419 P.2d 28 (Or. 1966), Johnson v. Johnson
|Citation:||419 P.2d 28, 245 Or. 10|
|Opinion Judge:||REDDING, J.|
|Party Name:||Janet Mary JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Arthur Collis JOHNSON, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Philip A. Levin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Pozzi, Levin & Wilson, Portland. Glenn R. Jack, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Jack, Goodwin & Anicker, Oregon City.|
|Case Date:||October 19, 1966|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Oregon|
Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 1966.
[245 Or. 11] Philip A. Levin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Pozzi, Levin & Wilson, Portland.
Glenn R. Jack, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Jack, Goodwin & Anicker, Oregon City.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE, and REDDING, Justices.
REDDING, Justice (Pro Tempore).
This is an appeal by the plaintiff wife from a decree of the circuit court which awarded to her a divorce and which also made distribution of the property belonging to the parties. The decree granted the plaintiff no alimony. Upon appeal, plaintiff does not attack the parts of the decree which awarded to her a divorce and the custody of the children. Rather, she is dissatisfied because of the omission of the decree to grant her alimony, and she is likewise dissatisfied with the distribution of the property of the parties.
At the time of the trial plaintiff was 35 years of age and defendant was 37. They were married on May 16, 1953, more than 12 years prior to the trial. Neither had ever been married before. Plaintiff is a college graduate, and at the time of trial was beginning her second year as a teacher at Multnomah Junior College earning $500 per month. Her take-home pay was approximately $374 per month. Out of this, in addition to other normal living expenses, she was required to pay approximately $60 per month for baby sitting and house payments of $117 per month, plus approximately $60 per month real estate taxes on the family home.
[245 Or. 12] Defendant is the son of wealthy parents, and during substantially his entire married
life prior to April 1, 1965, had worked for his father's family corporation, Interstate Tractor and Equipment Co. He married after attending college for approximately two and one-half years. In recent years he earned a bachelor of science degree in Social Science by attending night school at Portland State College. On April 1, 1965, when earning $675 monthly, defendant terminated his employment with Interstate Tractor and Equipment Co. and accepted employment as a substitute teacher in the Portland school system with monthly earnings of approximately $320. Defendant now, and since the separation of the parties late in 1964 or early in 1965, has resided with his parents.
The trial court, by its decree, awarded plaintiff a divorce, the care, custody and control of the three minor children of the parties, Steven, Eric and Katharine, 11, 10 and 7 years old, respectively; $225 monthly for child support; awarded plaintiff the family car, a 1956 Ford station wagon; the household furniture and furnishings; the family home, subject to a remaining unpaid mortgage balance in the approximate sum of $17,000 which the plaintiff, by the terms of the decree, was required to pay (the equity in the home awarded to plaintiff was valued at $10,000); and awarded plaintiff 201 shares of stock in Interstate Tractor and Equipment Co. with a book value of $16,800. These shares were in plaintiff's name prior to the institution of the divorce proceedings and had been given to her by defendant's parents. The decree required defendant to pay and hold plaintiff harmless from the following financial obligations of the parties, to-wit: A remaining balance of $1,680 on a promissory note payable to defendant's parents; a bill of approximately[245 Or. 13] $250 on account of dental services rendered the children of the parties, prior to the divorce; taxes for years prior to 1965--1966 on the family home in the approximate sum of $700; and $500 fixed by the trial court as a reasonable allowance on account of plaintiff's attorneys' fees in the within...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP