Norberg and Norberg

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 12-14-2016
  • Case #: A160535
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Egan, J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C), a trial court may consider the following factors to determine the amount and duration of a support award: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the ages of the parties; (3) the physical and emotional health of the parties; (4) the standard of living established during the marriage; (5) the parties’ relative incomes and earning capacities; (6) the parties’ training and employment skills, and work experience; (7) their financial resources and needs; and (8) the tax consequences of an award.

Husband appealed a general judgment of dissolution, challenging the trial court’s award of indefinite maintenance spousal support. Husband assigned error to the trial court’s awarding spousal support to Wife in “an amount and duration different from what the parties had agreed,” and the award was not supported by the record. Under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C), a trial court may consider the following factors to determine the amount and duration of a support award: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the ages of the parties; (3) the physical and emotional health of the parties; (4) the standard of living established during the marriage; (5) the parties’ relative incomes and earning capacities; (6) the parties’ training and employment skills, and work experience; (7) their financial resources and needs; and (8) the tax consequences of an award. Bailey and Bailey, 248 Or App 271, 276 (2012). “The ultimate determination of what amount and duration of support is just and equitable is discretionary,” and an appellate court “will not disturb the trial court’s discretionary determination unless the trial court misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations required by ORS 107.105.” Berg and Berg, 250 Or App 1, 2 (2012). The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the award that it did. Affirmed.

Advanced Search