Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Jean L. Lewis, Judge.
Darrell E. Bewley and Francis F. Yunker, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Legal Aid Service -- Multnomah Bar Association, Inc., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Thornton, Judge. Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley, Judge.
This is a suit for modification of the alimony provision of a divorce decree. Defendant husband contends that, since plaintiff has remarried, his obligation to pay alimony should end. The trial court denied defendant's motion seeking modification, and he appeals. We affirm.
The parties to this appeal were married in 1946, and divorced effective June 7, 1971. The divorce decree awarded plaintiff $100 per month as permanent alimony. The decree did not specify that alimony would terminate on the plaintiff's remarriage.
On December 4, 1971, plaintiff married a Mr. Hansen. However, on January 4, 1972, she separated permanently from Mr. Hansen.
Meanwhile, defendant had learned of his ex-wife's remarriage, and he also married again on January 1, 1972. On February 3, 1972, defendant filed his motion to terminate alimony payments.*fn1 An initial hearing on his motion was held on February 25, 1972.
Plaintiff and Mr. Hansen were divorced on May 22, 1972. Plaintiff received neither property nor support as a result of this divorce.
After a second hearing on defendant's motion to set aside alimony, held on June 2, 1972, the court denied the motion.*fn2
Defendant contends that this denial is error.
Defendant first argues that his obligation to plaintiff should terminate, claiming that she is an alcoholic and that he has devoted considerable time and money seeking help for her. Defendant's argument is without merit. A suit seeking modification of a divorce decree is only concerned with any change in circumstances occurring since the divorce. Hurner v. Hurner, 179 Or 349, 170 P2d 720 (1946). Whatever the plaintiff's condition and defendant's efforts ...