Sauter and Sauter

Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the court distinguishes between property brought into the marriage and property acquired during the marriage for purposes of division of personal property.

Husband appealed a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage.  Husband assigned error to the trial courts determination of the "just and proper division of the marital property."  Husband argued that (1) that the court failed to demonstrate that it applied the correct methodology, (2) that the court failed to award him his portion of his CSRS retirement benefits as a premarital asset, and (3) that the court ignored the expected value of the survivor's benefit that was awarded to his wife when making its calculation.  Wife did not appear on appeal, and the Court addressed only the first issue.  Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the court distinguishes between property brought into the marriage and property acquired during the marriage for purposes of division of personal property.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court must follow the correct methodology in reaching property awards, and the record must reflect that the court did so use ORS 107.105 to determine when the property was acquired.  Reversed and remanded.