Majhor and Majhor

“When both parties’ testimony suggests that a party considered an asset to be separate property, and the trial court specifically addressed whether that party had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution, that argument has been sufficiently preserved”. Davis and Davis, 268 Or App 679, 685 n 4 (2025). “On its own, the length of a marriage ‘is not an equitable consideration’ on which to award separate property to the other spouse in the ‘just and proper’ property division”. Brush and Brush, 319 Or App 1, 11 (2022).

Husband appealed the division of marital appreciation on his premarital contributions to his PERS retirement account in a judgement of dissolution. Husband assigned two errors to the trial court, arguing (1) that he preserved the rebuttal on three occasions and (2) that the trial court relied solely on the length of the parties marriage when concluding the equal division. “When both parties’ testimony suggests that a party considered an asset to be separate property, and the trial court specifically addressed whether that party had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution, that argument has been sufficiently preserved”. Davis and Davis, 268 Or App 679, 685 n 4 (2025). “On its own, the length of a marriage ‘is not an equitable consideration’ on which to award separate property to the other spouse in the ‘just and proper’ property division”. Brush and Brush, 319 Or App 1, 11 (2022). The Court reasoned that because Husband never specifically argued the presumption of equal contribution had been rebutted, the trial court and Wife could not have known that he would rebut at the judgement hearing. The Court further reasoned that the trial court considered factors that were informed by the length of time, not just the length of time. Therefore, the judgement of the trial court is Affirmed.