Legal Opinion

In the Matter of Marriage of Crislip and Crislip

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 24, 1987No. D8505-63115; CA A41452PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

Wife appeals from the property division portions of the judgment in this dissolution case. She contends that the trial court erred by failing to award her one-half of the amount by which the value of husband’s pension and related funds increased during the marriage. The court distinguished between the increased value attributable to new investment and that attributable to growth in pre-marital investment, ignored the post-separation increased value of the funds and adjusted the property division to reflect husband’s greater age. On de novo review, we conclude that the court should not have…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matter of Marriage of Olinger and OlingerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  2. Matter of Marriage of MannersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. In re the Marriage of CaveCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of Wolhaupter-HeinzelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. In re the Marriage of ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. In re the Marriage of MasseeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  4. In re the Marriage of LanganCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  5. Matter of Marriage of BurtonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

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

Powered by the Exa API