Minckler v. Minckler

“Modification of a spousal support award is proper if (1) the original purpose of the award has been fulfilled, or (2) subsequent changes have substantially affected one party’s ability to pay or the other party’s need for support.” Harless and Harless, 276 Or App 49, 53, 366 P3d 403 (2016) and there is consideration of the governing statute, ORS 107.135(4)(a)(A), states that “[t]he court *** shall consider income opportunities and benefits of the respective parties from all sources.”

Wife appeals trial court supplemental judgment discontinuing the husband’s obligation to provide monthly maintenance support. On appeal, Wife assigns error to the trial court’s determination, including “(1) by failing to consider husband’s income-earning capacity where husband voluntarily chose to retire early; and (2) by failing to determine whether husband’s retirement was in good faith as required under ORS 107.135(4)(b).” Husband contends that the trial court’s ruling to discontinue spousal support was correct. “Modification of a spousal support award is proper if (1) the original purpose of the award has been fulfilled, or (2) subsequent changes have substantially affected one party’s ability to pay or the other party’s need for support.” Harless and Harless, 276 Or App 49, 53, 366 P3d 403 (2016) (citing Beebe and Beebe, 244 Or App 44, 48, 260 P3d 601 (2011)). Where the trial court disregarded Husband’s earning capacity because he retired, the Court found that the trial court erred because the governing statute, ORS 107.135(4)(a)(A), states that “[t]he court *** shall consider income opportunities and benefits of the respective parties from all sources.” Further, the trial court erred because it did not take this determination into account when considering whether the termination was “just and equitable under the circumstances.” REVERSED AND REMANDED.