Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/Cooley v. Sunderman

Cooley v. Sunderman

592 P.2d 268, 39 Or. App. 365, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2579
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMarch 19, 1979
DocketNo. 97961, CA 11157
StatusPublished

This text of 592 P.2d 268 (Cooley v. Sunderman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cooley v. Sunderman, 592 P.2d 268, 39 Or. App. 365, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2579 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

JOSEPH, J.

The trial court correctly ruled that respondent was accountable to appellant (his co-tenant and former wife) for the reasonable rental value of her share of the property in question after marital difficulties made continued co-occupancy infeasible. Palmer v. Protrka, 257 Or 23, 476 P2d 185 (1970); Beal v. Beal, 282 Or 115, 577 P2d 507 (1978). Neither party has demonstrated that the trial court’s determination of reasonable rental value, which was necessarily based on conflicting and imprecise evidence, was in error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Beal v. Beal
577 P.2d 507 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1978)
Palmer v. Protrka
476 P.2d 185 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
592 P.2d 268, 39 Or. App. 365, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooley-v-sunderman-orctapp-1979.