Legal Opinion

In re the Marriage of Caudill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 6, 1996No. 91-DR-0760; CA A78685PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

Husband appeals from a dissolution judgment, contending that the trial court erred in distributing his pension because it did not use the time rule to calculate the marital portion of that asset. See Richardson and Richardson, 307 Or 370, 378-79, 769 P2d 179 (1989). We review de novo, ORS 19.125(3), and reverse.

Husband has worked as an Allstate insurance agent since November 1964. The parties were married in October 1979. Wife began working as an Allstate agent in 1986. Each party has earned benefits under two plans offered by Allstate, a defined-benefit pension plan and a profit-sharing…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Matter of Marriage of RichardsonOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Matter of Marriage of RogersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Matter of Marriage of RogersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  4. In re the Marriage of RogersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  5. Matter of Marriage of MinnisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of KiserCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. Owens-Koenig v. KoenigCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. In re the Marriage of ToughCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API