Dissolution of Domestic Partnerships for Oregon Gay and Lesbian Couples - Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon – Powerful Advocacy. Proven Results.

Dissolution of Domestic Partnerships for Oregon Gay and Lesbian Couples

Finding an Attorney Sensitive to Your Needs

Hire experienced trial lawyers. Our lawyers can fight for your property rights and understands the unique legal issues that gay and lesbian couples face.

Facts about Domestic Partnerships

  • Property can be treated similarly to marital property (see intent of parties below).
  • The analysis is similiar to a breach of contract claim (you may have agreeded to have an equal domestic partnership either explictly or implicly).
  • There is no spousal support. Spousal support for married couples is a creature of statute. Since domestic partnership comes from a common law contract-type analysis, spousal support is unavailable.

It’s about the Intent of the Parties

The Supreme Court in Beal and Beal, 282 Or. 115, 577 P.2d 507 (1978), is considered the leading authority on the question of property rights of parties who have lived together in a non-marital relationship. The parties in Beal purchased a house after they divorced. The purchase contract listed both parties’ names and as husband and wife. Both parties contributed to the down payment. Mrs. Beal paid the first mortgage payment, and Mr. Beal paid all the subsequent payments. They lived in the house together, maintained a joint savings account, and made improvements to the property from their joint account. Looking at these facts, the court concluded that the parties had intended to pool their resources for a common benefit while they were together.

To determine the rights of the parties in a non-marital relationship, the Beal court explained that the primary consideration in such cases is the express or implied intent of the parties. The court went on to state that when the intent of the parties is not clear, the court must “closely examine the facts in evidence to determine what the parties implicitly agreed upon.” Such factors may include “how the parties held themselves out to their community, the nature of the cohabitation, joint acts of a financial nature, if any, how title to the property was held, and the respective financial and nonfinancial contributions of each party.” The Court further stated that in cases where there is not clear evidence of an intended division of property, “inferences can be drawn from factual settings in which the parties lived.”

Other courts have dealt with the issue of property division post-Beal. In Risseberger v. Gorton, 41 Or. App. 65, 72, 597 P.2d 366, rev den 287 Or. 301 (1979), the court followed the Beal analysis. In the absence of an explicit contract, the court looked to the facts of parties’ relationship to govern the parties’ rights. The parties shared a home, co-mingled their resources, had a child together, made payments on the real property from their joint account, and held out for insurance purposes that they were married. Petitioner repeatedly asked Respondent to put her name on the titles of the real property and the automobiles that had been purchased with his separate funds, but he refused. While there was significant evidence of co-mingling resources that would lead to an implicit agreement to share equally, the Risseberger court placed greatest emphasis upon the Respondent’s refusal to place Petitioner’s name on the titles, an explicit statement that the parties’ were not to be co-owners of the real property or the automobiles.

In Rogelis v. Pettis, 49 Or. App. 537, 619 P.2d 1339 (1980), the parties lived together in a non-marital relationship, and were jointly conveyed a large piece of acreage. To divide this property, the court looked to the intent of the parties. Under the Beal analysis, lacking anything explicit such as a contract, the Rogelis court looked to the facts to infer the implicit intent of the parties. The court placed importance upon the fact that the parties took title as husband and wife; Pettis took title to this property using the last name of her partner, Rogelis. The court also looked carefully at the financial contributions of the parties. While Rogelis did most of the construction on the home they built on this acreage, Pettis contributed a significant amount of money for the down payment for the residence. Rogelis paid the mortgage, but Pettis paid the other household obligations. The Rogelis court placed the greatest weight upon the financial contributions of the parties, over the other factual considerations contemplated by Beal such as the nature of their co-habitation or how they held themselves out the community. Pettis had contributed significant resources, and as such, the court awarded her one-half interest in the property.

In Holloway v. Holloway, 63 Or. App 343, 663 P.2d 789 (1983), the separated domestic partners contested the division of a piece of property that had been purchased in Mr. Holloway’s name only. The parties lived together, co-mingled funds, held out as a married couple to the community, equally contributed to the household and jointly applied for a loan to pay off the balance of the property. The court was ready to award Mrs. Holloway an equal half of the ranch, but for the fact that she admitted to making statements to Mr. Holloway that she would never try to take the ranch from him, and admitted knowledge of his statements to her that he did not intend to share the property, marry her, nor live as husband and wife. The court found that her admissions were evidence of an explicit agreement to keep their property separate, even in the face of the other factual considerations of their relationship.

In Shuraleff v. Donnelly, 108 Or. App. 707, 807 P. 2d 764 (1991), the parties brought suit to divide property after separation from a non-marital, cohabitation relationship. The parties were careful to divide monthly living expenses, filed taxes separately, kept their bank accounts separate and did not place both names on all of the property they acquired during their relationship. The parties did enter into several property transactions together, using each other’s properties as collateral, putting up separate funds for the other’s purchases, developed a holly farm together, and placed their names on some of the deeds as “husband and wife.” The Shuraleff court made its decision based on the efforts and contributions of the parties over their 15 years of cohabitation. Even though the parties made significant efforts to keep much of their property separate, the court divided their assets equally between them, including the assets that were owned individually, based on the idea that both parties contributed to the opportunity of the other to acquire those assets.

In Wilbur v. DeLapp, 119 Or. App. 348, 850 P.2d 1151 (1993), the parties were domestic partners for 18 years. He was primarily responsible for paying their costs of living, and she was a homemaker. The court looked to the intent of the parties, and lacking intent as directed by Beal, looked for facts and actions upon which to based inferences. The court decided to award the house to the parties based upon their contributions. While Mr. DeLapp was the breadwinner and paid the mortgage, the court recognized such contributions of Ms. Wilbur, like her contribution of her social security payments, the selling of her personal possessions to pay bills, and the pooling of her small income from when she did work to their joint benefit.

In Wallender v. Wallender, 126 Or. App. 614, 870 P.2d 232 (1994), the parties divorced after a 15-year marriage, but continued to live together after the divorce for 9 years. The property was divided during the divorce, but they continued to cohabitate and maintain an intimate relationship. During that time, Defendant continued to be the primary provider of financial resources for the family; he paid the mortgages, paid the utility bills and taxes, and periodically transferred his money into Plaintiff’s account. Plaintiff paid for some joint expenses from her own accounts, and argued that she was entitled to half of the assets in Defendant’s name due to their long-term cohabitation and joint labor. The court placed greatest weight on the parties’ intent. Plaintiff admitted that she knew Defendant did not intend for her to own half. Only in property where the Plaintiff specifically contributed financially and consistently along with Defendant did the court divide interests equally.

Do you know the Top-25 Commonly Hidden or “Forgotten” Divorce Assets? Sign-up for a free download of them all:



Awards/Recognitions
Interpreters Available
  • Representative Cases

    FAMILY LAW

    Custody - Alienation by Mother

    Mother filed false stalking order against father. We won custody for father by showing that mother was making false accusations to gain advantage in the custody case.

    Hidden Asset Divorce - Tracking down values of foreign corporations

    Jacy Arnold represented wife. Discovery from husband appeared to be missing many documents and assets. Motions to compel were granted and Jacy was able to track down foreign corporations hidden by husband, stretching from the Netherlands to southeast Asia. Result: Substantial financial settlement was obtained for client.

    Father’s Rights—Parental Alienation with a Bumpy Past

    Obtained custody for Father after Mother filed a frivolous restraining order against Father and absconded with the children from Oregon to prevent Father from having contact with the children. Of special importance in this case was Mother and Father’s history of domestic violence and drug abuse. Father had completed his probation and treatment, and had achieved many months of sobriety. We were able to show the court through multiple hearings that he had been rehabilitated, had prepared to be the primary parent and was acting in the children’s best interests by seeking custody. We were able to get the restraining order dismissed, safely retrieve the children and return them to Oregon, and obtained orders to both safeguard Father’s relationship with the children and protect the family from future drug use and domestic violence.

    Father’s Rights—Abusive Wife Flees with baby

    Obtained custody for Husband and a safety focused parenting plan restricting Wife’s access after Wife disappeared from the marital home with the parties’ one-year old child. Wife had a history of drug and alcohol use, and had previously physically abused both Husband and the child. Ms. Gardner helped Father obtain emergency custody of the child under the Immediate Danger statute, located the child, and coordinated with law enforcement agencies and the Department of Human Services to safely bring the child home.

    Father flees with children to Oregon—conflicting jurisdiction

    In a contentious California divorce, Husband took the children for a short visit and then fled in secret with the children to Oregon, where he filed for divorce and custody of the children despite a pending divorce case in California and previous orders from the California court granting mother physical possession of the children while the case was pending due to past abuse by Husband against Wife. We helped the frantic Wife safely retrieve the children, and convinced the Oregon court after multiple days in trial to stay the custody proceeding in Oregon pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), allowing the California case to proceed. Wife returned to California safely with the children.

    Special Needs Parenting Time

    The years of physical and verbal abuse against Mother by Father adversely impacted the parties’ high functioning special needs child, who as a teenager began to exhibit alarming violent and sexualized behaviors at school as well as regression in communication and hygiene when Father sought to enforce his parenting time after an absence of several years. At trial, Father disputed the child’s diagnosis and blamed Mother for the child’s sexualized behavior. With the support and information provided by the child’s school teachers, therapists, community support group and friends called by Arnold Law to testify at trial, the Court crafted a child-centric parenting plan for the benefit of this troubled teen and ended Father’s cyclical aggressive contact with the child.