Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharp v. Sharp

March 12, 1973

SHARP, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARP, RESPONDENT



Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Jean L. Lewis, Judge. No. 371-957.

Leo Levenson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Howard P. Arnest, Portland.

Jon L. Woodside, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Emerson U. Sims, Portland.

Fort, Judge. Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry, Judge.

Fort

This divorce appeal presents a challenge by the appellant-wife only to the property division made by the trial judge, who granted dissolution of the marriage res on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. No appeal is taken from that portion of the decree. Although both the complaint and the cross-complaint were filed prior to October 1, 1971, both parties requested and the trial court agreed to proceed under the 1971 "no fault" divorce law.*fn1 Minovsky v. Minovsky,

10 Or App 540, 543, 500 P2d 1234 (1972). As in Minovsky, where such procedure was upheld, we conclude here also that the outcome "would be the same under either law." Minovsky v. Minovsky, supra, 10 Or App at 543.

Oregon Laws 1971, ch 280, ยง 29(3), p 396,*fn2 provides:

"(3) When a domestic relations suit is pending on the effective date of this Act, a right accrued under a law repealed hereby is not impaired and the court shall grant to a party seeking to enforce the accrued right the relief to which the party is entitled."

We are not here dealing with "a right accrued under a law repealed hereby." Both ORS 107.105(1)(e) and former ORS 107.100(4) in effect provide that in the exercise of its ancillary powers pursuant to the dissolution of the marriage the court may provide for the division or distribution between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of the parties or either of them "as may be just and proper under the

circumstances." Thus whether considered under the "no fault" or the former statute the court here had the same authority ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.