Cirina and Cirina

When dividing property in a divorce proceeding, marital debts are divided evenly between the two parties.

Husband appealed a judgment dissolving his marriage to Wife. Husband made four assignments of error to the trial court’s decision. First, he argued that the trial court erred in allocating a house loan entirely to him. For the second and third assignment of error Husband argued that the trial court miscalculated his income, resulting in a too-large child and spousal support award. Finally, Husband argued that the trial court erred in assigning him attorney’s fees for Wife when she had not filed a request pursuant to ORCP 68. On appeal, the Court is bound by the factual findings of the trial court if there is any evidence to substantiate them, and reviews the court’s legal conclusions for errors of law. On the first assignment of error, the Court held the court applied the wrong analysis; marital debts are presumptively divided evenly between the parties, even without the spouse’s signature. This issue is reversed and remanded to find if the loan is a personal debt or a marital debt. The second and third assignments of error are affirmed. The Court did not find any compelling evidence for why the income would be lower in 2014. Attorney’s fees are tied to the first issue’s outcome. Property division and award of attorney fees vacated and remanded for reconsideration; otherwise affirmed.