Parker v. Parker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Parker v. Parker

564 P.2d 292, 29 Or. App. 421, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2324

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 16, 1977

DocketNo. 67058, CA 6948

StatusPublished

This text of 564 P.2d 292 (Parker v. Parker) 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

Parker v. Parker, 564 P.2d 292, 29 Or. App. 421, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2324 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWAB, C. J.

The 25-year marriage of the parties was ended by a decree of divorce in 1970. For reasons which we need not set forth here the wife left the marriage without any substantial assets by way of property settlement but was awarded, in addition to child support, $500 per month permanent alimony.

After the divorce the wife attended college and is now employed as a teacher with take-home pay of approximately $6,000 per year. The husband’s after-tax income is $58,000 per year. The trial judge disagreed with the husband’s contention that the $52,000-per-year disparity in income was insufficient to justify continuance of alimony payments. We agree with the trial judge that the required alimony should not be eliminated or reduced. We also agree with the trial judge that, contrary to the wife’s position, there is no basis for increasing the alimony.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

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

SCHWAB, C. J.

The 25-year marriage of the parties was ended by a decree of divorce in 1970. For reasons which we need not set forth here the wife left the marriage without any substantial assets by way of property settlement but was awarded, in addition to child support, $500 per month permanent alimony.

After the divorce the wife attended college and is now employed as a teacher with take-home pay of approximately $6,000 per year. The husband’s after-tax income is $58,000 per year. The trial judge disagreed with the husband’s contention that the $52,000-per-year disparity in income was insufficient to justify continuance of alimony payments. We agree with the trial judge that the required alimony should not be eliminated or reduced. We also agree with the trial judge that, contrary to the wife’s position, there is no basis for increasing the alimony.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 P.2d 292, 29 Or. App. 421, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-parker-orctapp-1977.