Marriage of Conser v. Conser

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Marriage of Conser v. Conser

880 P.2d 975, 130 Or. App. 294, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1381

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 14, 1994

DocketCV91-0752; CA A79922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 880 P.2d 975 (Marriage of Conser v. Conser) 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

Marriage of Conser v. Conser, 880 P.2d 975, 130 Or. App. 294, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1381 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

EDMONDS, J.

Wife moves for reconsideration of our opinion modifying the trial court’s property division in its dissolution judgment. 128 Or App 377, 875 P2d 1184 (1994). We allow reconsideration and modify our opinion, but adhere to it.

Wife correctly points out that we were inaccurate when we stated that she did not argue that she is entitled to share in the amount that the assets of the Conser Land and Cattle Company appreciated during the marriage. However, the fact remains that there is no persuasive evidence of the value of the company in 1978, when the parties were married. Without such evidence, we cannot determine the appreciated value of the company. The trial court included $20,000 of the value of the company in the marital estate. Based on the record before us, we agree with the trial court’s ruling.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

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

EDMONDS, J.

Wife moves for reconsideration of our opinion modifying the trial court’s property division in its dissolution judgment. 128 Or App 377, 875 P2d 1184 (1994). We allow reconsideration and modify our opinion, but adhere to it.

Wife correctly points out that we were inaccurate when we stated that she did not argue that she is entitled to share in the amount that the assets of the Conser Land and Cattle Company appreciated during the marriage. However, the fact remains that there is no persuasive evidence of the value of the company in 1978, when the parties were married. Without such evidence, we cannot determine the appreciated value of the company. The trial court included $20,000 of the value of the company in the marital estate. Based on the record before us, we agree with the trial court’s ruling.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 P.2d 975, 130 Or. App. 294, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriage-of-conser-v-conser-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack