Categories: Oregon Court of Appeals Opinions

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE OF LAIRSON, 15 Or. App. 340 (1973)

515 P.2d 728

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE OF LAIRSON, Respondent, and LAIRSON, Appellant.

Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued October 4, 1973
Affirmed November 13, 1973

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County.

GLEN HIEBER, Judge.

Henry L. Bauer, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Bauer, Murphy, Bayless
Fundingsland, Portland.

Fred A. Anderson, Tigard, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Anderson Dittman, Tigard.

Page 341

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and LANGTRY and FORT, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

The parties each sought and the court granted a decree of dissolution of their marriage. The husband appeals.

He here challenges only,[1] the amount and duration of the award of alimony. The court awarded the wife $500 a month “for an indefinite period of time until further order of the court.”[2]
The wife, by the decree, assumed a monthly mortgage payment of $212 on the family home which was awarded to her. She also, by the decree, was required to make monthly payments of $269.33 to discharge an existing indebtedness on personal property awarded to her. Neither of the contracts is in evidence, thus, the duration of the payments is not clearly established.

Respondent points out that petitioner-wife has, in earlier years, taught school and contends that this potential skill is a factor to be considered in connection

Page 342

with the duration of the alimony payments. Wright and Wright, 13 Or. App. 101, 508 P.2d 829 (1973). See also: Johnson and Johnson, 14 Or. App. 203, 513 P.2d 178 (1973); Scheer and Scheer, 13 Or. App. 551, 513 P.2d 174 (1973); Dunn and Dunn, 13 Or. App. 497, 511 P.2d 427 (1973).

Certainly such a circumstance is one relevant consideration, but it is by no means the only one. Here the award of $500 per month in the light of the current monthly payment obligations respondent is required to assume under the decree, even when considered with the unchallenged monthly child support ordered in the aggregate amount of $800 per month for the four children appears entirely reasonable for a man to pay whose current annual income before taxes is in excess of $40,000. There was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion Smith v. Smith, 212 Or. 654, 320 P.2d 1111 (1958); Shields v. Bosch, 190 Or. 155, 224 P.2d 560 (1950).

Affirmed.

[1] We quote from appellant’s brief:

“The issues on appeal are whether the sum of $500 per month is a reasonable sum which the court should have allowed for the support and maintenance of the petitioner, and whether such support and maintenance should be paid for an indefinite period of time.”

[2] We note that the memorandum opinion of the court expressly provides for termination of alimony upon remarriage of the wife. The decree does not.

We presume that the trial court in awarding alimony for an indefinite period of time, until further order of the court, necessarily had reference to the right of a party to seek modification of a support order under ORS 107.135 (1) (a), and, pursuant thereto, for the court to enter such order as from the evidence it finds appropriate.

Page 343

jdjungle