Matter of Marriage of Yantis
This text of 629 P.2d 883 (Matter of Marriage of Yantis) 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.
Opinions
Husband appeals a dissolution decree awarding wife permanent support of $300 monthly, contending that no support was justified or, in the alternative, that less support should have been ordered and for a limited period. We review de novo and affirm as modified.
The parties have been married 24 years. Two children were bom of the marriage, one is now married and the other, age 20, is a full time student.1 The parties reported $20,166 gross income in 1979, of which $16,499 was earned by husband.
Husband, a high school graduate, is 45 years of age and in good health. He has been employed for more than 15 years by the same employer and earns about $1,300 monthly gross pay. His deductions total about $482 monthly, which includes a payment of $51 to his pension program.2 This leaves him about $818 monthly take home pay. From this husband must pay $200 monthly child support through April, 1981. Husband estimates his other expenses are $775 monthly, including a monthly credit union payment of $180 on an obligation which was discharged in July, 1980. He indicates he pays $115 monthly for housing expenses, using the parties’ former home (title to which was reconveyed upon separation to wife’s father, who had originally conveyed it to them); however, he testified he had not been making the payments. His other major estimated monthly expenses are food $150, utilities $100, transportation $65 and entertainment $50.
Wife, also a high school graduate, is 42 years of age. She suffers from migraine headaches and has an ulcer. [828]*828She has recently seen a psychiatrist for acute depression.3 Wife was 18 years old the year the parties married. Between 1956 and 1971 she worked at home in the role of wife, mother and homemaker. Commencing in 1971 and up to the present time, she has worked part-time as a cook’s helper, meat wrapper and school bus driver. She is presently employed nine months annually as a part-time school bus driver. She recently completed á typing course and believes she will be able to get a summertime office job. She earns about $438 monthly gross pay, and she has monthly take-home pay of about $320. She estimates her [829]*829monthly expenses will be $730. Some of her figures are only estimates because, between the time of the parties’ final separation in November, 1979, and the hearing, "wife lived with someone else and shared expenses. She testified that she did so only because she could not afford to support herself on her income and that she hoped to get a place of her own. The record is not clear whether she has any pension program. If she has, it has only minimal value at this time.4
The parties have divided their personal property in an amicable manner. At trial, wife did not ask for a monetary settlement on account of husband’s pension plan.5 In lieu thereof, she asked for spousal support. Although wife disclaimed any interest in husband’s pension plan, we realize she did so with an understanding that an equitable award of support would be made. The trial court awarded wife permanent support of $300 monthly. Husband appeals.
We find: (1) the parties have agreed that husband should pay $200 monthly child support thru April, 1981; (2) the parties have divided all their marital property other than husband’s pension plan, and it appears to us that the distribution is substantially even; (3) husband’s pension program is marital property; (4) the incomes, pensions, disability and fringe benefits of the parties are grossly [830]*830disproportionate and probably will remain so in the future; and (5) husband’s health is good, but it appears wife suffers from health problems that may reduce her earning capacity and/or increase the cost of her support.
This is a case where, arguably, the combined incomes of the parties is barely enough to maintain one household. Now the parties will have to maintain two households, and this will no doubt work a hardship on both of them. Something must give.
Wife needs additional income. She has several options available to her. First, she may seek full-time, year-round employment. Second, she may seek other part-time employment to supplement income from her present part-time employment. Third, if she elects to continue with part-time employment, she may earn additional income by extending her part-time employment from nine to twelve months annually.
ORS 107.105(l)(c) defines certain factors which a court is to consider in determining the amount and duration of spousal support. Grove and Grove, 280 Or 341, 571 P2d 477, modified, 280 Or 769, 572 P2d 1320 (1977), and Kitson and Kitson, 17 Or App 648, 523 P2d 575, rev den (1974), provide guidelines for the application of these statutory criteria.
We believe support at the level ordered by this court, when combined with her current and future potential income, will provide wife with a standard of living which is not overly disproportionate to the one she enjoyed during this long-term marriage. Kitson and Kitson, supra, 17 Or App at 655. We have held that in the dissolution of a marriage of substantial duration we will attempt to see that the parties separate on as equal a basis as possible. Lake and Lake, 22 Or App 195, 538 P2d 97 (1975). We have also held that we will not ignore the economic impact of health problems. Grove and Grove, supra, 280 Or at 350. Nor will we ignore the reality recognized in Grove:
"* * * that, at least until recent years, young women entering marriage were led to believe — if not expressly by their husbands-to-be, certainly implicity by the entire culture in which they had come to maturity — that they need not develop any special skills or abilities beyond those [831]*831necessary to homemaking and child care, because their husbands, if they married, would provide their financial support and security. We cannot hold that women who relied on that assurance, regardless of whether they sacrificed any special career plans of their own when they married, must as a matter of principle be limited to the standard of living they can provide for themselves if 'employed at a job commensurate with [their] skills and abilities.’ The marriage itself may well have prevented the development of those skills and abilities.” 280 Or at 351.
Each case must be resolved upon its own facts. Applying ORS 107.105(l)(c), as interpreted in Grove and Kitson, to the facts of this case, we conclude that permanent spousal support in the sum of $150 monthly is appropriate from the date of the decree until May 1, 1981. This will about equalize the current income of the parties, but giving some advantage to husband, because he can deduct spousal support which is taxable income to her. When husband’s child support obligation is terminated, his disposable income will be increased by $200 monthly. We believe that wife should share in this increase, if for no other reason than because she has relinquished any interest in husband’s pension program. Accordingly, wife’s permanent spousal support shall be increased from $150 to $200 monthly effective May 1, 1981.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
629 P.2d 883, 52 Or. App. 825, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-marriage-of-yantis-orctapp-1981.