Cooley v. Sunderman
592 P.2d 268, 39 Or. App. 365, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2579
Opinion
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
Cooley v. Sunderman, 592 P.2d 268, 39 Or. App. 365, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2579 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
592 P.2d 268 (Cooley v. Sunderman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Beal v. Beal
577 P.2d 507 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1978)
Palmer v. Protrka
476 P.2d 185 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1970)