Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lee Ann NASH, Appellant, v. Chad Edwin FRANK, Respondent.
Mother appeals from the trial court's order giving father custody of their two children. Although mother filed a timely appeal, she did not file a transcript of the hearing. After providing mother with notice, we dismissed mother's appeal because no transcript had been filed. Mother wrote to the court explaining that she was not able to pay for a transcript. We vacated our order of dismissal, reinstated mother's appeal, and “allowed this case to proceed without benefit of a transcript.” 1
On appeal, mother's brief challenges primarily, if not exclusively, the trial court's factual findings. Although we review this case de novo, we cannot resolve the factual issues mother raises without a transcript. See York v. Bailey, 159 Or.App. 341, 348, 976 P.2d 1181 (1999). In this posture, the only issue that can be raised on appeal is whether the trial court's letter opinion demonstrates that the court erred in modifying its judgment and giving father custody of the couple's children. See id. Having examined the court's letter opinion, we cannot say that it erred.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. ORAP 3.05(2) provides that “[t]he record of oral proceedings shall be a transcript, unless the oral proceedings were recorded by audio or video recording equipment and the appellate court has waived preparation of a transcript and ordered that the appeal proceed on the audio or video record alone.” The rule contemplates that any motion filed pursuant to the rule will be filed in a timely fashion before the case is briefed. Mother was initially represented by counsel on appeal. Neither mother's counsel nor mother moved to waive the preparation of a transcript and proceed on the audio record alone.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: (95-00459-CV; CA A100115)
Decided: June 09, 1999
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)