Braun and Braun

“When a party seeks modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court ‘must determine whether there has been a substantial, unanticipated change in the economic circumstances since the time of the earlier award.’” Davis and Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 327-328, 401 P3d 1230 (2017). “If there has been, the trial court ‘must determine what amount of support is just and equitable under the totality of the circumstances.’” Id. at 328.

Husband moved to terminate a spousal support obligation to his wife under ORS 107.135, after losing his job with the Department of Corrections. Husband appealed the trial court judgment which reduced his monthly payments from $1,800 to $900 based upon the Court’s finding that his monthly income is less than $1000. Husband additionally owned a business that net approximately $500 to $700 a month after paying himself $1000 as a wage. On appeal, Husband challenged the court’s supplemental judgment of modification and argued the court abused its discretion when it continued spousal support payments in the amount of $900 a month – nearly all of husbands $1000 a month income. “When a party seeks modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court ‘must determine whether there has been a substantial, unanticipated change in the economic circumstances since the time of the earlier award.’” Davis and Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 327-328, 401 P3d 1230 (2017). “If there has been, the trial court ‘must determine what amount of support is just and equitable under the totality of the circumstances.’” Id. at 328. The Court held that to order $900 in spousal support payments when Husband’s income was less than $1000 was an abuse of discretion by the trial court, as the payments fall outside the realm of reasonableness. Reversed and remanded.