- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Family Law
- Date Filed: 04-01-2015
- Case #: A152298
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J., for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Wollheim, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Husband appealed a dissolution judgment which required him to pay $4,000 a month in spousal maintenance until 2027, when Husband would be nearly 79 years old. He assigned two errors to the lower court, arguing that the trial court erred in requiring him, as an obligor, to work full-time until he reached the age of 79, and that there was no evidence provided that he was capable of working full-time past the age of 72. With the second assignment of error, Husband requested that the Court “review the award to determine if it is just and equitable to end spousal support in 2020, or in 2027.” This Court concluded that the possibility of a spousal support award affecting financial decisions, such as retirement, does not make the award unjust or inequitable, especially since Oregon allows for the trial court to modify spousal support in the event of a “substantial change in economic circumstances of a party.” As to the second assignment of error, the Court decided that there was sufficient evidence in the record to show that the trial court could reasonably have found that Husband planned to work well into his 70s. Affirmed.