• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Oregon divorce questions

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Roamer's Wife

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

The situation:
Married 9 years. No children. We own a home. We have a $100,000.00 mortgage with both our names as borrowers. The home is currently valued at ~$200,000.00. We have approximately $1,500.00 in credit card debt, and $18,000.00 in student loans in one partner's name. We believe we'll be able to resolve this like adults, it's not an "ugly" divorce.

The questions:
Would an attorney be recommended to handle this divorce?
-If so, should both partners get an attorney?
-If so, what sorts of fee's might be expected?

Can the court require an equal distribution of marital asset/debts if the partners want something different?

Can the court require a mortgage lender to refinance a home as part of a divorce decree, in one person's name?

One spouse earns approximately $35,000.00 annually, the other earns approximately $20,000.00 annually. Is spousal support/alimony required by the courts, even if it's not asked for?
-If so, how long would spousal support be expected to last, based on 9 year marriage?

Thank you for your time and consideration.
 


mistoffolees

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

The situation:
Married 9 years. No children. We own a home. We have a $100,000.00 mortgage with both our names as borrowers. The home is currently valued at ~$200,000.00. We have approximately $1,500.00 in credit card debt, and $18,000.00 in student loans in one partner's name. We believe we'll be able to resolve this like adults, it's not an "ugly" divorce.

The questions:
Would an attorney be recommended to handle this divorce?
-If so, should both partners get an attorney?
-If so, what sorts of fee's might be expected?

Can the court require an equal distribution of marital asset/debts if the partners want something different?

Can the court require a mortgage lender to refinance a home as part of a divorce decree, in one person's name?

One spouse earns approximately $35,000.00 annually, the other earns approximately $20,000.00 annually. Is spousal support/alimony required by the courts, even if it's not asked for?
-If so, how long would spousal support be expected to last, based on 9 year marriage?

Thank you for your time and consideration.
One attorney can't represent both of you. I would suggest doing it with no attorneys or two attorneys, not one. Ideally, each of you would have an attorney just to review things to make sure nothing is missed. However, if you're in agreement on everything, that's not necessary. Fees will vary, but typically several hundred dollars per hour. How much it ends up costing would depend on the two of you. If the attorney merely reviews the final agreement, it won't be much. The more you fight, the more it costs.

If the two of you agree on something, the court is unlikely to disallow it - and they would rarely do that unless there are children or the agreement is grossly one-sided.

The court can not force the mortgage lender to refinance. If one of you qualifies, then you can do it. If neither of you qualifies on the mortgage, then you're probably better off selling the house and moving into less expensive accomodations. But the court can't order the mortgage holder to do anything.

After a 9 year marriage, spousal support is unlikely, particularly if neither of you is asking for it. If you get past 10 years without filing, it becomes more of a possibility, probably for a couple of years. If you don't ask, though, it won't be an issue.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
The wisest way to handle this is to sell the house, pay off all joint debt (we don't know if the student loan is joint debt) and split the remainder. Then you can each go off and buy your own places individually at today's better interest rates and prices. That way neither of you is ever in the position of having credit problems because the other defaulted on a joint debt.

Neither of you will qualify by yourself for a $200,000 mtg on 20k or 35k income.
 
Last edited:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
The only portion of student loan debt which is joint debt is that which went towards paying for marital items (i.e. think reimbursements from the loans that came into the household pot to spend -- not that which paid for tuition/books/fees/supplies and what have you for school).
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I will also throw out there that alimony isn't very likely in this case, since neither of you make enough money to support two households...even partially.

I agree with the advice to sell the home, pay off the marital debt, and split the proceeds.

Neither of you can afford the home by yourself with the existing mortgage, let alone having to borrow enough to pay the other one their share of the equity.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Neither of you will qualify by yourself for a $200,000 mtg on 20k or 35k income.
While I agree, it would technically be a $150 K mortgage - $100 K to pay off the other mortgage and $50 K to pay the STBX for their equity --- leaving $50 K in equity for the one taking on the house.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
While I agree, it would technically be a $150 K mortgage - $100 K to pay off the other mortgage and $50 K to pay the STBX for their equity --- leaving $50 K in equity for the one taking on the house.
35k won't qualify you for a 150k mtg, either. 20k is also a no-go.

Using a typical 28% Income ratio, at 35K, and using 4.99% APR, the house max would be about 127k with a 45k DP.

The 20k earner qualifies for about an 84,500 house w/45 k DP.

Property taxes, individual debt and insurance costs will vary the results.
 
Last edited:

mistoffolees

Senior Member
35k won't qualify you for a 150k mtg, either. 20k is also a no-go.

Using a typical 28% Income ratio, at 35K, and using 4.99% APR, the mortgage max would be about 127k.

The 20k earner qualifies for about an 84,500 mtg.

Property taxes, individual debt and insurance costs will vary the results.
That's why I said that I agreed that they wouldn't qualify for such a mortgage. I was just pointing out that they needed to qualify for a $150 K mortgage, NOT a $200 K mortgage-and that's if they have to pay the other spouse their equity up front.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
I will also throw out there that alimony isn't very likely in this case, since neither of you make enough money to support two households...even partially.

I agree with the advice to sell the home, pay off the marital debt, and split the proceeds.

Neither of you can afford the home by yourself with the existing mortgage, let alone having to borrow enough to pay the other one their share of the equity.
After reading the law as applied to Oregon alimony, I do not find where the ability to support two households is a factor for the courts consideration in making an award.

Unless of course you are referring to the catch all "Any other factors the court deems just and equitable".

In awarding alimony, Oregon laws do not consider the fault of either party in causing the grounds for divorce. Oregon laws allow the court to order one of the following types of spousal support, for a period of time as may be just and equitable, in gross or in installments or both:

(A) Transitional spousal support as needed for a party to attain education and training necessary to allow the party to prepare for reentry into the job market or for advancement. The factors to be considered by the court in awarding transitional spousal support include but are not limited to:

(i) The duration of the marriage;

(ii) A party's training and employment skills;

(iii) A party's work experience;

(iv) The financial needs and resources of each party;

(v) The tax consequences to each party;

(vi) A party's custodial and child support responsibilities; and

(vii) Any other factors the court deems just and equitable.

(B) Compensatory spousal support when there has been a significant financial or other contribution by one party to the education, training, vocational skills, career or earning capacity of the other party and when an order for compensatory spousal support is otherwise just and equitable in all of the circumstances. The factors to be considered by the court in awarding compensatory spousal support include but are not limited to:

(i) The amount, duration and nature of the contribution;

(ii) The duration of the marriage;

(iii) The relative earning capacity of the parties;

(iv) The extent to which the marital estate has already benefited from the contribution;

(v) The tax consequences to each party; and

(vi) Any other factors the court deems just and equitable.

(C) Spousal maintenance as a contribution by one spouse to the support of the other for either a specified or an indefinite period. The factors to be considered by the court in awarding spousal maintenance include but are not limited to:

(i) The duration of the marriage;

(ii) The age of the parties;

(iii) The health of the parties, including their physical, mental and emotional condition;

(iv) The standard of living established during the marriage;

(v) The relative income and earning capacity of the parties;

(vi) A party's training and employment skills;

(vii) A party's work experience;

(viii) The financial needs and resources of each party;

(ix) The tax consequences to each party;

(x) A party's custodial and child support responsibilities; and

(xi) Any other factors the court deems just and equitable.

-From 107.105 of the Oregon Statutes.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
After reading the law as applied to Oregon alimony, I do not find where the ability to support two households is a factor for the courts consideration in making an award.
Or maybe your system-bashing attitude trumps your reading ability. For example:

(C) Spousal maintenance as a contribution by one spouse to the support of the other for either a specified or an indefinite period. The factors to be considered by the court in awarding spousal maintenance include but are not limited to:


(iv) The standard of living established during the marriage;

(v) The relative income and earning capacity of the parties;

(viii) The financial needs and resources of each party;
Seems to me that all of those factors might be used to deny alimony in cases where both parties have income insufficient to support two households.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
After reading the law as applied to Oregon alimony, I do not find where the ability to support two households is a factor for the courts consideration in making an award.

Unless of course you are referring to the catch all "Any other factors the court deems just and equitable".
Yes, that is pretty much what I mean.

There just isn't enough money out there. Plus, if they do the wise (actually necessary) thing and sell the house, the lower earner will have some backup cash to help the transition into higher earnings.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
Or maybe your system-bashing attitude trumps your reading ability. For example:



Seems to me that all of those factors might be used to deny alimony in cases where both parties have income insufficient to support two households.
Or maybe your tunnel vision severely impairs YOUR ability to see reality. If this were a reconized disability, you would certainly qualify.

(iv) The standard of living established during the marriage; has NOTHING to do with the ability to support two households.

(v) The relative income and earning capacity of the parties; says NOTHING about the ability to support two households.

(viii) The financial needs and resources of each party; says NOTHING about the ability to support two households.
 
Last edited:

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Or maybe your tunnel vision severely impairs YOUR ability to see reality. If this were a reconized disability, you would certainly qualify.

(iv) The standard of living established during the marriage; has NOTHING to do with the ability to support two households.

(v) The relative income and earning capacity of the parties; says NOTHING about the ability to support two households.

(viii) The financial needs and resources of each party; says NOTHING about the ability to support two households.
ROTFLMAO.

So income level and expenses have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can support two households?

You've really gone off the deep end.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
ROTFLMAO.

So income level and expenses have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can support two households?

You've really gone off the deep end.
The RELATIVE income and earning capacity of each of the parties means the court will take from the more successful individual and reward the lazy bum.

I don't read where "expenses" are a factor at all, and, I don't read where the ability to support two households is a factor for an alimony award.

The way the law is written makes problems because you and these idiot judges make up your own rules as you see fit. That's the very reason why I'm in favor of stripping as much "discretion" as possible away from the courts and putting things in black and white.

The laws are not uniformly applied and everyone knows this but you and a handful of others.

I don't believe that you are ignorant of this fact, but rather that you know full well courts are bias against men and choose not to admit it because that's the way you want things to be.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
The RELATIVE income and earning capacity of each of the parties means the court will take from the more successful individual and reward the lazy bum.

I don't read where "expenses" are a factor at all, and, I don't read where the ability to support two households is a factor for an alimony award.

The way the law is written makes problems because you and these idiot judges make up your own rules as you see fit. That's the very reason why I'm in favor of stripping as much "discretion" as possible away from the courts and putting things in black and white.

The laws are not uniformly applied and everyone knows this but you and a handful of others.

I don't believe that you are ignorant of this fact, but rather that you know full well courts are bias against men and choose not to admit it because that's the way you want things to be.
IOW, you choose to ignore the law which is very clearly written and which shows no bias in order to feed your own paranoia. You also choose to live in your little paranoid world where men always get cheated and women are all deadbeats. Got it.

(Note that in the above case, it doesn't even say which sex earns more, so it's hard to figure how you jump to the conclusion that the man is being cheated other than your obvious history of assuming that).
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top