Fay and Fay

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 07-25-2012
  • Case #: A146380
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Without a showing of evidence, the division of property is at the discretion of the trial court. Under ORCP 68 C(4)(b) and ORCP 10, 3 days shall be added to the objection period if the notice is served by mail. Thus, an objection being served by mail is allotted 17 days rather than 14.

Husband challenged the trial court's dissolution judgment. Husband argued that the trial court erred in its division of property and its awarding of attorney fees to Wife. At trial, the trial court attempted to take the evidence provided by the parties and evenly divide both the real and personal property of the Husband and Wife. The trial court used the parties finances to divide the assets equally, but obligated the Husband to pay substantially more debts. Husband appealed, arguing that the trial court created an unjust disparity in the property division. The Court of Appeals determined that the division of property is at the discretion of the trial court and it will only look to see if the trial court correctly applied the applicable statutes. Therefore, because it found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, it rejected Husband's first assignment of error. However, the Court of Appeals agreed with Husband as to attorney fees because Husband still had three days to object to Wife's attorney fee request. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding Wife her attorney fees. Attorney-fee award vacated adn remanded; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search