167 Or. App. 135 1 P.3d 1034

Argued and submitted January 27,

affirmed May 3, 2000

In the Matter of the Marriage of John Mearl KROKER, Respondent, and Sharon A. KROKER, Appellant.

(97-2013; CA A105810)

1 P3d 1034

*136Edward L. Daniels argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Russell Lipetzky argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.

KISTLER, J.

*137KISTLER, J.

Wife appeals from a judgment of dissolution awarding her $1,500 per month indefinite spousal support. She argues that the trial court should have awarded her one-half of husband’s gross monthly income because she “needs a sum of money equal to what Husband has ‘to achieve an economic standard of living not overly disproportionate to that enjoyed during the marriage[.]’ ” We review de novo, ORS 107.405 (1997), and affirm.

Husband and wife married in 1965. In 1997, husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage. Husband is in good health and works as a head millwright for Willamette Industries. The trial court found that husband’s gross monthly income is $4,800. Wife has not worked in the last 25 years. She testified that she suffers from numerous health problems. Although the trial court “wonder[ed] a little about all [wife’s] medical problems,” it concluded that “she is unemployable in the regular job market.”1 The trial court did not accept wife’s request for spousal support equal to one half of husband’s gross income. It determined that her claimed expenses were overstated2 and found that “[wjife’s proposed award * * * would put her in a living situation better than that enjoyed during the marriage.” The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution awarding wife $1,500 per month indefinite spousal support and divided approximately $300,000 in marital property equally between the parties.

On appeal, the parties do not dispute that, in light of wife’s health problems, wife is entitled to receive a substantial portion of husband’s monthly income as spousal support. See Taraghi and Spanke-Taraghi, 159 Or App 480, 490-91, 977 P2d 453 (1999) (considering spouse’s health problems in determining spousal support). They do dispute whether, in calculating spousal support, the trial court properly *138considered the tax consequences to husband. See ORS 107.105(l)(d)(H) (1997) (directing courts to consider tax consequences when calculating spousal support).3 The evidence in the record establishes that if, as wife urges, husband were required to pay her $2,400 (half of his gross income) each month, he would be left with approximately $600 each month in take-home pay on which to live.4 Husband, of course, may deduct spousal support payments from his gross income in calculating his annual income tax. See 26 USC § 215(a) (1994). No evidence, however, was presented at trial as to how much that deduction would benefit husband, and we may not speculate what that benefit might be. See Adams and Adams, 121 Or App 187, 192, 854 P2d 501 (1993); Alexander and Alexander, 87 Or App 259, 261-62, 742 P2d 63 (1987).

In determining that husband should pay wife $1,500 a month in indefinite spousal support, the trial court considered husband’s net monthly income, the approximately $150,000 that wife received in the property division, the amount that wife needs to maintain a standard of living that is not overly disproportionate to the standard the parties experienced during their marriage, and wife’s ability to receive some subsidized medical care. See Mills and Mills, 141 Or App 58, 61-62, 917 P2d 498 (1996). On this record, the trial court properly considered the relevant statutory factors *139in setting spousal support and concluded that $1,500 per month indefinite spousal support was just and equitable under the circumstances. See ORS 107.105(l)(d); Taraghi, 159 Or App at 490.

Affirmed.

In re the Marriage of Kroker
167 Or. App. 135 1 P.3d 1034

Case Details

Name
In re the Marriage of Kroker
Decision Date
May 3, 2000
Citations

167 Or. App. 135

1 P.3d 1034

Jurisdiction
Oregon

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!