In the Matter of the Marriage of Laurie Kim MALDONADO, Petitioner-Respondent, and Perry Lee FREED, Respondent-Appellant.
and submitted January 31, 2018
Lincoln County Circuit Court 142519 David V. Cramer, Judge.
Gilbert B. Feibleman argued the cause for appellant. Also on
the briefs was Feibleman & Case, P.C.
W. Kelly argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr,
Or.App. 584] Case Summary: Husband appeals from a judgment
dissolving the parties' marriage, contending that the
trial court erred in its award of spousal support and
division of marital property. Husband contends that, in
determining the just and proper division of the marital
property and wife's equalizing judgment, the court
committed legal error in failing to honor the parties'
intentions to keep their property separate, and in failing to
properly account for the parties' separate contributions
to the acquisition of marital assets and premarital assets.
Held: The Court of Appeals rejected without
discussion husband's contentions relating to spousal
support. But the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial
court committed reversible error in determining a just and
proper division of marital property for the purpose of
determining wife's equalizing judgment. Specifically, the
trial court erred in failing to value bank accounts as of the
date of dissolution, and in determining that husband had not
rebutted the presumption of equal contribution with respect
to his separate funds used to purchase the "8th
Court" house. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for
reconsideration of the property division.
Or.App. 585] TOOKEY, J.
appeals from a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage,
contending that the trial court erred in its award of spousal
support and its division of marital property. We write to
address only husband's contentions regarding the property
division. Because the record reflects various legal errors by
the trial court, we reverse the property division portion of
the judgment and remand for reconsideration.
requests de novo review; however, this is not an
exceptional case, and we therefore decline to exercise our
discretion to review de novo. See ORS 19.415(3)(b)
(court has discretion to apply de novo review in
equitable actions); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (court will exercise
discretion to review de novo only in exceptional
cases). Thus, in reviewing the judgment, we are bound by the
trial court's findings that are supported by any evidence
in the record. Kaptur and Kaptur, 256 Or.App. 591,
596 n 2, 302 P.3d 819 (2013). We state the facts in a manner
consistent with the trial court's express and implied
findings, supplemented with uncontroverted information from
the record. Stuart and Ely, 259 Or.App. 175, 177,
313 P.3d 317 (2013).
parties lived together for eleven years before they married
in July 2011. The dissolution trial began on March 8, 2016.
The trial court issued a letter opinion on June 27, 2016, and
entered a judgment of dissolution on October 13, 2016. During
the parties' five year marriage, they had a five-month
separation from November 2012 to April 2013, and a two-year
separation from July 16, 2014, to the date of dissolution.
The trial court found the duration of the marriage to be two
and a half years. At the time of trial, husband was 58 years
old and wife was 52. There are no children of the marriage.
came into the relationship with some assets, including real
property, $8, 000 in cash, and $3, 000 in coins. Wife came
into the relationship with an IRA valued at approximately
$41, 000. At the time of the marriage, husband owned three
investment properties, one investment account, and two bank
accounts, as well as the cash and coins. Wife continued to
own her IRA, then valued at [294 Or.App. 586] approximately
$68, 000. From the beginning of their relationship, the
parties agreed not to commingle their finances or assets.
Thus, they did not acquire or own any joint property.
is a builder, in the business of buying homes to remodel and
sell. Throughout the period of cohabitation and marriage, the
parties lived in homes that husband was remodeling to resell.
The parties lived primarily off of husband's earnings.
Wife earned a small amount of income from work outside the
home and occasionally contributed to payment of household
the first five years of the parties' cohabitation,
husband also owned a cabinetry business. Wife worked
part-time in the cabinetry business for two years as a paid
employee. Also during the years of cohabitation, husband did
remodeling for private clients. Wife testified that she made
unpaid contributions to that business, by meeting with
clients, helping husband shop for supplies, doing yard work
and clean-up, and helping to rip out carpets, floors, and
the marriage, wife focused primarily on household
responsibilities and yard work, and continued to provide some
unpaid help in the business. During the parties' second
period of separation, husband paid wife temporary support and
continued to ...