Prince v. Prince

358 P.2d 506, 225 Or. 331, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 712
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 29, 1960
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 P.2d 506 (Prince v. Prince) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prince v. Prince, 358 P.2d 506, 225 Or. 331, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 712 (Or. 1960).

Opinion

*332 O’CONNELL, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a decree granting her a divorce and making an allocation of various items of property. Plaintiff seeks a readjustment of the property allocation on the ground that the trial court erred in failing to give full weight to undisputed testimony concerning the plaintiff’s contribution in the acquisition of certain items of property.

There is a direct conflict of testimony as to the source of the fund's used to purchase a part of the property in dispute. Further, the respective contributions of the parties are only one of many factors which the trial judge is to consider in making disposition of the property between the parties. Siebert v. Siebert, 184 Or 496, 199 P2d 659 (1948). We are of the opinion that the allocation worked out by the trial court was reasonable, and we cannot say that it was not “just and proper in all the circumstances.” OPS 107.100 (4). See, Rivier v. Rivier, 209 Or 342, 306 P2d 423 (1957).

The decree of the lower court is affirmed.

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

Related

In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Dietz
527 P.2d 427 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 P.2d 506, 225 Or. 331, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prince-v-prince-or-1960.