In re the Marital Partnership of Elce

Court of Appeals of Oregon

In re the Marital Partnership of Elce

788 P.2d 493, 100 Or. App. 743

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 14, 1990

Docket16-88-02736; CA A60534

StatusPublished

This text of 788 P.2d 493 (In re the Marital Partnership of Elce) 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 the Marital Partnership of Elce, 788 P.2d 493, 100 Or. App. 743 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a petition for review of our decision, 99 Or App 734, 784 P2d 457 (1989), in which we affirmed without opinion a trial court judgment of dissolution of marital partnership. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it, withdraw our former decision, modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.

The judgment awarded appellant the parties’ jointly-held rental property, subject to a lien in favor of respondent for $4,221. In determining the amount of the lien, the trial court gave respondent credit equal to the full rental value of the property during the period that appellant had resided there after the parties’ separation. She argues that, because she was a co-tenant, the trial court should have given respondent credit for only one-half of the rental value. We agree. See Beal v. Beal, 282 Or 115, 124, 577 P2d 507 (1978).

Reconsideration allowed; former decision withdrawn; judgment modified to reduce respondent’s credit to one-half of the rental value or $3,325; affirmed as modified. No costs to either party.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a petition for review of our decision, 99 Or App 734, 784 P2d 457 (1989), in which we affirmed without opinion a trial court judgment of dissolution of marital partnership. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it, withdraw our former decision, modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.

The judgment awarded appellant the parties’ jointly-held rental property, subject to a lien in favor of respondent for $4,221. In determining the amount of the lien, the trial court gave respondent credit equal to the full rental value of the property during the period that appellant had resided there after the parties’ separation. She argues that, because she was a co-tenant, the trial court should have given respondent credit for only one-half of the rental value. We agree. See Beal v. Beal, 282 Or 115, 124, 577 P2d 507 (1978).

Reconsideration allowed; former decision withdrawn; judgment modified to reduce respondent’s credit to one-half of the rental value or $3,325; affirmed as modified. No costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

788 P.2d 493, 100 Or. App. 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marital-partnership-of-elce-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack