Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


Stuart and Ely

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 10-30-2013
Case #: A149483
Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Hadlock, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149483.pdf

Family Law: A spouse may not seek transitional spousal support under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(A) when the spouse will not use the support for educational or job training purposes.

Husband appealed a judgment of a dissolution court, arguing that it erred in awarding Wife transitional spousal support. Wife cross appealed arguing that the trial court should have awarded her indefinite maintenance support. At the dissolution trial, the trial court took into consideration that Husband was 60 years old, Wife was 45 years old, the marriage lasted 20 years, both parties were professional engineers with training and employment skills, but that Wife didn't have the same amount of work experience that Husband did because she was the primary care taker of the couples children. Wife requested indefinite maintenance support. The trial court refused indefinite maintenance support, but instead granted Wife transitional spousal support because of her lack of job market experience. The Court agreed with Husband, reasoning that ORS 107.105(1)(d)(A) limits the amount of transitional spousal support to the spouse in order to obtain "education and training for job market reentry or advancement."  The Court of Appeals found that, while Wife didn't have the same experience on the job market, she had a PhD, and wouldn't obtain any further education or job training with the transitional spousal support for job market reentry. Reversed and Remanded.