otherwise affirmed the 2011 judgment.  In 2014, a letter opinion was issued that reaffirmed the 2011 judgment, followed by a supplemental judgment in March of 2014 with the letter opinion attached, and the 2011 judgment attached which expressly reaffirmed the 2011 judgment.  In 2017, a supplemental judgment was issued stating the March 2014 supplemental judgment was not meant to revert back the terms of the 2011 judgment but was meant in accordance with the 2013 supplemental judgment.  Wife assigned error to the trial court’s reading of the 2014 supplemental judgment and argued that Husband’s spousal support was miscalculated.  When a judgment is unambiguous, the judgment is given force by its “clear terms.” Anderson and Anderson, 65 Or. App. 16, 19, 670 P.2d 170 (1983); see Tough and Tough, 259 Or. App. 259, 270, 313 P.3d 326 (2013).  The Court held the 2014 supplemental judgment was unambiguous and reiterated the terms of the 2011 judgment, thus Husband’s obligation to pay Wife the amount agreed upon in 2011 was unchanged.  Reversed and Remanded.