���Ӷ���Ƶ

Under the "just and proper" analysis, the spouse is required to demonstrate that acting "just and proper" would provide the spouse with a greater share of the marital assets.

Husband appealed a court ordered property and debt division resulting from his marriage dissolution. Husband requested a de novo review of the trial court’s facts. On appeal, the Court focused on whether the property division was “just and proper in all the circumstances” as required by ORS 107.105(1)(f). Husband asserted that the trial court ignored his contributions to assets acquired in his Wife’s name. However, the trial court made findings that Husband was fully compensated for work completed on behalf of his wife and that the parties meticulously avoided commingling their debts and assets. Based on these findings, the trial court awarded each party their own separately held assets and liabilities. Although there were inaccuracies in the trial court’s asset calculations, Husband did not demonstrate that a “just and proper” distribution would require giving him a greater share of the assets than he was awarded. The division was not inequitable. Affirmed.