Boatfield and Boatfield

"The general rules is that the amount of a support award is not justified if it is 'outside' the 'range of reasonableness by a significant enough margin so as not to be just and equitable in the totality of pertinent circumstances.'" Cullen and Cullen, 223 Or App 183, 194, 194 P3d 866 (2008).

Wife appealed a general judgment of dissolution and a supplemental judgment awarding spousal support. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s award of spousal support and decision to not require Husband to obtain life insurance with Wife named as beneficiary. On appeal, Wife argued that the spousal support awarded to her was not "just and equitable," under ORS 107.105(1)(d), given the length of the marriage and the disparate income between her and Husband. In response, Husband argued the spousal award was "just and equitable" because it served as transitional spousal support for Wife until she developed some "income-generating skills" of her own. "The general rules is that the amount of a support award is not justified if it is 'outside' the 'range of reasonableness by a significant enough margin so as not to be just and equitable in the totality of pertinent circumstances.'" Cullen and Cullen, 223 Or App 183, 194, 194 P3d 866 (2008). The Court held that the trial court: (1) “failed to properly consider all of the relevant factors in its decision to deny spousal maintenance support;” (2) inappropriately awarded transitional spousal support based on a speculation of when Husband would retire and how long it would take Wife to retrain for an occupation; and (3) failed to provide any statutory basis or explanation for denying Wife’s request for Husband to acquire a life insurance policy.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of spousal support and life insurance awards; otherwise affirmed.