Opinion ID: 1381445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the 1981 amendments to ors 107.105

Text: In 1971, Oregon adopted a no-fault dissolution law, and the property division statute was changed to state: (1) Whenever a marriage is declared void or dissolved, the court has power further to decree as follows:    (e) For the division or other disposition between the parties of the real and personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances. Former ORS 107.105(1)(e); Or. Laws 1971 ch. 280, § 13. The statute was amended in 1977 by the addition of two sentences. Or. Laws 1977 ch. 847, § 2. When this case was tried and when it was decided in the Court of Appeals, ORS 107.105(1)(e) read as follows: (1) Whenever the court grants a decree of    dissolution of marriage   it has power further to decree as follows:    (e) For the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances. The court shall view the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker in the contribution of marital assets. There is a rebuttable presumption that both spouses have contributed equally to the acquisition of property during the marriage   . As stated above, ORS 107.105(1)(e) was amended in response to the Court of Appeals opinion. [4] As amended in 1981, it provides (bracketed material was deleted; new provisions are underlined): (e) For the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances. The court shall [view] consider the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker [in the contribution] as a contribution to the acquisition of marital assets. There is a rebuttable presumption that both spouses have contributed equally to the acquisition of property during the marriage[.], whether such property is jointly or separately held. Subsequent to the filing of a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage or separation, the rights of the parties in the marital assets shall be considered a species of co-ownership, and a transfer of marital assets pursuant to a decree of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation entered on or after October 4, 1977, shall be considered a partitioning of jointly owned property. The court shall require full disclosure of all assets by the parties in arriving at a just property division. In arriving at a just and proper division of property, the court shall consider reasonable costs of sale of assets, taxes and any other costs reasonably anticipated by the parties. 1981 Or. Laws ch. 775, § 1. Prior to the 1981 amendment, ORS 107.105(2) provided that [i]n determining    the proper division of property    the court may consider evidence of the tax consequences on the parties of its proposed decree. (Emphasis added.) The 1981 amendments to ORS 107.105 did not change ORS 107.105(2), but added the concluding sentence of ORS 107.105(1)(e) that [i]n arriving at a just and proper division of property, the court shall consider reasonable costs of sale of assets, taxes and any other costs reasonably anticipated by the parties. (Emphasis added.) The 1981 amendment appears to require that courts, when appropriate, consider the tax consequences of property divisions. [5] Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals did so, as we now proceed to do. Under Davis, whether the court-ordered transfer is to be viewed as a nontaxable division of property between two co-owners is determined by Oregon law. Whatever the law of Oregon was prior to the 1981 amendments to ORS 107.105(1)(e), this court must measure the trial court decree against the amended ORS 107.105(1)(e). The amended statute provides that the transfer shall be considered a partitioning of jointly owned property if the property is a marital asset (as that term is used in ORS 107.105(1)(e)).