Matter of Marriage of Massee
970 P.2d 1203, 328 Or. 195, 1999 Ore. LEXIS 64 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appreciation in value of separate property brought into a marriage is a marital asset subject to a rebuttable presumption of equal contribution. A court cannot find this presumption has been rebutted without properly considering the non-economic contributions of a spouse as a homemaker.
Facts:
- Prior to the marriage in February 1991, Husband owned substantial farming, business, and real estate holdings, while Wife brought a car, personal items, and minimal debt into the marriage.
- Early in the two-year marriage, Husband requested that Wife stay home to manage the household rather than pursue vocational training, assuring her that he would take care of her.
- Wife acquiesced and acted as a homemaker, performing tasks like shopping, cooking, laundry, managing the household, and spending approximately 1,000 hours improving the exterior of the family residence.
- Wife also worked for short, limited periods in Husband's businesses, sometimes paid and sometimes unpaid.
- Throughout the marriage, Husband kept all his business and real estate assets titled solely in his name and maintained separate bank accounts, except for a joint account for household expenses into which he deposited a fixed monthly amount.
- The parties separated in early 1993, and Husband filed for dissolution of the marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in the Oregon circuit court (trial court).
- The trial court, applying a 'rescission' theory, awarded Husband all assets he brought into the marriage, including all appreciation, and did not rule on whether the appreciation was a marital asset.
- Wife (as appellant) appealed the property division to the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the appreciation was a marital asset to which she contributed.
- The Court of Appeals held that the appreciation was a marital asset but affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Husband (as appellee) had successfully rebutted the presumption of equal contribution.
- Wife (as petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of Oregon, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the appreciation of separate assets owned by one spouse prior to the marriage considered a marital asset, and must a court give full consideration to a spouse's contributions as a homemaker before finding the statutory presumption of equal contribution to that asset's acquisition has been rebutted?
Opinions:
Majority - Kulongoski, J.
Yes, the appreciation of separate assets is a marital asset, and a court must consider a homemaker's contributions before finding the presumption of equal contribution is rebutted. Under Oregon statute ORS 107.105(l)(f), 'marital assets' include all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage. The appreciation in value of property is itself 'property,' and because it was acquired 'during the marriage,' it constitutes a marital asset. As a marital asset, it is subject to the rebuttable presumption that both spouses contributed equally to its acquisition. The statute explicitly mandates that 'the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker' be considered 'a contribution to the acquisition of marital assets.' A homemaker's performance of domestic tasks frees the other spouse to devote energy to other tasks that generate marital assets. The Court of Appeals erred by failing to give any weight to Wife's contributions as a homemaker when it concluded Husband had rebutted the presumption; its analysis improperly focused only on her minimal direct contributions to the businesses while ignoring her legally significant indirect contributions through homemaking.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces two key principles in Oregon marital property law. First, it definitively establishes that the appreciation of separate, pre-marital property during a marriage is a marital asset subject to division. Second, and more significantly, it strengthens the statutory protection for homemaker spouses by mandating that their contributions be treated as real, economic contributions that cannot be ignored or undervalued. The ruling curtails the ability of a monied spouse to argue that a homemaker spouse did not contribute to the growth of separate assets, ensuring that homemaking is recognized as an integral part of the marital economic partnership. This prevents courts from defaulting to a simple 'rescission' in short-term marriages and forces a full statutory analysis of each spouse's contributions.
