Turner v. Turner

390 P.2d 360, 237 Or. 39, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 326
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 390 P.2d 360 (Turner v. Turner) 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
Turner v. Turner, 390 P.2d 360, 237 Or. 39, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 326 (Or. 1964).

Opinion

*40 PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff husband sued for divorce; the defendant wife cross-complained for divorce. The trial court granted the husband’s suit and awarded custody of the couple’s now 10-year-old boy and 6-year-old girl to the husband. The wife contends both rulings are erroneous.

The wife’s brief accurately characterizes this case: “The testimony of the parties and their witnesses constitutes what might be termed the usual charges, denials and attempted bolstering of contentions with neighbors, friends and enemies. * * * Each litigant moved into battle all of the armament at his command. * * *”

There is ample evidence to support the trial court’s decree awarding the husband a divorce. With the contradictory testimony and inferences here present we will not substitute our judgment, based upon the transcript and the exhibits, for that of the tribunal that heard and saw the parties and other witnesses.

The same observation is apposite to the custody portion of tiie decree. The wife moved from her home in January, 1962, leaving her husband and the two children. The evidence is conflicting as to her motive and what, if any, provision she made for caring for the two children. The husband has had the two children ever since and it appears they are relatively well cared for and physically and emotionally normal.

The decree provided that each party would pay his own attorneys fees and costs. The defendant wife asserts this is error. This is a matter largely within the trial court’s discretion, considering, among other factors, the financial resources of the parties, the *41 property division made by tbe decree, and "the fault of the parties. Blake v. Blake, 147 Or 43, 53, 31 P2d 768 (1934). The trial court acted within its discretion.

Affirmed with costs to neither party.

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

Related

In re the Marriage of Simmons
907 P.2d 1134 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)
In re Marriage of Reitmeier
778 P.2d 962 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)
Matter of Marriage of Richardson
769 P.2d 179 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)
In re the Marriage of Shirley
669 P.2d 1198 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1983)
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood
638 P.2d 1135 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)
In re the Marriage of Wheeler
571 P.2d 1289 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)
Harder v. Harder
552 P.2d 852 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1976)
Costanzo v. Costanzo
478 P.2d 440 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 P.2d 360, 237 Or. 39, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-turner-or-1964.