Maldonado and Freed

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 10-31-2018
  • Case #: A163430
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“Marital property” is all the property owned by the parties at the time of dissolution, “and can include property owned prior to marriage. Massee and Massee, 328 Or 195, 201 n 2, 970 P2d 1203 (1999) (citing Pierson). Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the dissolution court is required to make a distribution of marital property that is “just and proper in all the circumstances.”

Husband appealed judgment award of spousal support and the division of marital property that resulted from a dissolution of marriage. Husband assigned error to the trial court’s failure to honor the parties’ intentions to keep their property separate, to properly identify and value the marital property at the time of trial, and to properly attribute the parties’ separate contributions to marital and premarital assets. On appeal, Husband argued that the trial court erred in determining that he had not “overcome the presumption of equal contribution” because the evidence supported that the home was purchased with premarital assets and as such, the portion he used as a down payment to purchase the home should be deducted from the equal value that would be shared by the parties. In response, Wife argued that Husband failed to request that he be awarded his personal collection of cash and coins and that he had not “overcome the presumption of equal contribution” related to all property that was owned separately. “Marital property” is all the property owned by the parties at the time of dissolution, “and can include property owned prior to marriage.” Id.; Massee and Massee, 328 Or 195, 201 n 2, 970 P2d 1203 (1999) (citing Pierson). Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the dissolution court is required to make a distribution of marital property that is “just and proper in all the circumstances.” The Court held that the trial court erred in determining Husband had not “overcome the presumption of equal contribution” related to the assets he had not comingled because there was evidence to support some of the property was intended to be kept separate. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of property division; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top