Court Opinion

ID: 9628864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:33:21.963291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:12.624934
License: Public Domain

DE MUNIZ, P. J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s resolution of wife’s first assignment of error. I agree with the majority that the increase in value of the office building is a marital asset and that husband did not rebut the presumption of wife’s equal contribution to the increase in the equity in the property. I do not agree with the majority that, nonetheless, “it is just and equitable that husband receive the $80,000 in increased equity in the dental building.” 153 Or App at 132.
The majority arrives at its holding because it concludes that wife would have “no basis to claim any portion of the $80,000” if husband had obtained the loan and paid it off *134after the marriage, and “it seems inequitable to allow the fortuity of the timing and manner of husband’s reduction of his debt to dictate the result.” 153 Or App at 131.1 do not agree with that rationale. The timing of the loan is relevant only insofar as it determined that husband brought to the marriage an asset worth $22,000 instead of an asset worth $102,420. At dissolution, that asset had gained in value to $120,000. As the majority correctly recognizes, the presumption of equal contribution was not rebutted on this record. Therefore, payment of the debt was not made by husband, as the majority states, but rather by both parties.
If the $80,000 that was used to pay off the debt had been used to acquire marital assets other than the equity in the building, I do not believe that there would be any question but that wife would share in those assets. I conclude that it is just and equitable for wife to share in the marital asset of increased value of the building under these circumstances.