Legal Opinion

In re the Marriage of Heathman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 30, 1988No. D8210-72895; CA A46463PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraber, J.

Husband appeals from a post-dissolution order entered as a result of wife’s “amended motion and order to show cause concerning establishment of judgment amount and interest arrears.”1 On de novo review, we affirm.

Husband and wife were divorced in 1983. The dissolution judgment incorporated a property settlement agreement, which provided, in pertinent part:

“6. Par-4, Inc. Contract. On September 22, 1971, [husband] entered into an agreement between himself and Par-4, Inc. calling for payment by Par-4, Inc. to [husband] of twenty-seven percent (27%) of the annual net profits of Par-4, as defined…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McCulsky v. KlostermanOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  2. In re Marriage of PopeOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  3. In re the Marriage of CrossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  4. Anderson v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  5. Kuckenberg v. KuckenbergOregon Supreme Court · 1969

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Matter of Marriage of WinningstadCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  2. In re the Marriage of GramCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. Daniel-Elliott and DanielCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  4. Heathman v. HeathmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API