In re the Marriage of Rogers
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Shill v. Shill (Idaho 1988)
- In re the Marriage of Sands (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- In re the Marriage of Batiste (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- In re the Marriage of Tough (Or. Ct. App. 2013)
- In re the Marriage of Caudill (Or. Ct. App. 1996)
- Matter of Marriage of Hester (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
- Hare v. Hodgins (La. 1991)
- In re the Marriage of Mahaffey (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
- In re the Marriage of Kernan (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
- Cross v. Cross (W. Va. 1987)
- In re the Marriage of Varin (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
- In re the Marriage of Cave (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
- Matter of Marriage of Graham and Graham (Or. Ct. App. 1986)
- In re the Marriage of Cunningham (Or. Ct. App. 1985)
- Matter of Marriage of Manners (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
- In re the Marriage of Doering (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
- In re the Marriage of Hutcheson (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
- In re the Marriage of Ash (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
- In re the Marriage of Bogh (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
- Matter of Marriage of Steinbrenner (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- Matter of Marriage of Vinson (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- Matter of Marriage of Clapperton (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- Matter of Marriage of Plaster (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- In re the Marriage of Palmerton (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- Matter of Marriage of Minnis (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Husband filed a motion to recall the mandate in this case on the ground that our opinion in Haftorson and Haftorson, 49 Or App 205, 619 P2d 655 (1980) applied the formula we set forth in Rogers and Rogers, 45 Or App 885, 609 P2d 877 (1980), and that the result in Haftorson and Haftorson, supra, points out an error we made in the computation in Rogers and Rogers, supra. Husband is correct, and we, therefore, modify our former opinion. However, in doing so we take this opportunity to say again what we said in Rogers and Rogers, supra, "that litigants who contest the appropriate treatment of a retirement account in these cases must develop a full record of all of the relevant details.” 45 Or App at 893.
Our former opinion is modified as follows:
At page 898 after the sentence ending "at the time of dissolution.” insert the sentence: "Husband had been employed for 22 years. His retirement benefits had accumulated at 2 percent per year for a total of 44 percent of his average salary.”
In the next sentence delete "54” and insert "44”; delete "$18,900” and insert "$15,400”. And in the next sentence delete "$9,450” and insert "$7,700”.
This also requires a modification of our modification, Rogers and Rogers, 47 Or App 963, 615 P2d 412 rev den (1980), as follows: delete the figure "$787.50” where it appears three times on page 966 and insert "$641.66”; delete "$18,900” and insert "$15,400”.
With the above modifications, paragraph 10 of the decree is modified to read as follows:
"Petitioner is awarded, as her share of the marital asset represented by the retirement benefits due respondent by virtue of his employment in the United States Government, Department of State, Agency for International Development (Foreign Service), the sum of $641.66 per month, to be paid to petitioner by respondent as and when he receives the retirement benefits; provided however, in the event respondent is required to pay income taxes on the entire retirement payments (including the amount awarded to petitioner), the monthly payments to petitioner shall*514 be reduced by an amount equal to one-half the taxes respondent would be required to pay on $15,400, assuming no other income to respondent. This is a property division. However, at the time respondent begins to receive his retirement benefits, the adequacy or superfluity of alimony may then be re-examined.9”
Affirmed as modified. No costs to either party.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.