155 Or. App. 629 964 P.2d 1097

Submitted on respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed June 5,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (154 Or App 142, 960 P2d 896 (1998)) adhered to September 2, 1998

In the Matter of the Marriage of Gerald Leroy ENDERS, Respondent, and Patti Grace ENDERS, Appellant.

(CV95-0414; CA A94771)

964 P2d 1097

Michele Grable for the petition.

Steven N. Thomas and Corey, Byler, Rew, Lorenzen & Hojem, contra.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

ARMSTRONG, J.

*631ARMSTRONG, J.

Husband seeks reconsideration of our decision that divided his and wife’s property on the dissolution of their marriage. Husband contends that we miscalculated the amount that needed to be awarded to wife from the sale of the parties’ residence in order to equalize the distribution of assets to the parties. Husband is mistaken.

In our opinion, we treated the residence as an asset that was separate from the parties’ other assets. For the assets other than the residence, we determined that husband had received $10,094 more in assets than wife. To make up that difference, we ordered that the residence be sold, that wife receive the first $10,094 from the net proceeds of the sale and that any remaining proceeds be divided equally between the parties.

In his reconsideration petition, husband treats the residence as an asset that has been awarded to him, but he assigns no value to it. He then calculates the difference in all assets that were awarded to the parties at $14,400 in his favor or $4,236 in wife’s favor, depending on the values assigned to various assets. He then argues that the correct way to address the difference in assets awarded to the parties would be to award wife $7,200, which would equalize the distribution if the difference between them were $14,400 in his favor, or to award him $2,118 if the difference were $4,236 in wife’s favor.

The flaw in husband’s approach is that he treats the residence as an asset that has been awarded to him, but he assigns no value to it. If all of the parties’ assets were divided between them and values were assigned to all of the assets, then it would be appropriate to award wife one half of the difference in the value of the assets in order to equalize the distribution. For example, if husband had received $14,400 more in assets than wife, which amount included the value of the residence, then wife would have to be given a $7,200judg-ment to equalize the distribution. However, given our treatment of the parties’ residence, it was necessary to award wife the full amount of the difference in the value of the assets awarded to them other than the residence, with the balance *632of the proceeds from the sale of the residence to be divided equally.1 Based on our decision on the value of the parties’ assets and liabilities other than the residence, the amount of the difference between the parties was $10,094 in favor of husband, which falls between the two figures listed in husband’s reconsideration petition.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.

In re the Marriage of Enders
155 Or. App. 629 964 P.2d 1097

Case Details

Name
In re the Marriage of Enders
Decision Date
Sep 2, 1998
Citations

155 Or. App. 629

964 P.2d 1097

Jurisdiction
Oregon

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!