Benson v. Benson

Under Timm and Timm, 200 Or App 621, 629 (2005), before determining whether a spouse has rebutted the presumption of equal distribution, a court must: (1) identify the portion of the value of the property that is fairly traceable to the spouse’s premarital assets; and (2) identify the portion that is fairly attributable to improvements or appreciation made after the acquisition of the property.

Husband appealed the trial court’s supplemental judgment vacating its prior $55,000 equalizing judgment and entering a $110,000 equalizing judgment in favor of Wife. Husband assigned error to the trial court’s distribution of the value of the house in which the parties lived during their four-year marriage. On appeal, Husband argued that the trial court did not conduct the correct legal inquiry before allocating the separate portions of the house’s value. Wife did not appear on appeal. Under Timm and Timm, 200 Or App 621, 629 (2005), before determining whether a spouse has rebutted the presumption of equal distribution, a court must: (1) identify the portion of the value of the property that is fairly traceable to the spouse’s premarital assets; and (2) identify the portion that is fairly attributable to improvements or appreciation made after the acquisition of the property. The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband that the trial court had failed to apply the correct legal framework on remand as the Court instructed. Therefore, the Court exercised its discretion to decide the matter de novo under ORAP 5.40(8)(c). The Court held under Timm, the proper allocation of the home’s value was $179,500 to Husband and $40,500 to Wife. Reversed and remanded.