Marriage of Jones, In re

JurisdictionOregon
PartiesIn the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Linda Jean JONES, Respondent, and Thomas Douglas Jones, Appellant, and Thomas Douglas Jones, Trustee of the Anna Mae and David H. Jones Testamentary Trust B and the Thomas and Linda Jones Revocable Family Trust, Third-Party Respondent-Appellant, and Esther Mae Jones, a child attending school, ORS 107.108(4), Respondent. A92957.
Citation159 Or.App. 377,981 P.2d 338
Docket NumberNo. CA,CA
CourtOregon Court of Appeals
Decision Date31 March 1999

Russell Lipetzky for petition.

No appearance contra.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and DEITS, Chief Judge, and LINDER, Judge.

DEITS, C.J.

Wife petitions for reconsideration of our decision in this dissolution of marriage action. Jones and Jones, 158 Or.App. 41, 973 P.2d 361 (1999). 1

We allow reconsideration and adhere to our opinion.

We will not repeat at length the facts or the analysis that are set out in our original opinion. For purposes of the present exercise, it is sufficient to note that, in that opinion, we agreed in some measure with husband's argument that the trial court did not have the authority, in structuring the property division, to order direct disposition of the assets of a trust of which husband was the trustee. 2 Consequently, we modified the judgment by replacing the trial court's disposition of that kind with a money judgment that was owable from husband individually to wife. Further, we required that a portion of that judgment, approximately equal in amount to the value of the trust properties that the trial court had disposed of directly, was to be paid to wife within 30 days.

The appeal was submitted to us on the record and briefs on August 29, 1997. In petitioning for reconsideration, wife surmises that, in our decision on the appeal, "this court was obviously operating under the mistaken belief that [husband] remains the trustee." Wife informs us that, contrary to that belief, husband was removed and a successor trustee was appointed on October 21, 1996, in a trust accounting proceeding that is unconnected to this action. The order was entered in that proceeding after the trial court entered its judgment in this case, but before the last brief in this appeal--husband's reply brief--was filed.

Wife states in her petition that, given our misunderstanding:

"There is no realistic way that Linda Jones will ever collect judgment against Mr. Jones under the court's current ruling. Linda Jones therefore respectfully requests the court's reconsideration of its ruling and suggests one of two alternative outcomes:

"1. As part of the bond and stay procedures related to the filing of the appeal, Thomas Jones executed deeds transferring some of the trust's real property to himself as an individual, and also executed deeds transferring those properties from himself as an individual to Linda Jones. * * * Those deeds have been tendered to the trial court, where they are currently being held. The trial court has already determined, and this court recited in its opinion, that the value of that real property is $450,000, and it is apparent that this court intended that property to be liquidated so the judgment amount of $450,000 could immediately be paid to Linda Jones. It would make sense, and would be consistent with the court's intent and prior decision, to simply release the deeds to Linda Jones in lieu of the $450,000 money judgment. She may then proceed to liquidate the properties, or not, as she sees fit.

"2. In the alternative, the court should direct the successor trustee, Larry Glaze, CPA, to liquidate the real property or otherwise acquire the funds to pay to Linda Jones the judgment which this court envisioned that Thomas Jones, as trustee, would immediately be able to pay. In other words, whatever action this court intended Thomas Jones to undertake could and should be undertaken by the successor trustee. If procedurally necessary, there does not appear to be any reason that the successor trustee may not at this time be joined as a party to the proceeding, given that Thomas Jones as trustee was already a party to the proceedings." (Emphasis wife's.)

Wife is correct that, during its consideration of this appeal, it was the understanding of the panel of this court that considered the case that husband had been and remained the trustee of the trust at all relevant times. The briefs of both parties and the trial court record that was under review were uniformly to that effect. Indeed, wife's brief, which was filed two months after husband's removal from the position, depends in part on his continuing status as trustee for her arguments that husband was properly joined in both that capacity and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Johnson
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • August 3, 2016
    ... 280 Or.App. 71 380 P.3d 983 In the Matter of the Marriage of Barbara Johnson, Guardian ad litem and Conservator for Joanne M. Price, PetitionerRespondent, and Gari W. Price, RespondentAppellant, and Price ... 82] authority over the disposition of trust assets. Jones and Jones , 158 Or.App. 41, 49, 973 P.2d 361, adh'd to on recons , 159 Or.App. 377, 981 P.2d 338, rev. den. , 328 Or. 666, 987 P.2d 515 (1999) ; ... ...
  • MARRIAGE OF AUSTIN
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • December 24, 2003
    ... ... Such a modification would require a cross-appealor, more likely, a contingent cross-appeal to be decided only in the event of the appellant prevailing on appeal. See Jones and Jones, 158 Or.App. 41, 51 n. 4, 973 P.2d 361, adh'd to on recons., 159 Or.App. 377, 981 P.2d 338, rev. den., 328 Or. 666, 987 P.2d 515 (1999) (respondent's argument that spousal support should be awarded if the court agreed with appellant that property distribution should be altered was ... ...
  • Guagenti v. Guagenti
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2017
    ... ... Relevant Facts { 2} Bridget and Mark were married in 1992. Three children were born as issue of their marriage in 2000, 2002, and 2004. { 3} In 1996, Mark took a position as an office manager in the family business, C&G Distributing, Co., Inc., ("C&G ... See e.g., McGinn v. McGinn , 273 Ga. 292, 540 S.E.2d 604 (2001) ; Findlen v. Findlen , 695 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1997) ; In re Marriage of Jones , 159 Or.App. 377, 981 P.2d 338 (1999) ; Endrody v. Endrody , 914 P.2d 1166 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). { 71} However, to be clear, in this instance ... ...
  • Winkler and Winkler
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 6, 2005
    ... 115 P.3d 948 ... 200 Or. App. 525 ... In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Judee Fehsenfeld WINKLER, nka Judith Louise Fehsenfeld, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, and ... Eric David WINKLER, Appellant-Cross-Respondent ... We cannot make that finding because it is too speculative and not consistent with case law. See Jones and Jones, 158 Or.App. 41, 49, 973 P.2d 361 adh'd to on recons., 159 Or.App. 377, 981 P.2d 338, rev. den., 328 Or. 666, 987 P.2d 515 (1999) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • §6.4 Specific Assets
    • United States
    • Oregon State Bar Family Law in Oregon 2023 Ed. Chapter 6 Property Rights and Division
    • Invalid date
    ...between the husband and the wife. (4) In In re Marriage of Jones, 158 Or App 41, 49-50, 973 P2d 361, adh'd to on recons, 159 Or App 377, 981 P2d 338 (1999) (emphasis in original), the court explained: [T]he court in a dissolution proceeding generally may not directly control the disposition......
  • §9.5 Third-Party Property Interests In Family Law Litigation
    • United States
    • Oregon State Bar Family Law in Oregon 2023 Ed. Chapter 9 Third-party Rights and Issues
    • Invalid date
    ...found at ORS 107.105(1)(f). See In re Marriage of Jones, 158 Or App 41, 49-50, 973 P2d 361, adh'd to on recons, 159 Or App 377, 981 P2d 338, rev den, 328 Or 666 (1999) (noting that the court has authority to "enter equalizing money judgments that are based in whole or in part on the value o......
  • §11.6 Distinguishing Property Awards and Spousal Support
    • United States
    • Oregon State Bar Family Law in Oregon 2023 Ed. Chapter 11 Spousal Support
    • Invalid date
    ...party.'" Brown, 219 Or App at 483-84 (quoting In re Marriage of Jones, 158 Or App 41, 49, 973 P2d 361, adh'd to on recons, 159 Or App 377, 981 P2d 338, rev den, 328 Or 666 (1999)). In In re Marriage of Dornbusch, 195 Or App 61, 68, 96 P3d 877 (2004), the court indicated that "[t]he distinct......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT