In re Marriage of Hirscht

Court of Appeals of Oregon

In re Marriage of Hirscht

840 P.2d 98, 115 Or. App. 724, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1960

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 21, 1992

Docket90-DO-0222-ST; CA A70326

StatusPublished

This text of 840 P.2d 98 (In re Marriage of Hirscht) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Marriage of Hirscht, 840 P.2d 98, 115 Or. App. 724, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1960 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DURHAM, J.

Father appeals from a dissolution judgment that awarded him custody of the parties’ minor child. Only one of his assignments of error requires discussion.

Father argues that the trial court erred when it calculated the child support obligation imposed on mother. OAR 137-50-390 provides:

“The amount of any pre-existing or concurrently entered court ordered spousal support shall be deducted from the gross income of the parent obligated to pay such spousal support and shall be included in determining the adjusted gross income of the parent entitled to receive such spousal support.”

The trial court neither deducted father’s spousal support from his income nor included the spousal support in mother’s income. He claims that her child support obligation must be recalculated in accordance with the rule.

Mother claims that the amount of child support was stipulated and that father never argued in the trial court that his stipulation was contingent on an adjustment of the parties’ incomes for the award of spousal support.

Father is correct. The parties did not stipulate to the child support obligation. Father’s child support computation worksheet, stating the presumed child support payable by mother as $212.76, was admitted as an exhibit without objection. Mother’s counsel stated that he agreed “that the $212.76 amount calculated as child support is the correct amount, absence [sic] spousal support.” (Emphasis supplied.) Father’s calculation did not adjust the figure for spousal support, because that was not determined until the court entered judgment. He adequately preserved his claim that the child support obligation should be adjusted for any award of spousal support.¹

[727]*727Remanded for recalculation of child support; otherwise affirmed. Costs to father.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DURHAM, J.

Father appeals from a dissolution judgment that awarded him custody of the parties’ minor child. Only one of his assignments of error requires discussion.

Father argues that the trial court erred when it calculated the child support obligation imposed on mother. OAR 137-50-390 provides:

“The amount of any pre-existing or concurrently entered court ordered spousal support shall be deducted from the gross income of the parent obligated to pay such spousal support and shall be included in determining the adjusted gross income of the parent entitled to receive such spousal support.”

The trial court neither deducted father’s spousal support from his income nor included the spousal support in mother’s income. He claims that her child support obligation must be recalculated in accordance with the rule.

Mother claims that the amount of child support was stipulated and that father never argued in the trial court that his stipulation was contingent on an adjustment of the parties’ incomes for the award of spousal support.

Father is correct. The parties did not stipulate to the child support obligation. Father’s child support computation worksheet, stating the presumed child support payable by mother as $212.76, was admitted as an exhibit without objection. Mother’s counsel stated that he agreed “that the $212.76 amount calculated as child support is the correct amount, absence [sic] spousal support.” (Emphasis supplied.) Father’s calculation did not adjust the figure for spousal support, because that was not determined until the court entered judgment. He adequately preserved his claim that the child support obligation should be adjusted for any award of spousal support.¹

[727]*727Remanded for recalculation of child support; otherwise affirmed. Costs to father.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 P.2d 98, 115 Or. App. 724, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marriage-of-hirscht-orctapp-1992.