Breidenthal and Breidenthal

"The trial court's ultimate determination as to what property division is 'just and proper in all the circumstances' is a matter of discretion," and will not be disturbed unless the court concludes "that the trial court misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations that ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires."

Husband appealed judgments in a divorce proceeding, challenging the trial court's decision to award the wife property in lieu of spousal support and its issuance of an equalizing judgment. He also argued the court lacked authority to issue a supplemental judgment allocating his Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) account. "The trial court's ultimate determination as to what property division is 'just and proper in all the circumstances' is a matter of discretion," and will not be disturbed unless the court concludes "that the trial court misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations that ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires." The Court found the trial court did have the authority to issue the supplemental judgment. It reasoned that under ORS § 19.270(1)(b), courts are allowed to enforce judgment terms during an appeal. The supplemental judgment merely implemented the original division of the husband's retirement account through a qualified domestic relations order. The Court also upheld the trial court’s award of property in lieu of spousal support, finding sufficient flexibility in ORS § 107.105(1)(d) to allow such an award. However, the Court found insufficient reasoning and information from the trial court's decision of equalizing judgment and declined to speculate. The Court reversed the general judgment, remanding it for reconsideration of the equalizing award, but affirmed the rest of the decision.