Hug v. Hug

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hug v. Hug

485 P.2d 428, 5 Or. App. 436, 1971 Ore. App. LEXIS 851

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 28, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 485 P.2d 428 (Hug v. Hug) 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

Hug v. Hug, 485 P.2d 428, 5 Or. App. 436, 1971 Ore. App. LEXIS 851 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

THOBNTON, J.

Defendant appeals from that portion of a divorce decree which awarded his former wife what he asserts is an inequitable share of the property.

In the decree, the trial judge awarded plaintiff-wife the residence of the parties and required defendant to assume payment of a $3,287 encumbrance [437]*437thereon. Defendant claims that this was an abuse of discretion because he had an equity of $1,500 in the house prior to the marriage of the parties and the total equity in the house at the time of the divorce was $4,000. The testimony indicated that the residence was worth between $6,000 and $7,000.

The record shows that the defendant-husband is a skilled electrician earning in excess of $8,000 per year. The wife is unskilled and is temporarily employed at a wage of $60 a week gross pay. She testified that she planned to terminate her position shortly to enroll in a secretarial training course to improve her earning power. The wife must care for the three children of the marriage and was awarded $50 a month per child for their support, although she requested $75 per child. The residence is a two bedroom dwelling and the wife testified that she needed it in order to make a home for the children.

Considering the burden assumed by the wife, we conclude that the disposition of the house was equitable. Stettler v. Stettler, 2 Or App 119, 467 P2d 130 (1970); Cooley v. Cooley, 1 Or App 223, 232, 461 P2d 65 (1969).

Affirmed.

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

THOBNTON, J.

Defendant appeals from that portion of a divorce decree which awarded his former wife what he asserts is an inequitable share of the property.

In the decree, the trial judge awarded plaintiff-wife the residence of the parties and required defendant to assume payment of a $3,287 encumbrance [437]*437thereon. Defendant claims that this was an abuse of discretion because he had an equity of $1,500 in the house prior to the marriage of the parties and the total equity in the house at the time of the divorce was $4,000. The testimony indicated that the residence was worth between $6,000 and $7,000.

The record shows that the defendant-husband is a skilled electrician earning in excess of $8,000 per year. The wife is unskilled and is temporarily employed at a wage of $60 a week gross pay. She testified that she planned to terminate her position shortly to enroll in a secretarial training course to improve her earning power. The wife must care for the three children of the marriage and was awarded $50 a month per child for their support, although she requested $75 per child. The residence is a two bedroom dwelling and the wife testified that she needed it in order to make a home for the children.

Considering the burden assumed by the wife, we conclude that the disposition of the house was equitable. Stettler v. Stettler, 2 Or App 119, 467 P2d 130 (1970); Cooley v. Cooley, 1 Or App 223, 232, 461 P2d 65 (1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 P.2d 428, 5 Or. App. 436, 1971 Ore. App. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hug-v-hug-orctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack