Craven and Craven

Marital assets are subject to a statutory presumption of equal contribution. ORS 107.105(1)(f)(C).

Husband appealed judgment of marriage dissolution and division of marital property. He assigned error to the trial court’s equal split of the marital appreciation on an investment account and the court’s refusal to take post-trial judicial notice of public market data to calculate the amount of appreciation in the account. Husband contended Wife did not equally contribute to the growth of the investment fund as a homemaker and public market data was necessary for the court to decide if Wife’s share of tax payments to the investment fund’s growth were equivalent to her husband’s contributions.   Marital assets are subject to a statutory presumption of equal contribution.  ORS 107.105(1)(f)(C).   The Court found that the trial court committed legal error when it rejected the public market data as lacking relevancy and further denied the request for judicial notice to determine if Husband rebutted the presumption of Wife’s equal contribution to the appreciation of the investment fund.  Although Wife contributed to the investment fund through tax payments, the court still needed to determine the “magnitude” of this contribution.  Massee and Massee, 328 Or 195, 207 (1999).  Thus, the public market data would aid the court’s analysis of the capital gains taxes on the fund’s growth to assess the extent of Wife’s indirect contribution.  Vacated and remanded for redetermination of property division; otherwise affirmed.