Johnson & Lechman-Su: Family Law

Legal Updates

LAW MARKS: Mark Johnson's occasional--and occasionally irreverent--review of recent developments in family law and civil procedure. For September 2004, topics include the presumption of equal contribution, seeking back support for an adult child, the cost of responding to a bar complaint, and federal court standing.

I am glad to be producing the newsletter again after a nine-month hiatus. During the break, I formed a new professional corporation with Jeffrey Renshaw and Bradley Lechman-Su. We are called Johnson Renshaw & Lechman-Su PC, and we are pleased to be serving clients--along with our associate, Camaron Vallepalli--from our new offices located in the historic Weatherly Building in Southeast Portland, just across the Morrison Bridge from downtown.

In Owens-Koenig and Koenig, the Court of Appeals gave a very useful analysis of the presumption of equal contribution to marital assets, and how it can be overcome in cases where one spouse receives gifts or inheritances during the marriage, or contributes a pre-marital asset that appreciates during the marriage. The court's analysis builds on the Supreme Court's work on a similar set of issues in Kunze and Kunze, published in June.

May the mother of child born out of wedlock bring a filiation action and a claim for back support after the child turns 18? In Norton v. Macdonald, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that the filiation statutes barred the mother's claim, but then denied relief based on her unreasonable delay in bringing the suit.

Practitioners are gently reminded that time spent in responding to a bar complaint is not recoverable. In Kovac v. Crooked River Ranch, the Court of Appeals granted Crooked River attorney fees, including fees expended by its counsel in responding to a bar complaint filed by Kovac. The Supreme Court reversed, noting that Kovac was absolutely immune from such liability under the bar statutes.

Family law decisions of the United States Supreme Court are quite rare, so it was interesting to note that the Court decided one of its most celebrated cases during this past term on domestic relations grounds. The case was Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, better known as the "Pledge of Allegiance" case. Newdow, a non-practicing attorney representing himself, obtained a ruling from the Ninth Circuit court of appeals that the "under God" language of the pledge violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Newdow lacked standing to bring the action because he was not the custodial parent of his child, whose school district administered the pledge.

Mark Johnson is an appeals attorney practicing in Portland, Oregon. He also provides attorney coaching, consulting, and collaboration on a wide range of family law issues. Mark is available to act as a reference judge in Oregon family law cases.

Please share this newsletter with your colleagues. If you want to receive your own e-mailed copy of the newsletter in the future, please contact me and we will add your name to the distribution list.

back