Ebright and Ebright

Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), which provides, in part, that “the court may provide in the judgment . . . [f]or the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances.”

Husband appealed from a general judgment of dissolution due to the trial court’s division of property (referred to as the Clark property). Husband argued that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court when they assigned him value from the Clark property as “neither he nor wife had any enforceable legal interest in the property.” Additionally, he contended that the transfer of property was not fraudulent as it occurred prior to the marriage. Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), which provides, in part, that “the court may provide in the judgment . . . [f]or the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances.” The Court found that the transfer was no less of a “sham” because it happened before marriage. The transfer to the sister was for a nominal amount, and the property later returned. Most importantly, the Court ruled, was that the husband treated the property like a marital asset for the entire 31 years of marriage. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.