In re Muldoon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

In re Muldoon

646 P.2d 637, 57 Or. App. 832, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3551

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 16, 1982

DocketNo. 80-1569-E, CA A21426

StatusPublished

This text of 646 P.2d 637 (In re Muldoon) 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

In re Muldoon, 646 P.2d 637, 57 Or. App. 832, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3551 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This was a proceeding to dissolve a non-marital relationship, determine property rights and establish child custody, visitation and support. Appellant challenges that portion of the decree concerning certain aspects of support and visitation, as well as a portion giving judgment in the amount of $10,000 to respondent’s father, Robert Coe. Robert Coe was not a party to these proceedings.

On de novo review, we find error only as to the $10,000 judgment. The $10,000 amount is a joint obligation of the parties, and should have been treated as such. Paragraph (4) of the decree, which concerns the $10,000 amount, is stricken and the following paragraph is substituted:

“(4) Respondent shall hold petitioner harmless for one-half of the sum of $10,000 presently owed by the parties to Robert Coe for his loan to the parties to acquire real estate.”

As modified, the decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

This was a proceeding to dissolve a non-marital relationship, determine property rights and establish child custody, visitation and support. Appellant challenges that portion of the decree concerning certain aspects of support and visitation, as well as a portion giving judgment in the amount of $10,000 to respondent’s father, Robert Coe. Robert Coe was not a party to these proceedings.

On de novo review, we find error only as to the $10,000 judgment. The $10,000 amount is a joint obligation of the parties, and should have been treated as such. Paragraph (4) of the decree, which concerns the $10,000 amount, is stricken and the following paragraph is substituted:

“(4) Respondent shall hold petitioner harmless for one-half of the sum of $10,000 presently owed by the parties to Robert Coe for his loan to the parties to acquire real estate.”

As modified, the decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 P.2d 637, 57 Or. App. 832, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-muldoon-orctapp-1982.