You can see the full opinion here.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to continue a restraining order after a hearing. The court found that, although the respondent had sent the petitioner harassing text messages, and had threatened to expose damaging information about her to the public, he had not placed her in fear of imminent bodily injury, which is the standard under the Family Abuse Prevention Act.

 The entire opinion can be found here:

The court made two important rulings:  1.  That the trial court’s spousal support award of $4,000 per month against husband should be reduced to $400 per month; and 2.  That only Husband’s actual ownership portion in a piece of real property could be attributed to him.

Wife was unable to prove any future earning capacity for Husband.  The trial court, however, found that Husband had a high future earning capacity and thus awarded Wife the higher amount of spousal support.  The Court of Appeals held that in the absence of an estimate of Husband’s future earning or that he has the ability to pay the high amount of spousal support awarded by the trial court, that the trial cour erred in providing such a high support award.

The entire opinion can be found here:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A138497.htm

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin PC can assist you with your spousal support legal matters from trial through appeal.

What is interesting about the ruling is that the judgment specifically said that the life insurance provision was for the purpose of securing both parties’ support obligations.  Neither party had a support obligation.  The Court of Appeals, none the less, found that the obligation still existed.  This case shows the long term implications of agreements reached in judgments.  It is crucial that your attorney informs you of the long term effects of your judgment and that your attorney is up to date with current case law.

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin PC strive to assist their clients in understanding the long range implications of their agreements.

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin PC have experience drafting and reviewing prenuptial and postnuptial agreements.

This is an interesting issue as it is rarely the case that a servicemember who has been depolyed has done anything else to justify a change in custody.  Such a change could last the remainder of the child’s life unless that solider can prove that switching custody back would be in the child’s best interest upon returning from duty. 

There are still some actions that servicemembers whom are about to be deployed can take under Oregon law, such as a temporary delegation of parental authority.

The proposed legislation is a complete change from the current law, which bars divorce courts from considering specific acts of conduct except where child custody is at issue.

The case dealt with the treatment of wife’s separately held company.  Wife was given the company by her parents prior to the marriage.  She kept the company in her sole name throughout the marriage.  Husband provided a significant amount of work for the company and the parties used the company’s income during the marriage.  The trial court ruled that husband was not entitled to a award to equalize the value of the company to wife. 

The court of appeals held the the trial court was mistaken and, that while wife had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution with regard to her initial acquisition of the property that she had not done so with respect to the company’s appreciation during the marriage.  ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires that the division of marital property be “just and proper” under the circumstances.   Marital assets are subject to a rebuttable presumption of equal contribution and ownership, which applies to property acquired by a spouse by gift during the marriage.   The appreciation in value of a separately held asset is a marital asset that is also subject to the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution.  A spouse rebuts the presumption of equal contribution with respect to the appreciation of a separately held asset if he or she proves that the other spouse did not contribute either directly or indirectly to its appreciation.  Here, wife could not rebut the presumption.

The court of appeals awarded husband one half of the appreciation of the company during the marriage.

Husband and Wife were married for 22 years, and separated a few years prior to trial.  Wife gave up employment opportunities of her own to further Husband’s career.  The parties had a household income of $14,000 per month, consisting of Husband’s income of $10,700 and Wife’s income of $3,300. 

Husband argued that his income should be only $7,900 per month because the remainder was from a position that he termed temporary.  Husband also argued that Wife’s income should be presumed to be higher because she was underemployed.

Trial court awarded indefinite support in the amount of $1,500 per month. 

The Court of Appeals held that Wife was not underemployed as she was already working full time and is not, for spousal support purposes, required to work at the highest possible salary.  The amount of spousal support must be “just and equitable” under the totality of the circumstances.  Specifically, ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C) provides a nonexclusive list of factors that we consider in establishing a just and equitable support award for spousal maintenance support, which include (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the standard of living established during the marriage; and (3) the parties’ age, income and earning capacities, training and employment skills, work experience, and financial needs and resources.  The Court of Appeals modified the support award up to $2,500 per month indefinitiely because “without a substantial award of spousal support, wife’s standard of living following the dissolution will be significantly diminished when compared to the parties’ predissolution lifestyle, which was based on a monthly household income of approximately $14,000.”

The opinion can be found here:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139055.htm

There has been a rise in the number of dowry harassment cases filed against non-residen Indians (NRIs).  India has been used as a haven for ex-wives who are disatisfied with the result of their United States divorce case.  Once in India they utilize dowry laws which are peculiar to the Indian legal system and do not have a US counterpart. 

Spouses who are NRIs or are divorcing NRIs should discuss their case with a competent attorney who understands these complex international law issues.