From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stufflebean v. Brown

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 9, 1997
935 P.2d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 1997)

Summary

explaining Brazell and stating that the attorney fee provision in ORS 107.105 does not apply to an action for equitable division of property of an unmarried couple because it only applies to actions for annulment or dissolution of a marriage or a separation in a marriage

Summary of this case from Joling v. Joling

Opinion

93DM0448; CA A91666

On respondent's petition filed January 2, 1997.

Petition for attorney fees denied April 9, 1997.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Coos County, Robert F. Walberg, Judge.

Margaret Melvin-Davidson for petition.

Jacques P. DePlois, contra.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Armstrong, Judges.


LANDAU, P.J.

Petition for award of attorney fees denied; costs allowed in the amount of $204.10.


This is an action for dissolution of a domestic partnership, a nonmarital relationship of individuals who have cohabited for a substantial period of time. On the merits, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court without opinion. Stufflebean v. Brown, 145 Or. App. 484, 928 P.2d 367 (1996). Respondent now petitions for an award of attorney fees pursuant to ORS 107.105(5) and for an award of costs. We deny the petition for attorney fees and allow costs in the amount of $204.10.

In Brazell v. Meyer, 42 Or. App. 179, 600 P.2d 460 (1979), we said in a footnote that, when a trial court ruled that it lacked authority to award attorney fees in an action for the dissolution of a domestic partnership: "That was correct." Id. at 182 n 1. We offered no explanation or analysis for our conclusion. We write now briefly to reaffirm the conclusion we reached in Brazell and to explain it.

ORS 107.105(5) provides:

"If an appeal is taken from the decree or other appealable order in a suit for annulment or dissolution of a marriage or for separation, and the appellate court awards costs and disbursements to a party, it may also award to that party, as part of the costs, such additional sum of money as it may adjudge reasonable as an attorney fee on the appeal."

(Emphasis supplied.) By its terms, ORS 107.105(5) applies only on appeal in an action for annulment or dissolution of a marriage or a separation in a marriage. It does not authorize the court to award attorney fees in any other suit or action. This case is not an action for annulment or dissolution of a marriage or for separation in a marriage; the parties were never married to each other. Instead, it is an action in equity that arises wholly apart from the dissolution statutes. See, e.g., Wilbur v. DeLapp, 119 Or. App. 348, 351, 850 P.2d 1151 (1993) (because Oregon does not recognize common-law marriage, nonmarried cohabitants are not subject to marital dissolution statutes). ORS 107.105(5), therefore, affords no basis for an award of attorney fees in this case.

As for costs, ORS 20.310 allows an award in "any appeal to the Court of Appeals." Moreover, there is no objection to respondent's petition in that regard.

Petition for award of attorney fees denied; costs allowed in the amount of $204.10.


Summaries of

Stufflebean v. Brown

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 9, 1997
935 P.2d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 1997)

explaining Brazell and stating that the attorney fee provision in ORS 107.105 does not apply to an action for equitable division of property of an unmarried couple because it only applies to actions for annulment or dissolution of a marriage or a separation in a marriage

Summary of this case from Joling v. Joling
Case details for

Stufflebean v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:Kevin Wayne STUFFLEBEAN, Respondent, v. Tracy Lynn BROWN, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 9, 1997

Citations

935 P.2d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 1997)
935 P.2d 482

Citing Cases

Joling v. Joling

42 Or. App. at 182 n. 1, 600 P.2d 460. The text of the opinion concerned how to divide the real and personal…

In the Matter of Kelly v. Owens

[It] is not an action for annulment or dissolution of a marriage * * *. Instead, it is an action in equity…