execution of the judgment within 60 days. Instead, the plaintiff sought, and the trial court attempted to permit, issuance of execution after the 60 days had run. We held that there was no authority for the revival of the judgment after it became unenforceable. Id. Here, on the other hand, the passage of the 60-day period does not render plaintiffs appeal moot. Plaintiff timely objected to the trial court’s refusal to permit extended enforcement of the judgment. Our remand of the trial court’s decision will, on remand, result in the judgment remaining enforceable despite the passage of the 60-day period. Because a decision on the merits will have a practical effect on the parties’ rights, plaintiffs appeal is not moot. See McGinley and McGinley, 172 Or App 717, 720, 19 P3d 954 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Remanded with instructions to enter modified
holding that this courts power to correct an error prevented appeal from becoming moot because of the fulfillment of the judgment obligation appealed from holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal holding appeal moot on this basis