934 P.2d 608 | Or. Ct. App. | 1997
Mother appeals and father cross-appeals from a marital dissolution judgment that awarded custody of the child to father, ordered wife to pay child support and divided the parties property. On the appeal, we address only the issue of the life insurance and otherwise affirm. We affirm on cross-appeal.
A lengthy discussion of the facts of this case would not benefit either bench or bar. It is sufficient to state that the evidence established the existence of two life insurance policies, one of which the parties describe as ‘Tielonging to” their child. Post-trial statements created confusion as to the number of policies and the trial court made an award as to only one. We remand for a finding as to the number of life insurance policies and for a proper disposition thereof.
On cross-appeal, father contends that the trial court erred when it awarded him two bank accounts that had been established upon the child’s birth
On cross-appeal, father argues that, because the accounts are child’s, not his, and the corresponding amount of money awarded to mother is hers alone (i.e., is unrestricted), father effectively has received $83,500 less than mother. The factual underpinning of that argument — that the accounts
Remanded for a finding on the life insurance policies and for disposition thereof; otherwise affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal. No costs to either party.
According to father, one of the accounts contains certificates of deposit (CDs) and the other is “an interest-bearing account that flows over from the CDs.”