Need this case briefed

Facts Ronald Dean Joling (Petitioner) and Jackie Diane Joling (Respondent) participated in a religious wedding ceremony in California in 1993. They decided not to obtain a California marriage license. Ronald's father, a self-ordained minister who performed the marriage ceremony, told them that a marriage license was unnecessary because "marriage is between God and the couple." He also incorrectly told Diane that she and Ronald would be legally married because Oregon had common-law marriage. During the ceremony, the couple exchanged vows. Ronald vowed that he would "love, honor, and care for" Diane. In return, Diane vowed that she would "love, honor, and obey" petitioner. They also exchanged traditional vows that they would "take" each other as "wedded husband" and "wedded wife," "to have and hold from this day forward. For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish 'til death do us part." They also signed a written marriage covenant stating that "before God and witnesses [they] were united in Holy Matrimony." Ronald, Diane, Ronald's father (the minister), and 10 witnesses signed the covenant. For 21 years following, Ronald and Diane lived as a married couple. They cohabitated, had three children, and listed their tax status as married when preparing their tax forms. Ronald worked outside the home as a general contractor. Diane maintained their home, raised the children, and, for a time, homeschooled them. Diane testified that she sacrificed opportunities for further education or to obtain other job skills. Diane also supplemented the family income, including working at an auto parts store, as a secretary and data entry clerk, and as a teacher's assistant. Ronald had saved approximately $50,000 before their ceremony, and he used $24,000 as a down payment for the property where they built their home. Ronald also invested $25,000 for supplies to build a barn on the property. The home was titled in both of their names as "a married couple." Just before the suit, the home was appraised at $488,900. In 2015, they decided to divorce. Ronald moved out but continued to pay living expenses for Diane and the children. They were told by their attorneys that they were not legally married. Ronald then reduced his payment to Diane but continued to pay child support. Ronald petitioned for the dissolution of a domestic partnership and custody of their minor child. Diane counterclaimed for breach of a marriage contract based on his vows to support her. The trial court concluded that Ronald had breached an express and implied contract of marriage and awarded Diane the house as damages for the breach. The court awarded the home to Diane because it questioned its authority to award spousal support in a domestic partnership case that was not a legal marriage. Judicial Opinion Shorr, Judge In the mid-1970s, the Oregon Supreme Court recognized the need to address the absence of law protecting unmarried partners and their assets. The Oregon Supreme Court held that an express agreement between unmarried partners to share equally in the real and personal property accumulated during the domestic partnership was not void as against public policy. It abrogated prior law that refused to recognize such contracts. [W]e hold that courts, when dealing with the property disputes of [partners] who have been living together in a nonmarital domestic relationship, should distribute the property based upon the express or implied intent of those parties." With regard to the family house, petitioner invested funds that he had saved prior to the parties' marriage ceremony. However, both parties worked to build the house on the property, lived in the house and raised a family there together, and they titled the deed to the property in both of their names as a "married couple." [W]e conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it effectively gave petitioner no interest in the parties' largest asset (even in light of the division of other smaller assets that are not currently in dispute) because the court could not reasonably reach that conclusion based on the facts in the record. In addition, petitioner's vows do not reflect an express promise by petitioner to provide respondent with their home should their relationship terminate. Oregon does not recognize common-law marriage, [so] property of an unmarried couple [is] not subject to statutes governing dissolution of marital property. [W]e are not called upon to address a trial court's authority to award spousal support at the termination of a domestic partnership, as that issue is not before us. [T]he trial court here did not award spousal support. [T]he trial court abused its discretion in giving respondent nearly 100 percent of the value of the parties' home. We remand to the trial court to reconsider its division of the family home. Reversed.

What is a Case Brief? When the Syllabus indicates a requirement to "Brief" a specific case. you will need to do so in writing. As is noted in the Assignments section of the Syllabus. you should informally brief ALL cases assigned as a tool for note talting. as a means of preparing for class discussion. and as a means of practicing briefwriting in advance of the formal written assignments. There will be two formal written brief assignments during the semester. Each brief is worth up to 25 points. HowI to Write a "Brief" We will discuss brief-writing extensively in class. but the following proyides a very good guide. When you submit the full written briefs. you will need to use the following "F -l-Ft-A- ' fFaets-lssue-Rule-Appliteration-conclusion} format. Facts: You need to present in the Facts portion of your brief the pertinent facts that a judge needs to know in order to rule on a case. The Facts should include what the procedural history of the case was in the trial court. including the decision of the trial court. and then which party appealed and to which court. Issue: What question must be answered in order to reach a conclusion in the case? The Issue MUST be expressed in the form of a legal auestian which. when answered. giyes a result in the particular case. Malte it specific fe.g. "Has there been a false imprisonment if the plaintiff was asleep at the time of 'confin ement'?"]| rather than general fe.g. "Will the plaintiff be successful?"}. You may malte it referable to the specific case being briefed fe.g. "Did the Defendant Dsco. Inc. owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff Miller when Miller was trespassing on Dsco's property?"}. or you can frame it so that the issue can apply to all cases that present a similar question {e.g. "Is a duty owed wheneyer there is an employment relationship?"}. the latter approach being preferred. Many cases present more than one issue.- if there is more than one issue. it is DH. to write more than one. but be sure to list the principal one and focus on that. Rule: The rule is the law that applies to the principal issue. It should be stated as a general principal. fe.g. A duty of care is owed whenever the defendant should anticipate that her conduct could create a rislt of harm to the plaintiff} not a conclusion to the particular case being briefed. {e.g. "The plaintiff was negligent."}. Typically. the Ftule can be expressed in one or two sentences. Application: The Application is a discussion of how the rule applies to the facts of a particular case. Essentially. the "Application" is a description of the relevant facts. the parties\" arguments and positions in the case. and the court's thought process by which it answered the Issue and established the Rule. While the Issue and Rule are normally only one or two sentences each. the Application section of a Brief should be two to four paragraphs long. It should be written debate. not simply a statement of the conclusion. Wheneyer possible. present both sides of any issue. Do not begin with your conclusion. The Application shows how you are able to traclt the court's reasoning on paper and is the most difficult sltill you will learn. Conclusion: What was the result of the case? Did the Appellate or Supreme Court affirm. reyerse or reverse and remand the lower court's decision