Divorce and Family Law information from Stephens Margolin P.C.

Most family law cases settle without a trial. Courts encourage settlement of family law issues, and the legislature expressly provides that it is Oregon’s policy to “encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation . . .” ORS 107.104. If parties have settled but cannot finalize a judgment prior to trial, the parties usually recite the terms of the agreement on the record in open court. After the settlement on the record, one of the lawyers prepares a final judgment, the parties agree on the form of judgment, and the judge then signs the final judgment.

On May 21, 2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals published an opinion in Lynch-Kirby and Kirbey that changed a term in a general judgment because it differed from the settlement read into the record. The primary issue in the case was what date to use for valuing the parties real estate. Husband wanted to use January 2005 as the valuation date. Wife wanted to use September 2005, and the final judgment said September 2005.

The parties read a settlement into the record, and offered as exhibits the letters between the parties leading up to settlement. Husband’s attorney stated the letters summarized the agreement, and he read over the “main points” which were slightly different than in the letters. The parties were asked if they understood and agreed to the settlement, to which they said yes.

After settlement on the record, the parties requested a hearing regarding the terms of the settlement on the record. Husband’s position was that the settlement was unambiguous and that the division date, per the series of letters, was January 2005. The trial court disagreed, and eventually signed a judgment ordering the valuation date to be September 30, 2005.

The Court of Appeals looked at the series of letters as a “marital settlement agreement,” and chose to interpret the agreement as a contract. Under a contract analysis, the court would first look to see if the parties’ intent can be determined by examining the test of the documents, then look outside the agreement to the parties intent if the text and context are ambiguous, and as a last resort, looking to the maxims of construction (a series of rules describing how to interpret vague contracts). In reviewing the series of letters, the court found the parties intent from the text of the letters was to use January 2005 as the real estate valuation date. Wife argued that Husband’s verbal settlement had altered the terms of the letter, and in rejecting wife’s argument, the court said the verbal settlement must be read in context with agreements already made.

What does this mean to clients and lawyers? Clearly document the terms of your settlement and negotiations with paper. Create a paper trail of your intent. Understand that you are building a contract regarding the terms of your deal, which will be interpreted under contract law.

As family law lawyers based in Portland, Oregon, potential clients ask us about if they can move out of the family home with the children, or if they can prevent a move. We hear questions like the following:

1. Can I move with the children out of the marital home?
2. Can the other parent move out with the children without my consent?
3. If we haven’t followed the parenting plan in our judgment, can I prevent the other parent from changing the agreed upon plan?
4. Can I prevent a move that disrupts the children’s routine?
5. Can I move and change the children’s routine?

This post was almost a “divorce myth” post for the sole reason there so much misinformation about moving away from the other parent with children. The answer is that you can move without the other parent’s permission, but Oregon provides two potential remedies to block a move out of the family home, or force a return of the children to the family home.

Prior to a final judgment, as part of a divorce, annulment, legal separation, or third party custody case, Oregon law allows a parent to obtain a temporary order called a “Temporary Protective Order of Restraint” The order is temporary because it is only in effect during a case. The statue, ORS 107.097, allows you to obtain a court order that prevents the other party from:

1. Changing the child’s usual place of residence;
2. Interfering with the present placement and daily schedule of the child;
3. Hiding or secreting the child from the other party;
4. Interfering with the other party’s usual contact and parenting time with the child;
5. Leaving the state with the child without the written permission of the other party or the permission of the court; or
6. In any manner disturbing the current schedule and daily routine of the child until custody or parenting time has been determined.

With a few exceptions, if the other parent moves out of the house without your permission, you can use ORS 107.097 to force the children’s return to the home, and force a return to your pre-move level of contact with the kids.

During a modification of custody or parenting time (after entry of a final judgment), the court allows for entry of a “Status Quo Order” that is very similar to the “Temporary Protective Order of Restraint.” ORS 107.138 allows you to obtain a “Status Quo Order” in a custody modification action that prevents the other parent from:

1. Changing the child’s usual place of residence;
2. Interfering with the present placement and daily schedule of the child;
3. Hiding or secreting the child from the other party;
4. Interfering with the other party’s usual contact and parenting time with the child;
5. Leaving the state with the child without the written permission of the other party or the permission of the court; or
6. In any manner disturbing the current schedule and daily routine of the child until custody or parenting time has been determined.

To obtain a status quo order, you must:

1. Notify the other party;
2. Give the other party an opportunity to contest issuance of the order;
3. File an affidavit that sets forth with specificity the information required by ORS 109.767 and the person with whom the child has lived during the preceding year and the child’s current schedule, daily routine and usual place of residence.
4. Give the other party 21 days notice before the date set for the hearing.

For both a “”Temporary Protective Order of Restraint” and a “Status Quo Order,” a “Child’s usual place of residence” means the place where the child is living at the time the motion for the temporary order is filed and has lived continuously for a period of three consecutive months, excluding any periods of time during which the noncustodial parent did exercise, or would otherwise have exercised, parenting time. A“Parent’s usual contact and parenting time,” “present placement and daily schedule of the child” and “current schedule and daily routine of the child” mean the contact, parenting time, placement, schedule and routine at the time the motion for the temporary order is filed.

If you are thinking of moving out of the family home with the children without consent, or the other parent moves out of the family home without your consent, you should consult with a family law lawyer to discuss the legal effect of the move in light of ORS 107.097 and ORS 107.138. The lawyers at Stephens & Margolin can help you with how these laws apply to your particular situation.

Clients have a few options regarding a procedure model for their divorce case.  They can go the standard litigation route through the courts, engage in mediation, or use the collaborative divorce model. 

There are costs and benefits to proceeding under any model.  In a perfect world, the collaborative model would be the most cost-effective and most effective at resolving disputes in a manner that benefits all parties.  If your case involves physical or extreme emotional abuse, drug or alcohol abuse by one parent so severe that parent cannot understand the harm it has caused to kids or that parent is not able or willing to put up with supervision and requirements, if one party is unable to financially move forward and the other party will not cooperate, or if it is impossible for the parties to trust each other, then a traditional litigation model will be necessary to resolve your dispute.  

A good attorney who is trained and experienced in both models can assist you, not only in choosing the best model for you, but also, in making sure that you do not make the wrong choice.  The collaborative model can also be used to assist parties in domestic partnership dissolutions and custody disputes as well as in a divorce.

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin P.C. are happy to discuss the various legal models with you.  Contact us for a consultation if you would like to discuss these models with regard to your specific situation.  

A “move away” case is where one parent, either in an initial filing or modification, seeks to move a child away from the other parent. Move away cases are hard. In Oregon, the legislature’s stated policy is that good parents should have frequent and continuing contact with their children. ORS 107.101. Parenting plans that allow frequent contact between the children and both parents work well if people live close, but is very difficult if parents do not live close.

On April 30, 2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals published an opinion in Pfaff and Pfaff that provided a frustrating twist to father’s objection to mother’s move. Mom was awarded custody of the child in the 2002 divorce. In December of 2005, she asked the court to modify parenting time so she could move to California with the child. She alleged the move was in the child’s best interests, because she had family in the area and a good job prospect. After hearing, mother was granted permission to move to the Bay Area, and take the child with her.

Additional motions were filed. The court clarified parenting time by a supplemental judgment in January of 2007. In August 2007, a hearing was held where mother testified she had instead moved to Las Vegas, was pregnant, and had built a house with her fiancee. In a November 2007 hearing, father was awarded temporary custody pending a December 2007 hearing.

The Court of Appeals dismissed father’s appeal as moot, because the trial court ruling did not decide whether moving the child out of state was in the child’s best interest, but rather, the specific question whether relocating to the Bay Area was in the child’s best interests. The Court reasoned that since mother was not going to return to California, any decision regarding the child’s interests in living in California wouldn’t affect the parties’ rights.

What does this mean? If you are resisting a move, ask the court to make specific findings that any relocation out of the area is not in the child’s best interests.

You can review the full opinion in Pfaff and Pfaff at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A123987.htm.

As a Portland, Oregon based family law firm we field a lot of questions from potential clients about how to “succeed” in a divorce case. One message that surprises many people is that there are seldom any clear winners in a divorce. That said, there are many things you can do to help ensure that you are protected during the divorce process, and to maximize your chances of a good result. We offer the following 10 tips on how to do well in your divorce.

1. Hire an experienced divorce attorney. There is no substitute for help from a lawyer that is familiar with divorce and family law, the judges, and the procedure. Family law is a specialty, and you would likely be better served by a lawyer that only practices family law. Make sure the focus of your lawyer’s practice is family law.
2. Consider different approaches to your case. There are many was to finalize your divorce case. The courtroom is a way, but frequently not the best way to resolve your case. You should consider what approaches may work for your case other than traditional litigation. Consider a collaborative law case with a lawyer trained in collaborative law. Note that both lawyers must have special training to conduct a collaborative law case. Consider individual or attorney guided mediation prior to or in lieu of court.
3. Document, Document, Document! Your lawyer and the other side will want paper documentation of debts, assets, financial holdings, valuables, pensions, real estate, stock options, and basically any asset either party owns. Make copies of your titles, policies, deeds, and important records. You and your lawyer will need them.
4. Promptly exchange discovery. Once a divorce case is filed, both sides have “discovery power.” You have the right to see the other side’s financial documentation, and the other side as the right to see yours. Many cases bog down and legal fees go up when one side does not timely or completely produce documentation. You can avoid a motion to compel production and lower your costs by getting your documentation to your lawyer sooner rather than later.
5. Work with your lawyer on a proposed division of property. After you have all of the information on assets and finances, work with your lawyer to analyze the property distribution and determine an appropriate amount of spousal support. In Oregon, divorcing parties are required to exchange a proposed distribution of assets. In our experience, lawyers exchange the proposed distribution to late in the case for maximum benefit. Good divorce lawyers model property distributions starting day one. Help your lawyer prepare and perfect the spreadsheet.
   
6. Take reasonable positions and set realistic goals. It is hard to succeed in a divorce if your goal is something the court will not give you. After analysis, both lawyers can usually determine a range within which the court will likely rule. You may be well served to pick a position within that range, rather than outside it. If your lawyer is encouraging to you to take a too sharp position, be ware. Frequently the only beneficiary is the lawyer. In determining if you should pay the other side’s attorney fees after trial, the court can scrutinize whether your positions were reasonable. If not, you may end up paying your lawyer and your spouses.
7. Treat your case decisions as business decisions. It is really hard to treat your case objectively when you are in the middle of it. This is the reason why divorce lawyers hire divorce lawyers to represent them. Listen to your lawyer’s objective opinion, and try to base your decisions on the property distribution spreadsheet, and not your emotions. If you can buy the lamp at Ikea for $14, don’t make the emotional decision to spend $1000 in legal fees fighting over it.
   
8. Obtain and or Maintain independent credit. Your ability to borrow will help in your post divorce life. Many times people’s credit suffers because there is no plan in place to address joint debt, and payments get missed. Other times, a couple will have only used one party’s credit during the marriage. Prior to or during the divorce, if you don’t already have it, obtain and maintain credit separate from your spouse
9. Promptly take the parenting class, and take the message to heart. We previously blogged about Oregon’s parenting class requirement. Register for the class at your first opportunity, and listen. You and your your children will do better in your case by keeping the kids out of the middle. Guess what the court thinks of parents that want custody but have not taken the class?
10. Stay strong. In the midst of a hotly contested divorce case, it may be hard to picture your life after the stress and conflict is over. Stay strong. Don’t give in to unhealthy stress relief, like alcohol. Go to the gym and work out. Rally your friends for moral support. Take some special time with your kids. If you need the professional help of a therapist, don’t hesitate to get it. Take care of yourself during the process, and the process will take less of a toll on you.
    

University of Arizona men’s basketball coach Lute Olson is currently going through a divorce with his wife. 

He has been ordered to appear in court to explain why he took the majority of funds out of the parties’ joint bank account and placed the funds in a personal account.  Most of the money was earned by him from a sneaker deal with Nike.  The money was taken out of the account the day after he filed for divorce.  You can read an article regarding the story at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/ncaa/04/22/bc.bkc.olson.divorce.ap/.

In Oregon, upon the filing of a divorce, ORS 107.093 Restraining order; request for hearing states that a party cannot transfer, encumber, conceal or dispose of property in which the other party has an interest, in any manner, without written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for necessities of life. The statute provides exceptions in the following circumstances: payment of Attorney fees in the existing action; Real estate and income taxes; Mental health therapy expenses for either party or a minor child of the parties; or Expenses necessary to provide for the safety and welfare of a party or a minor child of the parties.  Violation of the statute can lead to remedial contempt sanctions against the violating party. 

If you have any questions regarding your assets either in the course of a divorce or prior to divorce, please feel free to set up an consultation with our office.  Even if you are not planning on getting divorced in the near future, it is important to consult with a divorce lawyer to understand your rights.

As a Portland Oregon divorce law firm, Stephens Margolin P.C. is dedicated to keeping up to date on Oregon Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court opinions. As a service of The Oregon Divorce Blog, we will be providing updates as new opinions come out.

On April 23, 2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals published an opinion in Nelson and Nelson, in which the court further explained its treatement of the presumption of equal contribution

In Nelson and Nelson, the question before the court was whether or not a piece of real property should have been included in the division of the parties’ assets.  During the parties’ marriage, the parties’ acquired a piece of real property which had $95,070 in equity at the time of the parties’ divorce.  The trial court ruled that Husband had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution with regards to the property and awarded all of the equity and the property to Husband. 

The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s ruling.  Even though Husband had made the financial contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of the real property, he did not prove that wife had not contriubted equally to it.  Citing Owens-Koenig and Koenig for the proposition that “when one spouse ‘holds assets separately, and the other makes a disproportionately greater nonfinancial contribution to the marital estate through homemaking, child care, or some other form of undercompensated service * * * the presumption of equal contribution is not overcome with respect to the spouse whose contribution is at least partly indirect and nonfinancial’,” the court held that Wife was entitled to one-half of the equity in the real property.

You can review the full opinion in Nelson and Nelson at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A131724.htm.

If you have any questions about appeallate law, attorney fees or any family law or divorce legal issue, please contact Daniel Margolin or C. Sean Stephens at Stephens Margolin P.C.

As Portland Oregon based lawyers representing divorce and family law clients, we are always interested in what guidance the Oregon Court of Appeals gives us on dividing specific types of property at divorce. With many types of assets, it is relatively easy to predict what a court will do (the marital home, retirement accounts where there are kids, etc.) In our experience, divorcing couples have more difficulty reaching an agreement on the division of inherited property and trust property.

On April 23, 2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals published an opinion in Brown and Albin that sheds some light on the division of trust assets between divorcing spouses.

In Brown and Albin, husband had two family trusts created by husband’s father and grandmother. The trusts were created before the couple’s 24 year marriage, and husband didn’t receive anything from the trusts until late in the marriage. The parties used part of one trust to finance the purchase of the marital home. The parties contemplated early retirement off of the trust income, and the eventual payout from the trusts. The trial court, in ruling that husband’s trusts had been “completely integrated into the financial planning of the parties” awarded wife an interim spousal support payment, and 1/2 of the income from the trusts, payable as spousal support, and 1/2 of the eventual payout from one of the trusts. Husband appealed, arguing that the court erred in awarding spousal support, and that the court erred in awarding wife any interest in the trusts.

The court, citing ORS 107.105(1)(f) stated its overreaching consideration is that the division of property be “just and property in all the circumstances.” There is a rebuttable presumption that property acquired during the marriage (a “marital asset”) be divided equally. The court agreed with husband that he had rebutted the presumption that wife had equally contributed equally to the acquisition of the trusts, but went on to hold that it was just and proper to divide the trusts equally between the parties. The reasons given were that husband’s trust interests had been “completely integrated into the financial planning of the parties”, and the marriage was of long duration.

The Court of Appeals still awarded Wife one-half of the trust interest and proceeds, but removed termed it a property division rather than a spousal support award. The court’s reasoning was that under ORS 107.105, the statute that provides the authority for a court to grant a spousal support award, a court is not authorized to award property as spousal support. Trust interest is a property interest.

You can review the full opinion in Brown and Albin at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A129850.htm.

If you have any questions about appeallate law, attorney fees or any family law or divorce legal issue, please contact Daniel Margolin or C. Sean Stephens at Stephens Margolin P.C.

One “Divorce Myth” we come across is that some clients expect you to be a jerk to the other lawyer. The myth is that such behavior is beneficial to the client and part of being an advocate. The reality is that being a jerk to the other lawyer is unprofessional, won’t improve your results, makes judges and your colleagues think less of you, and makes cases more expensive for both clients.

Good family law lawyers get along with other lawyers. They problem solve. They listen. They promote the integrity of the profession and legal system. They show appropriate respect for other professionals working on a case. They don’t hang up on phone calls, or personally insult the other lawyer. In our opinion, personal attacks on the other lawyer have no place in a professional practice. You can be a zealous, aggressive advocate for your client’s legal position without stooping to name calling. The American Bar Association complies a list of different State Bar’s Professionalism Codes. On November 16, 2006, the Oregon State Bar House of Delegates adopted and Supreme Court of Oregon approved an updated Statement of Professionalism. One of the professionalism points is “I will be courteous and respectful to my clients, to adverse litigants and adverse counsel, and to the court.”

As a client, beware of the unprofessional lawyer. Advocacy and being an asshole are very different things. Such behavior is not only unprofessional, but may harm your case and increase your legal fees. If your lawyer is intentionally being a jerk to the other lawyer, the likely victim is you.

If you move after a divorce or custody case, how can you preserve your relationship with your children? We live in a mobile society. After a divorce case, sometimes parents move across town, to another town, or out of state. Sometimes the demands of a job keep a parent from having regular contact with their kids. Whatever the reason for the move or distance, parenting plans are harder to implement if the parents don’t live close to each other. Depending on the distance of the move, a parent may end up with longer, less frequent blocks of time with the children. The problem with long distance parenting is that longer blocks of time are no substitute for frequent interaction, especially for younger children. Virtually all parenting plans call for regular telephone contact, but many parents find it hard to engage young children for any length of time on the phone.

Many of our clients report that they have emotionally richer and longer communications with children when they video conference rather than just call. We recommend the use of a web cam and free video conferencing to clients with long distance parenting issues. A well drafted parenting plan should address the use of free video conferencing, include the right to use and the obligation to facilitate electronic communication (e.g. maintain Internet, a working camera, etc.) The feedback we get from our clients using web cams for videoconferencing has been overwhelmingly positive. If you travel for work, or do not live close to your children, talk to your lawyer about putting video conferencing language in your parenting plan.

As an Oregon divorce lawyer a large part of my job is figuring out how best to deal with divorcing parties’ family home and other real property. In most cases, the family home is a husband and wife’s largest asset. What to do with that home can be the most important part of dividing their assets.

It is not unusual for a husband and wife to sell the family home and divide the proceeds equally between them. Most people think that this will make their divorce case easier. Sometimes this is true, but more often than not, the premature sale of the home will lead to a more difficult asset distribution.

Prior to filing for divorce a home may be titled in just one parties’ name. This gives them control over the asset. After a divorce case has been filed, the asset cannot be sold absent agreement of the non-titled party.

Since the home is usually the largest asset, not having it to divide can make coming up with a creative asset division much more difficult. One party may have preferred to keep the house and buy the other party out rather than selling it. The same applies to rental properties or other homes. If the home is sold, there may be no way to immediately “equalize” the property distribution.

It is common for a divorce judgment to require that the parties list the home for sale and then dictates how the net proceeds will be divided. In these situations it is crucial for the parties to use a quality real estate agent. This is especially true in the current market.

My advice to people who are considering divorce is to consult with a family law lawyer to discuss the best way to address issues regarding the family home. Self education is power, and getting advice from other real estate professionals prior to making the decision to sell their home prior to starting the divorce process is a good idea.

One good source of Portland real estate information is fellow blogger Charles Turner (of Turner Realtors) blog, located at www.portlandrealestateblog.com.

As a divorce and family law lawyer, I am in the position to see the impact of court and the divorce process on children. It is bad enough that some parents put children in the middle of the psychological conflict. It is even worse when the children, for lack of child care, have to be in the hall outside court, or worse, in a courtroom with a parent involved in a custody or parenting time case. CourtCare is a free service providing drop in child care to family law litigants at the Multnomah County Courthouse. CourtCare opened in 2001, and has benefited over 6000 children since that time. Children are spared witnessing their parents in court, and the children receive individual attention from state-certified childcare providers.

While CourtCare receives some public funding, it is primarily funded through donations from the legal community, which contributes through the Multnomah Bar Foundation. They are having a fundraising campaign themed “A Jungle Gym in the Jungle” from April 21 to May 9, 2008. More information about this excellent program and worthy cause can be found at www.mbabar.org/MBA_courcare.htm.

In divorce and filiation cases involving custody of children, frequently the children suffer most. As divorce and family law lawyers, we have seen the good, bad, and the ugly of well meaning parents putting the kids in the middle of the case. If your case involves a custody or parenting time dispute, nothing will draw the wrath of the court faster than involving your kids in the dispute. The following is a top ten list of things NOT to do during your custody or divorce case. DO NOT:

1. Talk to them about the case. The last thing they need to hear is that mom and dad are involved in a legal dispute. The first thing they need to hear is that mom and dad both love them very much.
2. Use them as pawns in the battle against your spouse. The kids are not weapons. Don’t make a frivolous custody or parenting time claim to gain leverage in financial negotiations. Whatever you think you may gain, your children will lose.
3. Use them as your therapist, or treat them as your peers. If you need a therapist or need counseling, seek a professional rather than involving your children in your turmoil.
4. Put your spouse down in front of the kids. Divorce and custody disputes can be bitter. Emotions can run high. No matter your frustrations with the other parent, don’t put them down in front of the kids. You are not only harming your case, you are harming your children.
5. Turn your children in to messengers. The parents are the adults. Send the kids the correct message and talk and problem solve with the other parent directly.
6. Grill your children about what is happening at the other parent’s home. You may not live under the same roof, and may be curious about what he or she is up to. Questions about whether mom or dad is dating, what hours they keep, and what happened, blow by blow, on the visit send the wrong message to the kids, custody evaluator, and court. You will satisfy your curiosity at the expense of your children and your case.
7. Ask the kids to take sides. Asking a child to tell the court, custody evaluator, or children’s attorney that they want to live with you enmeshes the kids in an adult process. Don’t do it. Some judges and evaluators think it is child abuse.
8. Make the children feel disloyal for enjoying time with the other parent. Oregon’s statutory policy is that kids are better off having wholesome and frequent contact with both parents, if the parents are fit.
9. Sabotage the other parent. Don’t purposely forget important clothing or gear when we are going to our other parent’s place. Don’t forget the coat on the ski trip. Do you think you will look better in court because your son or daughter was cold on the ski trip because they didn’t have their coat? (which was in your possession.)
10. Ask the kids to keep secrets from the other parent. You may think you are bettering your position, but the children’s attorney, custody evaluator, and judge will think differently. Don’t put the kids in the middle, and don’t pit them against the other party by asking them to keep secrets.

As a Portland Oregon divorce law firm, Stephens Margolin P.C. is dedicated to keeping up to date on Oregon Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court opinions. As a service of The Oregon Divorce Blog, we will be providing updates as new opinions come out.

On April 2, 2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals, in Jacobs and Jacobs, explained the effect of a bankruptcy proceeding on an award of attorney fees on appeal.  In the case, husband filed for bankruptcy after his divorce from wife.  In the divorce, the trial court awarded wife a judgment against husband for her attorney fees.  The attorney fee award was discharged by the bankruptcy court.  Husband appealed the divorce judgment.  Wife prevailed on appeal and was awarded her attorney fees incurred in responding to husband’s appeal by the Court of Appeals.  

On appeal of the attorney fee award, husband argued that wife’s appellate attorney fees were also discharged by the bankruptcy court since at least a portion of the fees were incurred while husband’s bankruptcy was pending.  In ruling for wife, the Court stated “[h]usband has neither provided sufficient information in the record to establish that his bankruptcy discharge includes the attorney fees at issue, nor has he authenticated the scant materials he has submitted to this court.  The record before the court is insufficient to determine the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding”

The lesson to be gained from the opinion is that it is very important to provide the court with complete documentation of any issue that a party wants the court to review.  Without a complete record, the court is unable to rule in a party’s favor even if that party is correct.  You can review the full opinion at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A128771.htm.  If you have any questions about appeallate law, attorney fees or any family law or divorce legal issue, please contact Daniel Margolin or C. Sean Stephens at Stephens Margolin P.C.