McKinnon v. McKinnon

Minor changes in monthly income does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances for the purpose of assessing spousal support obligations.

Wife appealed a supplemental judgment modifying spousal support. On February 8, 2005 the dissolution court entered a stipulated general judgment of dissolution. On May 27, 2007 the court entered a stipulated corrected judgment. The corrected judgment stated Husband’s income to be $4,110 monthly and Wife’s income to be $1,325 for the same period. The judgment further awarded Wife the right to insure Husband’s life pursuant to ORS 107.810, including the right to require Husband to submit to a physical examination. In May 2010, Husband filed a motion to terminate or reduce spousal support on the grounds that Wife had an increase in income since the last order. The trial court found that Wife’s income had nearly doubled, and negated Husband’s obligation to submit to physical examination for life insurance purposes. Wife appealed. On de novo review, the Court found only a minor increase in Wife’s monthly income since the last order. The Court held that this minor change does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances for purposes of evaluating spousal support obligations. Furthermore, the Court found that Wife was entitled to purchase insurance on her Husband’s life to insure his support obligation; where that obligation continues the party must submit to physical examination pursuant to ORS 107.820(3). Supplemental judgment modifying corrected general judgment of dissolution reversed.