Elizabeth Anne Sparks (Wife) appeals the trial court‟s judgment dissolving her marriage to James T. Sparks (Husband). Wife raises nine points of error on appeal related to the distribution of marital assets and the award of maintenance. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as amended by this opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background1

Husband and Wife ma

Are the proceeds of a term life policy community property or separate property of the spouse who pays the final premium? Our answer is an all too familiar one: it depends. We hold that the characterization “will depend on the … premium for the final term of the policy.” (Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley (9th Cir. 1999) 174 F.3d 977, 983 (Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co.).) The

Michael Sheldon appeals the trial court’s judgment in a post-divorce suit for division of property not divided by the Agreed Final Divorce Decree. In three issues, he challenges the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony, division of property, and award to Karen of certain property alleged to be his separate property. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court�

[¶1] Rick Rustad appeals from a district court judgment granting him a divorce from Svetlana Rustad, awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor child to Svetlana Rustad, distributing their marital property, and awarding Svetlana Rustad rehabilitative spousal support. We affirm the portion of the judgment awarding spousal support and distributing the marital property, but

2 Husband appeals a supplemental judgment ordering entry of a qualified
domestic relations order (QDRO),1 3 contending that the trial court erred in its calculation
4 of wife's interest in his pension plan. Specifically, he contends that the QDRO divides
5 his pension benefits in a manner that is inconsistent with the division provided for in the
6 parties' dissolution judgment. We

2 Husband appeals from a dissolution judgment, contending that the terms of
3 a marital settlement agreement--executed after mediation--should control the division of
4 the marital property and that the trial court erred in adjusting the property division by
5 ordering that husband pay an additional $300,000 to wife. Husband seeks entry of a
6 judgment specifically enforcing the te

1 ORTEGA, P. J.
2 Father appeals a judgment establishing custody, parenting time, and child
3 support for the parties' minor child. On appeal, father asserts that the trial court erred in
4 ordering that child support should commence from the date that the parties separated
5 because the petition was filed pursuant to ORS 109.103 and the court, therefore, did not
6 have authori

[¶1] David J. Vanderveer appeals and Nicole C. Beauclair cross-appeals from a divorce judgment distributing the parties' property under the terms of a premarital agreement. Vanderveer argues the district court erred in awarding Beauclair the value of her investment account and in awarding her the cash value of her life insurance policy. These are questions of fact subject to the clearly erroneo

Collateral to an ongoing divorce proceeding in Missouri state court, Michael Wallace filed an identity theft tort claim in federal court under Mo. Rev. Stat § 570.223 against his wife, Claire Wallace, and alleged diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Michael asserted that during their marriage Claire stole his identity and “surreptitiously open[ed] multiple credit cards i

Anthony Harris (Father) appeals the trial court’s judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage. Father claims the trial court erred in: (1) calculating Father’s child support obligation because Father was entitled to an adjustment for overnight visitation; (2) characterizing the physical custody award as sole physical custody to the mother; and (3) awarding the mother her entire pe

Tara Lyn Shaw (“Wife”) appeals the circuit court‟s dissolution decree. Wife raises two points on appeal. First, she argues that the circuit court erred in failing to award her rehabilitative maintenance. Second, she argues that the circuit court erred in dividing equally the entire Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”) between her and Christopher W. Shaw (“Husband

Jerry Minehart (“Minehart”) appeals from an “Order/Judgment” granting Timothy Fowler (“Fowler”)1 a “Full Order of Protection” against Minehart, pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, after a bench trial. Minehart contends Fowler failed to prove all the elements of “stalking” as defined in sections 455.010-.0902 to support the trial court�

Tyler Watkins ("Husband") appeals the portion of a judgment entered against him
and his wife, Britney Watkins, f/k/a Britney Carner ("Wife"), that found Husband
personally liable for the payment of "medical services and supplies" provided to Wife by
Saint Francis Medical Center ("Hospital"). Husband first challenges the evidence
supporting what he asserts are two necessary elements

This case does not involve a challenge to the Missouri Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage. That is an issue for another day. Instead, Kelly Glossip, the same-sex partner of a deceased highway patrolman, presents a challenge to two statutes. The first provides benefits to a surviving spouse of a state highway patrolman who is killed in the line of duty. The second statute provides that

In this post-dissolution proceeding, Geoffrey Alexander Cole (the Father) appeals from an order which awarded Nancy S. Cole (the Mother) sole custody of the parties’ daughter, Samantha, for one month, without interference by the Father or the Father’s relatives. We reverse.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2002, and pursuant to a settlement agreement incorporated

Kelly Goudschaal and Marci Frazier were committed to a long-time, same-sex relationship, during which they jointly decided to have two children via artificial insemination. In conjunction with the birth of each child, the couple executed a coparenting agreement that, among other provisions, addressed the contingency of a separation. A few months after the couple separated, Goudschaal notified Fraz

¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Delmar Garrett1 (Delmer) appeals the September 13, 2011, Journal Entry Order of the district court denying his Motion to Vacate Void Judgment, Vacate Partition Order, and Emergency Motion to Stay Sheriff's Sale. The judgment sought to be vacated was entered in a divorce suit in which Delmer was named as a party. Because the judgment roll in the divorce proceeding shows th

¶1 In this probate proceeding, Petitioner/Appellant, Lucille Kathryn Littleton (Wife), the surviving spouse of Stanley R. Littleton (Decedent), appeals the probate court's determination that certain trust property - real property at 4920 Tinker Diagonal - was Decedent's separate property and was not subject to Wife's forced heir right under 84 O.S. 2011 §44. Decedent's son, Respondent/Appell

¶1 Petitioner/Appellant Anabella Gonzalez Muller aka Anabella Gonzalez (Gonzalez) appeals the decision of the district court dismissing her Amended Petition for Annulment against Timothy Al Muller (Muller). We vacate the district court's dismissal of Gonzalez's claim for an annulment pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp. 2009 § 2009(B) and remand for trial on Gonzalez's annulment action.

BACKGR

In February 2006, Susan Killian learned that she had lung cancer, which had spread to her brain. After physicians at Delnor Community Hospital

2 No. 11-1112

determined that they could not operate, she sought a second opinion from a physician at Rush University Medical Center (“Rush”) and soon afterward was admitted for emergency brain surgery. Although the surgery success

[¶1] The district court granted Angela S. Bagley (Wife) a divorce, divided the parties’ property, determined child custody, and ordered Cameron Kdell Bagley (Husband) to pay child support. Both parties appealed. Wife claims the district court erred by refusing to award her child support for their adult disabled daughter because Wife was already receiving Social Security benefits for her.

[¶1] Thomas Campbell (Husband) and Tammie Hein (Wife) were divorced in 2008 pursuant to a stipulated Property Settlement, Child Custody, Child Support Agreement. In 2010, Husband petitioned to reopen the Decree of Divorce, alleging that Wife had misrepresented material facts related to the parties’ division of debt. The district court denied Husband’s petition, and Husband appeals

[¶1] Appellant, Carl S. Olsen, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify the custody of his three children. He also challenges the district court’s finding that he was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the divorce decree. We will affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] The issues presented by Mr. Olsen, reworded for the sake of clarity, are as follows:

[¶1] In her appeal of the district court’s property allocation, Susan Lynn Kummerfeld (Wife) contends that the court erred when it only gave her 23% of the total assets, with the remainder going to her ex-husband John Gary Kummerfeld (Husband). We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Wife states her single issue as follows: Whether the district court abused its discretion in the manner in

[¶1] Appellant Jerry D. Walker (Father) filed a motion seeking primary residential custody1 of his daughter. Appellee Jaci S. Walker (Mother), who was the primary residential custodian under the parties’ divorce decree, opposed a change of custody and sought an increase in child support based on a claimed increase in Father’s income. The district court denied Father’s motio