Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marriage of Bowers v. Bowers

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 28, 1996No. 92-DO-0456-ST; CA A84593Published

1DissentArmstrong, J.

The majority holds that husband is a prevailing party under the antenuptial agreement and, therefore, is entitled to recover attorney fees at trial in this dissolution proceeding. I disagree. Contrary to the majority’s view, the attorney-fee provision in the parties’ antenuptial agreement is unenforceable in a dissolution proceeding, because it is contrary to public policy to control a court’s discretion to award attorney fees in such a proceeding. It follows, then, *32that the trial court properly denied husband an award of attorney fees under the agreement.

ORS 108.710 controls the permissible…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of HaguewoodOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Matter of Marriage of EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. Matter of Marriage of PurcellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API