Wolfe v. Wolfe

273 P.3d 915 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W met in 1974 while H was completing his internship and W, who was a nurse practitioner, was working at the same hospital. The parties were married in 1975 and H completed his residency and fellowships, one of which took them to London for a little over a year. When the parties returned from London in 1980, they moved to Corvallis, where they lived until they separated in 2006. In 1980, the parties purchased a farm, and, in 1982, about the time that their daughter was born, they moved into the home that they had recently built there. By the time that the parties' son was born in 1983, she chose to be a homemaker rather than to continue working as a nurse practitioner. W also managed the parties' farm, which was set up as a business so that they could contribute to an individual retirement account for W. They had a 78-acre farm and developed a herd of 22 cows and a bull had chickens and ducks, and had to grow and maintain hay. H opened his own medical practice, and W became directly involved in its operation as a business and office manager. Despite significant contributions to the ophthalmology practice, for many years, W did not draw a salary in order to, as husband noted, 'better [their] tax situation.' H's earnings effectively included W's compensation for her contributions to the ophthalmology practice. Ultimately, in 2007, H's practice was purchased by another physician. H then worked part-time for that physician, earning approximately $11,000 per month, and W was employed part-time as a bookkeeper, earning approximately $2,300 per month. The parties acquired assets-including real property and retirement and investment accounts-worth approximately $5 million at the time of trial. EFLOW trust and H set up two additional accounts. These monies were managed by third parties. None of the parties' earned income was ever invested in this disputed property. The disputed property appreciated in value during the marriage and that appreciation was passive and did not result through the efforts-either direct or otherwise-of H or W. H of his own accord periodically used funds from his 'separate money'-which included the Smith Barney account-to supplement the parties' earned income to finance the acquisition of the parties' farm and the construction of their home, to make maximum contributions to both parties' individual retirement accounts; and to pay for some incidental vacation expenses. W contends that these separate monies were a marital asset and that H had not rebutted the presumption of equal contribution with regard to that property in light of W's contributions to the ophthalmology practice and as a homemaker. H contends this $10.3 million was separate property and not overly commingled with marital assets. The trial court awarded W approximately $2.6 million in assets and awarded H approximately $2.4 million in assets. The trial court awarded H the disputed property valued at $10.3 million as his separate property. W appealed.