trial court’s clear circumvention of section 236.20 by entering the challenged order in the dissolution case, we are unable in the present proceeding to reverse that portion of the court’s order. That is because the mutual protective order was entered in the dissolution case, and that case is not before us in this appeal. Any relief to which Angel might be entitled with respect to the mutual no-eontact order must await an appeal of the dissolution of marriage action. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 . Rule 179(a) states: "The court trying an i 278 Or. 455, 564 P.2d 703, 705 (1977) (stating antecedent remarks of the trial court that are not incorporated in the written findings or judgment are not considered to be "findings of fact”); State v. Kingman, 77 Wash.2d 551, 463 P.2d 638, 639 (1970)
holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact