Roberts and Roberts

“In determining whether to terminate spousal support, the court must consider the purpose of the support award and whether it has been satisfied.” Rubey and Rubey, 165 OR App 616, 621 (2000).

Husband appeals from a supplemental judgment that reduced his spousal support obligation but did not terminate it. Husband assigns error to the trial court’s statement that the general judgment of dissolution did not state a purpose for the award and erred in not deferring the dissolution court’s determination that support would only continue until Husband’s retirement. Husband and Wife were married 22 years. The general judgment of dissolution divided the assets equally, and awarded Wife indefinite monthly maintenance support of $1,500. Wife was also awarded 50% of the marital portion of Husband’s pension. Prior to dissolution, Wife earned $2,000 monthly and Husband earned $8,000 monthly. Husband retired and both Husband and Wife began drawing on his pension. Wife’s income became $5,500 per month while Husband’s was $4,671. Husband petitioned for modification or termination based on substantial change in circumstances. “In determining whether to terminate spousal support, the court must consider the purpose of the support award and whether it has been satisfied.” Rubey and Rubey, 165 OR App 616, 621 (2000). The Court reasoned the judgment of dissolution was not required to state a specific purpose for the award of maintenance spousal support and that the statement of the trial court was aimed at the fact the judgment did not describe the purpose in more detail other than stating it was for maintenance. The Court also determined the record did not indicate the purpose of the spousal support award was to equalize incomes given that Husband’s income was higher than Wife’s following the dissolution until his retirement. The Court held the decision was within the trial court’s discretion. Affirmed.