In the Matter of the Marriage of Tullio CELANO, III, Petitioner-Respondent, and Karena S. CELANO, nka Karena S. Nordby, Respondent-Appellant.
and submitted November 9, 2016
County Circuit Court DR13070292 Douglas V. Van Dyk, Judge.
W. Kelly argued the cause and fled the briefs for appellant.
F. Schuster, II, argued the cause and fled the brief for
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Garrett,
appeals a general judgment of dissolution, arguing, among
other things, that the trial court erred in its property
division award, because the court awarded husband half of the
value of wife's separately owned property in California.
Specifically, wife takes issue with the trial court's
finding that both parties paid the tax liability incurred as
a result of wife's withdrawal from her late-father's
trial court's findings are supported by evidence in the
record, and, as a result, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that the California property was a
marital asset, subject to equal division.
Or.App. 174] TOOKEY, J.
appeals a general judgment of dissolution, raising three
assignments of error. We write only to address wife's
second assignment of error, in which she contends that the
trial court erred in its property division award, because the
court awarded husband half of the value of wife's
separately owned property in California. We reject without
discussion wife's first and third assignments of error.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
requests that we exercise our discretion under ORS
19.415(3)(b) to review the trial court's property
division award de novo; however, because this is not
an exceptional case, we decline to exercise our discretion to
apply such review. ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Accordingly, we state
"the facts consistently with the trial court's
express and implied findings, as supplemented by
uncontroverted information from the record." Code
and Code. 280 Or.App. 266, 267, 380 P.3d 1073 (2016).
parties were married in 2005. In January 2010, wife's
father passed away and his estate was divided between wife
and wife's brother. As part of wife's father's
estate, wife and wife's brother were the beneficiaries of
wife's father's IRA and each received their share of
the "Required Minimum Distribution" (RMD). In May
2010, wife asked her brother if he would consider giving wife
his share of the RMD so that she could use that money to
purchase property in California (the Dolly Lane property).