Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; January 12, 1999; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Husband appeals the judgment dissolving their 25-year marriage, contesting the spousal support award and property division. The couple married in 1972 and has no children; husband is 46 and wife is 48 at trial. Husband, with a Master’s degree, has worked as a forester for the U.S. Forest Service since 1972, earning $4,000 monthly. In contrast, wife, also with a Master’s degree and nearly completed doctoral thesis, has worked in education but has faced employment challenges due to funding cuts, estimating her income from part-time teaching at $1,244 monthly beginning fall 1997.
Wife suffers from multiple serious medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease, transient ischemic attacks, diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which significantly affect her health and employability. Her medical expenses average $10,000 annually, and she has COBRA health insurance costing $500 monthly, along with additional unreimbursed costs of around $350 monthly. Despite her health issues, her physician states she is capable of working. If disabled, she would receive $1,125 monthly in disability income.
The couple maintained an unusual living arrangement, having lived separately for much of their marriage due to husband's job transfers, with husband visiting wife bi-weekly. They agreed on separate finances despite joint bank accounts. Upon husband’s transfer to Lowell in 1980, they built a home in Corvallis designed to accommodate wife’s physical needs. The court affirms the dissolution judgment on de novo review.
Husband served as the general contractor for the home, contributing significantly to its construction. Following his transfer to Diamond Lake in 1985, he visited wife biweekly, maintaining separate financial arrangements but covering house payments, taxes, and insurance. The home's value was stipulated at $215,000. The trial court awarded the home to wife along with assets totaling $328,000, while husband received assets worth $264,351, without an equalizing judgment. Additionally, wife was granted spousal support of $1,000 per month for seven years, transitioning to $500 per month indefinitely.
Husband contested the spousal support, arguing that their unique relationship and wife's lack of contribution to his earning capacity warranted a lower support amount of $450 per month. The court, however, rejected this notion, asserting that their living and financial arrangements did not signify separation. Despite living apart for most of the marriage, they maintained a marital relationship, spending weekends together and constructing a home adapted to wife's needs.
While acknowledging that wife has the education to support herself, the court determined the disparity in incomes and wife's ongoing health issues justified the spousal support arrangement, allowing her to maintain a standard of living similar to that during the marriage.
Husband also claimed the court erred by not equally dividing marital assets, arguing that his contributions to the home’s acquisition were greater. The trial court's decision to award wife a larger share was based on her health challenges and the necessity for equity in the home, which has been previously upheld in similar circumstances.
Husband cites Wilson v. Wilson as precedent for equal division of marital property despite significant disparities in earning capacity, noting a 20-year marriage. However, the court distinguishes this case based on the wife's age and health; she is 48 with significant physical issues, unlike the 39-year-old wife in Wilson who was in good health. The court rejects the husband's argument for an equalizing judgment due to these circumstances. Additionally, the husband claims the court erred by not discounting retirement accounts for tax implications, which he argues led to an unfair property division. The court finds no error in its decision, stating that while it may consider tax consequences, it is not obligated to do so. The husband's unsupported claim of a 30 percent tax liability lacks expert testimony on tax implications for each pension. The trial court determined both parties would face tax consequences but opted not to adjust the accounts or account for the wife's reduced life expectancy. The court awarded each party their full retirement account value, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's decision.
