Buchanan v. Buchanan

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 09-13-2023
  • Case #: No. A177872
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J., joined by Tookey, P.J., and Kamins, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Courts are not required to determine a predominantly prevailing party in a domestic action for purposes of awarding attorney fees. Saunders v. Saunders, 975 P2d 927 (1999). Courts are required to consider the financial resources of the parties when awarding attorney fees. Dang and Chun, 242 P3d 680 (2010). 

Appellant is the mother in three separate domestic relations cases involving her ex-husband and their two minor children. The net results of the actions were a parenting plan, financial arrangements, and a settlement of $5,115.02 for the mother. Following dismissal of the final action, both parties requested attorney fees from the other. Mother’s request was denied and father was awarded $93,655.63 in fees. Appellant assigned error. 

First, Appellant argued that the trial court failed to properly identify her as the predominantly prevailing party as required by ORS 20.077. The Court applied an earlier decision in which it determined that ORS 20.077 applies only to “any action or suit in which one or more claims are asserted for which an award of attorney fees is either authorized or required” and that “[r]equests for relief” in domestic actions “do not neatly fit into the term ‘claim’[.]” Saunders v. Saunders, 975 P2d 927 (1999). Therefore, courts are not required to determine a predominantly prevailing party in a domestic action. 

Secondly, Appellant argues that the trial court did not make sufficient general findings of fact and abused its discretion in awarding the father attorney’s fees. Appellant argues that because the court’s authority to award attorney fees is guided by equitable principles, and because she earns significantly less than the father, the court abused its discretion. The Court found that while the trial court was only required to make general, minimally adequate findings, its findings were inadequate to determine if it had considered the financial resources of the parties as required by Dang and Chun, 242 P3d 680 (2010). 

Supplemental judgment for attorney fees and costs vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top