Strand v. Garvin

According to ORS 107.135(1), a party seeking to modify a judgment as to parenting time must serve the notice on the other party in the manner provided under ORCP 7, and within 30 days of service, the served party must file a written response with the court. ORS 107.135(4). An error may arise when a trial court fails to “make a record reflecting an exercise of discretion”, further, the court must "supply . . . enough information to enable appellate courts to engage in meaningful review of the court’s exercise of discretion.” Ray Klein, Inc. v. Wade, 358 Or 374 (2015). 

Father appealed the summary denial of his motion to modify a default judgment regarding parenting time.  The court entered a default judgment against Father after Mother filed a petition for full custody and cited that Father should not be granted parenting time because of his prior incarceration for domestic violence. Father filed a motion under ORS 107.135 with supporting materials that explained the default judgment was entered without factual findings, however, his motion was denied without response by Mother nor an explanation for the denial by the court. According to ORS 107.135(1), a party seeking to modify a judgment as to parenting time must serve the notice on the other party in the manner provided under ORCP 7, and within 30 days of service, the served party must file a written response with the court. ORS 107.135(4). An error may arise when a trial court fails to “make a record reflecting an exercise of discretion”, further, the court must "supply . . . enough information to enable appellate courts to engage in meaningful review of the court’s exercise of discretion.” Ray Klein, Inc. v. Wade, 358 Or 374 (2015).  The Court held that the statute required Mother to file a response before the court issued a judgment and without any explanation for the trial court’s summary denial, the lower court failed to provide a record for meaningful review. Reversed and remanded.