In re the Marriage of Justice
265 Or. App. 635
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parties married ~7.5 years; dissolution trial in April 2012 in Lane County; custody to wife was stipulated; issues tried: parenting time, child support, spousal support, property division.
- Trial was set for a full day but began near 2:00 p.m.; court imposed a hard 4:30 p.m. cutoff and ruled immediately after abbreviated proceedings; some settlement discussion occurred partly in chambers.
- Court denied wife’s request for transitional spousal support, awarded maintenance $300/month for 18 months, child support $1,056.38/month, and divided assets including a retirement account (split by directing a QDRO).
- Wife moved for a new trial / to reopen her case, asserting she was prevented by the truncated schedule from calling two witnesses (one on her education plans, one on trust information); motion denied and judgment entered.
- Wife appealed raising five assignments of error: truncated trial/new-trial denial; child support calculation; denial of transitional support and amount of maintenance; omission from written judgment of an oral order forbidding husband’s possession of awarded firearms; and improper asset valuation/distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court-enforced 4:30 p.m. cutoff / denial of new trial | Truncated trial prevented presentation of material witnesses and evidence; new trial warranted | Wife failed to object on the record at trial and offered no explanation for silence; no adequate offer of proof about witness testimony | Court did not err; denial of new trial affirmed (wife waived or failed to preserve; no adequate offer of proof) |
| Child support calculation | Court miscalculated husband’s income leading to incorrect child support | Record ambiguous; industry custom may mean <40‑hr weeks; calculation not obviously erroneous | Not reviewable on appeal (wife failed to preserve; no plain error shown) |
| Transitional spousal support | Wife needed transitional support to obtain education/reenter workforce; statutory factors supported award | Trial court concluded transitional support requires a specific plan and denied it | Reversed and remanded on this issue; trial court erred as a matter of law by requiring a specific plan and must reassess under statutory factors |
| Firearms possession condition omitted from written judgment | Court orally ordered husband not to possess awarded firearms due to prior felony domestic-abuse conviction; omission leaves no contempt basis | Husband would already be discouraged by criminal law, but written judgment should mirror oral order | Reversed and remanded to correct judgment to include prohibition (possession to be contempt if violated) |
| Division of retirement account / asset valuation | Wife lacked evidence of retirement-account value because discovery failed; distribution was premature | Wife’s counsel suggested equal division or QDRO allocation at trial; court followed that suggestion | Affirmed as to the distribution (error, if any, was invited); court’s equal-division/QDRO directive stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Mt. Hood Meadows Oreg., 195 Or. App. 431 (discusses preservation rules for ORCP 64 grounds)
- Turman v. Central Billing Bureau, 279 Or. 443 (party who knows of trial irregularity and stays silent waives claim)
- Howell-Hooyman v. Hooyman, 113 Or. App. 548 (trial time limits not abuse if only irrelevant or redundant evidence excluded)
- English v. English, 223 Or. App. 196 (discusses transitional spousal support context)
- State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335 (preservation requires specific on-record objection to allow correction)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347 (plain-error review requires error to be obvious and not reasonably in dispute)
- Rutter v. Neuman, 188 Or. App. 128 (assignments of error must identify precisely the ruling challenged)
- Association of Unit Owners v. Dunning, 187 Or. App. 595 (appellate briefs that fail to identify issues force courts to guess appellant’s arguments)