The law for divorce

These are the laws and Oregon Supreme court rulings which were broken by the judges and my x’s attorney.. All states and localities will have similar laws.. If the appeal court Brief this section is called Authorities Cited.

Authorities Cited
ORS 107.093 C, ORS 107.105 (1)(d)(C), ORS 107.105 (1) (f), ORS
803.010, ORAP 5.47 (9), ORCP 21 A (2) (b), OR 341,280 OR 769
(1977), 223 OR App 183 (2008), 337 OR 122 (2004), ORS 2.516,
ORS 19.205, ORS 19.415, ORS 19.255, ORS 2.516, ORS 19.205,
2ORS 19.415, ORS 161.155, ORS 107.105, ORS 162.065, Marriage
of Grove, 280 Or. 341, modified on denial of reh’g, 280 Or. 769
(1977), Marriage of Cullen, 223 Or. App. 183 (2008), Kunze, 337 Or.
122 (2004), ORCP 78A, ORS 107.093 A, ORS 19.270 (1)


In Oregon, an award of spousal support should be set on terms that are “…equitable between the parties that take in to account need and ability to pay and that further the goal of ending the support-dependency relationship within a reasonable time if that can be accomplished without justice or undue hardship.” see In re Marriage of Grove, 280 Or. 341, modified on denial of reh’g, 280 Or. 769 (1977). In considering what amount of spousal support is just and equitable this Court has employed a “range of reasonableness” test to measure the appropriate level of support.  A support award is not justified if it is “…outside the ‘range of reasonableness by a significant enough margin so as not to be just and equitable in the totality of pertinent circumstances.’” see In re Marriage of Cullen, 223 Or. App. 183 (2008). In the instant matter, it was proven at trial through previous expert testimony (Certified Public Accountant) and testimony from Appellant that Appellant was unable to pay the amount of support awarded.  Moreover, the Court failed to take in to account Appellant’s ability to pay as required by the Grove decision.  Appellant was unemployed and continues to be unable to obtain employment at previous levels.  This Court should apply the correct standard and adjust the award of support accordingly. This Court should also amend the division of property in this matter.  Oregon law mandates that the allocation of property between spouses at the time of the divorce be “just and proper.” ORS 107.105(1)(f).  In the case of In re Marriage of Kunze, 337 Or. 122 (2004), the Supreme Court of Oregon made clear that the trial court must address what is just and equitable in an asset-by-asset approach. The Kunze decision instructs the courts to divide all “marital assets” pursuant to a presumption of equal contribution unless an asset was acquired by gift or inheritance.  This should mean, roughly, that all martial assets should be divided equally. Id. In the instant matter, the division of property was not implemented in a “just and proper” manner and was not equitable.  Appellant respectfully requests the Court review the trial court’s decision and award in light of the Kunze decision and assure that the marital property of the parties is divided in an equitable fashion through mediation.

Appellant requests the following ruled based on actual well documented case facts in this brief.

  • Use the new ruling which is based on transcripts and exhibits in the hearings. This is Exhibit 5.

  • Rule the Artic Fox camper, lazy-boy chairs and window
    coverings in appellant’s home are owned by and not marital assets as Respondents Legal Counsel untruthfully claims. This is explained in detail on page 37.

  • Rule the supplemental judgement to split Appellants IRA was
    illegal based on ORS 19.270 the Appeals Court has jurisdiction as of 9/3/2022. This is explained in detail on Page 8. Please rule the correct amount to split the Ally Invest account ending in 71-17 is $103951.15 and Respondent must put $13205.74 back into Appellants IRA immediately.

  • Rule attorney fees for respondent are not valid because of
    untruthful statements made in trial by Respondents witnesses and Respondents Legal Counsels more than 65 untruthful statements in Trial.

  • Rule that the “bidding approach utilized by the Trial Court is
    unlawful in that it is not based on fact established in the record. 
    Since no real value was established for this property, the Court
    should remand this issue to the Trial Court to order mediation
    with Portland Mediators. Respondent must pay for this.

  • Rule Respondents Legal Counsel said a minimum of 65 well-documented, untruthful non-truthful statements in court hearings and exhibits from May 3rd 2021 to July 26 2022.

  • Rule Trial Court Judge and previous Trial Court Judge broke
    Oregon law ORS 107.105 (1)(d)(c) Maintenance Spousal
    Support. Appellant has no Job to pay support and bad health
    therefor he can’t be ordered to pay support.

  • Rule Respondent who has at least $3000 a month in
    disposable income must pay Appellant $1000 a month in
    support until she is 70 years old. Start this 9/1/2022.

  • Rule the KeyBank account records for Climate Change Truth
    which are under a protection order cannot be brought
    to the Appeal court or mention is a response brief. Well documented case facts in this brief show Respondent removed herself from the nonprofit 9/2017.

  • Rule the Oregon College Savings plans for Grandchildren are
    to be split by Appellant and after taxes and penalties will be
    split in half giving half to Respondent.

  • Rule the motion submitted to Trial Court was illegal. Transcripts
    Page 132 Line 1-4.

  • Rule the Personal Property section of August 18th 2021 limited Judgement. which Respondent and Trial Court Judge signed must be upheld. Everything Respondent took from Appellants home from May 16th 2021 until September 20th 2021 must be returned until mediation without legal counsel takes place.