Muthukan and Easterbrook

In distributing property acquired before the marriage on dissolution of the marriage, the court is to consider only what is “just and proper in all the circumstances.” Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or 122, 135, 92 P3d 100 (2004).

Husband appealed a judgement for dissolution of marriage. Husband assigned error to the trial court for property division that awarded Wife a commercial property. On appeal, Husband contended that it was impossible for the Court to determine from the trial court’s opinion, whether the presumption of equal contribution had been rebutted. Wife maintained that the property in question was acquired during the marriage and that Husband had not overcome the presumption of equal acquisition. In distributing property acquired before the marriage on dissolution of the marriage, the court is to consider only what is “just and proper in all the circumstances.” Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or 122, 135, 92 P3d 100 (2004). The Court stated that there is a presumption that both Husband and Wife contributed equally during their marriage. In order to rule in favor of one party, the party must overcome that presumption. The Court found that it was impossible to determine whether husband had overcome the presumption of equal contribution. This determination requires a factual inquiry into each spouse’s contributions. Reversed and remanded.