4 In 1997, the statute was renumbered, but its text was not amended. 5 In Rajneesh Foundation v. McGreer, 303 Or 139, 141-42 n 2, 734 P2d 871 (1987), the Supreme Court affirmed our holding, 80 Or App 168,171 n 3, 721 P2d 867 (1986), that the default judgment rendered there, based on an order of default imposed as a sanction under ORCP 46 B(3)(c) for discovery violations, was not rendered “for want of an answer.” 6 As an exhibit to his affidavit in support of his original August 8,1996, motion to set aside, husband submitted a document entitled “Response,” dated July 19, 1996, stating, “Respondent appears.” However, that document bears no date or filing stamp, and the trial court’s docket shows no such filing. 7 See also Whipple v. S. P. Co., 34 Or 370, 372-73, 55 P 975 (1899) (<HOLDING>). 8 Husband points to Morrow Co. Sch. Dist. v.
holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that a defendant did not otherwise defend even though he had appeared before the court holding that a preanswer motion for summary judgment does not suspend the time for filing an answer holdingthat judgment for want of an answer was properly entered even though the defendants attorney appeared in court at the time set for trial holding that even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for misconduct and even though the order of dismissal was therefore not an adjudication on the merits the defendants were nevertheless properly considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees