TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Derby

In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Marriage of DERBY, Respondent, and DERBY, Appellant

In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Derby, 572 P.2d 1080 (Or. Ct. App. 1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 27, 1977
Docket
Nos. 22978, CA 8138
Judges
Johnson
Citations
572 P.2d 108031 Or. App. 13331977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2201
Cited by 8

Opinion — Johnson

*[1335]

JOHNSON, J.

The husband has moved for reconsideration of our decision modifying the trial court’s decree of dissolution by awarding custody of the children to the wife and awarding child and spousal support.

Derby and Derby, 31 Or App 803 , 571 P2d 562 (1977). The wife petitions for attorney fees.

The husband’s contention concerning the award of spousal support warrants consideration. In his petition for reconsideration the husband states that his net income is approximately $800 per month. This is inconsistent with his answer to the mother’s motion for attorney fees which states: "Page three of the wife’s brief sets forth the parties income and their property.” The brief states that the husband’s gross income in 1975 was $15,900 and in 1976 was "$13,000 plus,” but that in 1976 he was off work for three months because of a strike. The wife’s gross income was $550 per month. As we stated in our original opinion, the purpose of the award of spousal support of $100 per month for two years was to compensate for the fact that the trial court’s division of the property gave the husband the larger share. In making this adjustment we did not adequately account for the encumbrance against the automobiles. We conclude that the division was not overly disproportionate, although the husband received approximately $1,300 more than the wife in assets. Accordingly, the provision for spousal support is deleted.

The motion for reconsideration is otherwise denied.

We award the wife attorney fees in the amount of $1,500 together with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 21981: 11982: 11983: 11989: 11995: 12012: 119802026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Garska v. McCoy278 S.E.2d 357 (W. Va. 1981)
  2. David M. v. Margaret M.385 S.E.2d 912 (W. Va. 1989)
  3. Nice v. Townley274 P.3d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)
  4. In re the Marriage of Van Dyke618 P.2d 465 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)
  5. In re Marriage of Holcomb and Holcomb888 P.2d 1046 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)
  6. In re Marriage of Maddox641 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Nice v. Townley274 P.3d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)
  2. In re Marriage of Holcomb and Holcomb888 P.2d 1046 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)
  3. David M. v. Margaret M.385 S.E.2d 912 (W. Va. 1989)
  4. In re Marriage of Tuttle660 P.2d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
  5. In re Marriage of Maddox641 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
  6. Garska v. McCoy278 S.E.2d 357 (W. Va. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Derby, 571 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1977) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list