Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of STRONG, Appellant, and STRONG, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1978-09-18
Citations: 36 Or. App. 249
Docket Number: No. D 7605 07050, CA 9188
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of STRONG, Appellant, and STRONG, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson, Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 36
Pages: 249–254

Head Matter:
Argued June 27,
affirmed as modified September 18, 1978
In the Matter of the Marriage of STRONG, Appellant, and STRONG, Respondent.
(No. D 7605 07050, CA 9188)
584 P2d 342
Marvin S. Nepom, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Ray F. Merry and King & Merry, Portland.
Ronald I. Gevurtz, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, Kahn & O’Leary, Portland.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson, Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
JOHNSON, J.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, J.
The husband appeals the dissolution of marriage decree contending the division of property was inequitable. The parties were married in 1954. The only child of the marriage is the wife's son by a former marriage whom the husband adopted. The son is emancipated. The husband, aged 63, is retired from the United States Foreign Service and has a retirement income of $29,000 a year which is adjusted periodically in accordance with the cost of living index. The wife, aged 65, receives social security income of $160 per month. The decree provides for spousal support and the division of property as set forth below. The valuations shown, where in dispute, are based upon our de novo review of the record.
1. The husband is required to pay the wife one-half of his net pension.
2. The husband is required to maintain life insurance on his life naming the wife as beneficiary in the amount of $100,500. The amount of insurance will decline to $72,000 in four years.
3. The parties own approximately $25,000 in securities of which the husband received $18,000 and the wife $7,000.
4. The wife was awarded a 1973 station wagon and most of the household furnishings worth approximately $30,000.
5. The husband was awarded a 1970 Chevrolet automobile and three items of furniture which were family heirlooms.
6. The parties had invested $7,000 towards the eventual purchase of the husband's stepmother's home on the Tualatin River. The stepmother is aged 83 and in all likelihood the husband will inherit her interest in the home. There is no evidence concerning the value of the Tualatin River property. The husband presently resides there and pays the stepmother $150 per month rent. The trial court awarded the husband the parties' interest in the property.
7. The primary asset of the parties is the residence located in Virginia which is worth $80,000, subject to a $15,000 mortgage. The wife presently resides there and rents one room for $125 per month. The trial court awarded the residence to the wife. The husband was awarded a $5,000 judgment lien together with interest at 6 per cent which is to be paid when the wife either voluntarily surrenders the premises or the property is sold, or upon remarriage by the wife.
We conclude that under the circumstances the division of property was not "just and proper." ORS 107.105(l)(e). We concur with the trial court that considering the wife's age and other circumstances she should be allowed to continue to reside in the Virginia residence without incurring the additional financial obligation of paying off a judgment lien to the husband. The wife has been residing in that home since the parties separated four years ago. However, considering the arrangement for spousal support and life insurance the parties agreed to, the husband or his estate is entitled to eventually share the principal assets, the residence and personal property, which the parties acquired during their marriage. The decree is amended to provide that the judgment lien shall be in the amount of $35,000, together with interest at the rate of six percent, payable when the wife surrenders the property or the property is otherwise transferred. The decree is in all other respects affirmed.
Affirmed as modified. No costs to either party.