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.

In re Marriage of Celano

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 2, 2017

In the Matter of the Marriage of Tullio CELANO, III, Petitioner-Respondent, and Karena S. CELANO, nka Karena S. Nordby, Respondent-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted November 9, 2016

         Clackamas County Circuit Court DR13070292 Douglas V. Van Dyk, Judge.

          George W. Kelly argued the cause and fled the briefs for appellant.

          Philip F. Schuster, II, argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Wife 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 IRA.

         Held:

         The 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.

         Affirmed.

         [287 Or.App. 174] TOOKEY, J.

         Wife 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.

         Wife 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).

         The 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). ...


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.