In re the Marriage of Eisenbraun

Court of Appeals of Oregon

In re the Marriage of Eisenbraun

729 P.2d 609, 83 Or. App. 153

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 17, 1986

Docket85-0275; CA A37264

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 729 P.2d 609 (In re the Marriage of Eisenbraun) 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 Marriage of Eisenbraun, 729 P.2d 609, 83 Or. App. 153 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Husband assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to include in the judgment a property settlement agreement entered into by the parties 18 months before the dissolution. The trial court specifically found that the agreement was “incomplete and inequitable to wife.” A court may reject a property settlement agreement. See McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 652 P2d 1247 (1982). On de novo review, we agree with the trial court that the agreement should not be enforced. However, husband is correct that the trial court erred in giving wife a portion of husband’s military pension earned before the parties were married.

Paragraph 6 of the judgment is modified to eliminate wife’s interest in the portion of husband’s pension earned during four and one-half years in the United States Air Force before the marriage of the parties. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. No costs to either party.

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

PER CURIAM

Husband assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to include in the judgment a property settlement agreement entered into by the parties 18 months before the dissolution. The trial court specifically found that the agreement was “incomplete and inequitable to wife.” A court may reject a property settlement agreement. See McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 652 P2d 1247 (1982). On de novo review, we agree with the trial court that the agreement should not be enforced. However, husband is correct that the trial court erred in giving wife a portion of husband’s military pension earned before the parties were married.

Paragraph 6 of the judgment is modified to eliminate wife’s interest in the portion of husband’s pension earned during four and one-half years in the United States Air Force before the marriage of the parties. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. No costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 P.2d 609, 83 Or. App. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marriage-of-eisenbraun-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack