In Re the Marriage of HARRIS
244 P.3d 801
Or.2010Background
- This is a dissolution of marriage where the issue is whether wife is entitled to compensatory spousal support.
- Trial court declined compensatory support, saying wife's contributions were typical and did not enhance husband's earning potential.
- Court of Appeals agreed that wife’s contributions could be significant but affirmed for different reasons, remanding for proper statutory analysis.
- Oregon Supreme Court granted review to clarify standard for compensatory spousal support under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B).
- Court held wife’s contributions were significant and weighed in favor of compensatory support after applying all statutory factors.
- Court awarded wife $2,000 per month in compensatory spousal support for 10 years and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wife's contributions were significant to trigger compensatory support | Harris contends contributions are significant. | Harris argues contributions were typical and not significant. | Yes; contributions were significant and warranted consideration of compensatory support. |
| Proper statutory framework for compensatory spousal support under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B) | Harris argues the statute allows broader consideration of contributions. | Harris argues the Court should apply strict thresholds for significant contributions. | Court adopts broad construction; factors must be considered under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B). |
| How the amount and duration should be determined under the statutory factors | Harris advocates substantial compensatory award aligned with contributions. | Harris urges limited or no compensatory award due to asset distribution. | Award of $2,000 per month for 10 years is just and equitable. |
| Relation of marital estate extent already benefited to compensatory award | Harris argues offset by asset distribution should not bar compensation entirely. | Harris emphasizes significant assets offset the contribution. | Significant asset distribution and lifestyle do not preclude compensatory support; proceed with award. |
| Interplay with tax consequences and other listed factors | Harris points to tax efficiency and economic impact favoring compensation. | Harris contends tax effects are determinative; court should consider them. | Tax consequences were not dispositive; not central to determining award here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Denton and Denton, 326 Or. 236 (1998) (established that substantial, material contributions to education may justify enhanced earning capacity considerations)
- Austin v. Austin, 191 Or. App. 307 (2003) (acknowledged 1999 amendments broadened compensatory spousal support criteria)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (reaffirmed use of legislative history in statutory interpretation)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (1993) (statutory interpretation context; use of text and context to understand statutes)