Joling and Joling

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 05-15-2019
  • Case #: A165778
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

"In summary, we hold that courts, when dealing with the property disputes of [partners] who have been living together in a non-marital domestic relationship, should distribute property based upon the express or implied contract of those parties." Beal and Beal, 282 Or 115, 122-23, 577 P2d 507 (1978).

Petitioner appealed the trial court’s judgment dissolving the parties’ domestic partnership. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court's ultimate division of the parties' real property, their home. On appeal, Petitioner argued (1) an enforceable marriage contract did not exist, (2) there was no breach of contract because the contract did not exist, and (3) the damages awarded to Respondent were inappropriate given that the contract did not exist. Additionally, Petitioner argued, even if an implied contract did exist, there was no evidence that suggested Petitioner wanted Respondent to have the entirety of the value of the home. In response, Respondent argued that the principles in Beal supported the award of the entirety of the value of the home to Respondent because of Petitioner's conduct, paying Respondent support immediately after separating, evidenced that Petitioner intended to provide Respondent with financial care. Additionally, Respondent argued there was other conduct by Petitioner that suggested an implied contract existed and that an inference could be made from that contract that Petitioner wanted Respondent to have the entirety of the real property. "In summary, we hold that courts, when dealing with the property disputes of [partners] who have been living together in a non-marital domestic relationship, should distribute property based upon the express or implied contract of those parties." Beal and Beal, 282 Or 115, 122-23, 577 P2d 507 (1978). The Court concluded that the trial court erred in dividing the parties' real property because the evidence on record did not support a "reasonable inference" that the parties wanted Respondent to receive the entirety of the home in the event of partnership dissolution.

Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top