Card and Card

ORS 107.105(1) “generally does not authorize a court to award property as spousal support” unless “the assets awarded in the property division may also generate new income that may be considered in determining future spousal support payments.” Johnson and Price, 280 Or App 71, 79, 380 P3d 983 (2016).

Petitioner appealed from a judgment for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s decision to deny an award of spousal maintenance support. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it substituted an award of property for spousal maintenance support. Respondent did not appear on appeal. ORS 107.105(1) “generally does not authorize a court to award property as spousal support” unless “the assets awarded in the property division may also generate new income that may be considered in determining future spousal support payments.” Johnson and Price, 280 Or App 71, 79, 380 P3d 983 (2016). The Court held that the trial court erred in denying spousal maintenance support because the trial court impermissibly substituted property for spousal support and thus failed to consider the spousal support in the context of the division of property as a whole. Reversed and remanded.