*1 May 8, Argued August and submitted affirmed Marriage the Matter of the VASCONCELLOS,
Respondent, VASCONCELLOS,
Appellant. (No. 80-3334-NJ-3, A23351) CA Pinnock, Ashland, Donald M. argued the cause for appellant. With him on the Davis, Ainsworth, brief was Pinnock, & Gilstrap, P.C., Davis Ashland. Miller,
S. Susannah Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. Richardson,
Before Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Hoomissen, Van Judges. *2 appeals denial of his motion to from the
Husband spousal by terminating decree a dissolution “cohabitating” support. that wife is He contends provides for termination and that the decree another man support upon Husband’s “Motion such cohabitation. actually Modify” the anti- a suit to enforce the decree is the Nevada decree. February marriage parties’ on was dissolved The perti- provided, in decree The dissolution 1980, in Nevada. part: nent spou- to rehabilitative is entitled plaintiff “That [wife] DOL- THOUSAND of ONE in the amount sal (5) years period five ($1,000.00) per for a month LARS dies, plaintiff or until decision the Court’s the date of from man, event whichever remarries, or cohabits paid be on or support shall Said first occur. shall day month.” of each the fifth
before registered parties Husband Both pursuant foreign judgment ORS Oregon aas decree 24.115. *3 September, children 1981, wife and the four In Eugene enable wife to attend moved from Medford University moved to When wife at the classes Eugene, her in her. He lived with friend moved with a male apparently out, one month but for about the effect of the cohabitation concern over because of wife’s that even after decree. The friend testified clause in the moving nights percent spent of his at about 80 out he still wife’s residence. stopped making spousal October, 1981, husband
support payments. result, financial situation As a wife’s money from her male friend on borrowed worsened. Wife only loans, than the two the other Other two occasions. family provided his to wife and the was the friend taking dinner. them out to judge
The trial denied husband’s motion to finding cohabitating decree, the that wife was not argument man. Husband’s sole at trial and on with another appeal to eliminate that the decree should be modified is
393 spousal support because wife is cohabitating man. argue ability Husband does not that his the pay support has changed or that wife’s have needs Thus, changed. only change the alleged circumstance is wife’s cohabitation another man.
On de
agree
novo review we
with the trial court
petitioner
that
was not cohabiting within the usual and
accepted legal meaning
that
term. See
v.
Weseman
Weseman,
675,
942,
51 Or App
626 P2d
rev den
Affirmed. Costs to HOOMISSEN, J., VAN concurring. review,
On de novo
I agree with the conclusion
reached
the
by
judge
trial
that wife
“cohabiting”
was not
Walter,
the legal
721,
sense. See Walter and
27
App
Or
1,
(1976).
n
only
I concur
to note that we do not
here decide
whether
in a foreign
Grove,
decree is
Compare
enforceable.
Grove and
Or
341, 354-56,
477,
769,
571 P2d
280 Or
572 P2d
modified
(1977),
Aldrich,
540,
with Aldrich v.
378 US
84 S Ct
(1964).