Staveland and Fisher, 455 P.3d 510

Parties (Staveland and Fisher) cohabited in a home purchased by Fisher (Dickinson house for $467,500); title was in Fisher’s name alone.
They held a wedding-like ceremony (did not legally marry due to tax advice), had a child, and shared household labor and expenses (Fisher paid mortgage/taxes/insurance; Staveland paid utilities, household and childcare expenses; both performed improvements).
At trial the parties stipulated to divide all individually titled assets except the Dickinson house appreciation; Staveland sought half the house’s appreciation.
An appraiser valued the house at $635,000 near trial; the trial court awarded Staveland 50% of appreciation (approx. $167,500) and $20,000 in attorney fees.
The Court of Appeals upheld the equal-sharing award but held the trial court erred in using the trial date valuation and vacated the attorney-fee award; the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ result on other grounds, held that intent determinations are factual (reviewable for evidentiary support), reversed the general judgment for recalculation of value, and vacated/remanded the supplemental fee judgment.

Issue	Staveland's Argument	Fisher's Argument	Held
Proper standard of appellate review for nonmarital property division (intent question)	Court of Appeals’ abuse-of-discretion review is appropriate	Must be reviewed as a question of law (terms of the parties’ agreement)	Intent is a factual determination (absent an unambiguous agreement); appellate review requires the usual factual sufficiency/"no evidence" inquiry; Court of Appeals used wrong standard but reached correct outcome
Whether trial court erred in awarding 50% of Dickinson-house appreciation	Parties intended to live as spouses and share appreciation; award proper	Title, separate finances, and Fisher’s sole payments show unequal ownership; equal split inequitable	There was evidence to support the trial court’s finding of intent to share; award supported by record
Proper valuation date for calculating appreciation	Using trial-date appraisal is acceptable	Appreciation should be measured as of when Staveland moved out	Court of Appeals (and affirmed outcome) held trial court erred in using the trial-date value; remand for recalculation using the appropriate date
Attorney-fee award explanation	Fees were warranted	Trial court failed to provide adequate explanation	Supplemental judgment on fees vacated and remanded for adequate findings/explanation

Beal v. Beal, 282 Or 115 (1978) (nonmarital domestic-partnership property distribution governed by parties’ express or implied intent)
Kunze v. Kunze, 337 Or 122 (2004) (marital property division involves factual findings and a discretionary "just and proper" division)
McDonnal v. McDonnal, 293 Or 772 (1982) (intent of parties is a factual inquiry when construing incorporated settlement terms)
Holloway v. Holloway, 63 Or App 343 (1983) (holding out as husband and wife supports inference of intent to share property)
State v. Brown, 306 Or 599 (1988) (describes Article VII, section 3, no-evidence standard for reviewing factual findings)