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 Card

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 17, 2019

In the Matter of the Marriage of Debbie Dee CARD, Petitioner-Appellant, and Erick Eugene CARD, Respondent-Respondent.

          Submitted January 4, 2019

          Lincoln County Circuit Court 17DR04752; Christopher Casebeer, Judge pro tempore.

          Jody Meeker fled the brief for appellant.

         No appearance for respondent.

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

         Case Summary:

         In this domestic relations case, wife appeals from a dissolution judgment entered by the trial court. She assigns error to (1) the trial court's denial of her request for spousal maintenance support and (2) the court's award of three months of temporary predissolution support-to be used to make payments on the land-sale contract for the marital property-rather than the five months that she had requested.

         Held:

         The trial court abused its discretion when it denied wife's request for maintenance support based on the court's incorrect conclusion that the marital property, which the court awarded to wife, was a substitute for spousal support and its unsupported finding that, by awarding wife the marital property, she was receiving all or nearly all of the marital assets. The trial court also abused its discretion in offsetting wife's use of the marital property against husband's obligation to pay for the lien on the property.

         [298 Or.App. 512] SHORR, J.

         In this domestic relations case, wife appeals from a dissolution judgment entered by the trial court, raising two assignments of error. She first contends that the court erred by awarding her only three months of temporary, predissolution spousal support rather than the five months that she had requested. Wife also contends that the trial court erred when it denied her request for spousal maintenance support. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, and we reverse and remand.

         Wife requests de novo review. We decline to exercise our discretion to review de novo, because wife has not demonstrated that this is an "exceptional case" warranting such review. See ORS l9.4l5(3)(b) (court has discretion to apply de novo review in equitable actions); ORAP 5.40 (8)(c) (courts will exercise discretion to review de novo only in "exceptional cases"); see also ORAP 5.4O(8)(a) (appellants seeking such review "shall concisely state the reasons why the court should do so"). Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by evidence in the record. Berg and Berg, 250 Or.App. 1, 2, 279 P.3d 286 (2012).

         The parties were married for 35 years. At the time of trial, husband was 58 and wife was 56. Husband had worked as a millwright from 1984 to 2011, but he was injured on the job and has not worked since. Husband had a net monthly income in the form of Social Security disability payments of $1, 934, which exceeded his living expenses by approximately $800. Husband also had two retirement accounts with a total value of approximately $18, 000. Husband had approximately $75, 000 in medical debt, which had been outstanding since 2013. At the time of trial, husband had not made payments on that debt, but he told the trial court that "a certain amount" had been excused.

         Wife has no employment history, having been the primary caretaker of the couple's children, who were adults at the time of trial, and a homemaker for the entirety of the marriage. Wife is currently the primary caretaker of the couple's 10-year-old grandson, although husband is the [298 Or.App. 513] grandson's legal guardian. Wife has been diagnosed with a number of medical conditions, including high blood pressure, anxiety, and a mass in her brain that requires frequent monitoring. At the time of trial, wife received $735 per month in Social Security benefits and $160 per month in food stamps, for a total monthly income of $895. Wife's uniform support declaration listed monthly ...


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.