Nusbaum and Stone , 321 Or. App. 358 ( 2022 )

358
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Argued and submitted January 7, affirmed August 10, 2022
In the Matter of the
Registered Domestic Partnership of
Kimberly NUSBAUM,
Petitioner-Respondent,
and
Joseph Lee STONE, Jr.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Deschutes County Circuit Court
19DR16144; A173641
Alicia N. Sykora, Judge.
Daniel S. Margolin argued the cause for appellant. Also
on the brief was Stephens Margolin PC.
Kimberly Nusbaum waived appearance pro se.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
ORTEGA, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 321 Or App 358 (2022) 359
ORTEGA, P. J.
This is a proceeding involving a judgment of dis-
solution of domestic partnership following an Informal
Domestic Relations Trial. The trial court issued a judgment
on March 5, 2020, and a corrected judgment on February 8,
2021, accompanied by an extensive letter opinion explaining
the rationale for the division of real and personal property.
Appellant now claims the trial court erred (1) in dividing
real and personal property of common law domestic part-
ners based on an incorrect “just and proper” analysis instead
of considering the express or implied intent of the parties;
and (2) in proceeding with an Informal Domestic Relations
Trial, which he claims should not have been utilized in the
dissolution of a common law domestic partnership.
The first assignment of error is without basis.
The letter opinion accompanying the corrected judgment
stated the applicable legal standards for division of prop-
erty between nonmarried partners and concluded that
the decision reflected the court’s best ability to “ascertain
the mutual intent of the parties in the overall partnership
and the mutual intent for each item or each item’s value.”
Accordingly, we reject appellant’s first assignment of error
without further discussion.
Appellant concedes that his second assignment of
error is not preserved, but he urges us to review under the
plain error doctrine. ORAP 5.45(1). Even assuming, without
deciding, that the trial court erred in conducting an Informal
Domestic Relations Trial for the dissolution of a common
law domestic partnership, we would not exercise our discre-
tion to correct the error. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312
Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991).1 Appellant has not explained
the reasons that we should consider the error, apart from
his general assertion that the error resulted in the parties
1
In weighing whether to exercise discretion to correct plain error we may
consider
“the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of
the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the
court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring
preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.”
Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6.
360 Nusbaum and Stone
not being allowed to present their cases in accordance with
formal trial process. ORAP 5.45(7). However, the trial court
conducted a thorough hearing with testimony from both
domestic partners and numerous witnesses, who were sub-
ject to direct and cross-examination by the parties, and con-
sidered a variety of other documents as evidence. The trial
court ultimately offered an extensive explanation for the
distribution of the real and personal property at issue. In
the absence of a developed argument from appellant as to
what more he should have received through a formal trial
process, we see no basis on which to correct the claimed
error.
Affirmed.