In the Matter of the Marriage of THOMAS A. WAID, Petitioner-Respondent, and JEANNE A. WAID, Respondent-Appellant. JEANNE A. WAID, Third-Party Petitioner-Appellant, and JEROME C. WAID; GLENN A. TOFELL; LAREE N. WAID-TOFELL; and GLENN A. TOFELL and LAREE N. WAID-TOFELL as trustees for Levi Tofell, Tess A. Tofell and Alexis L. Waid, Third-Party Respondents-Respondents.
Argued and submitted on May 20, 2013.
Klamath County Circuit Court 0803798CV, Cameron F. Wogan, Judge.
George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Rebecca Whitney-Smith argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Thomas A. Waid.
Amanda M. Walkup and Hershner Hunter, LLP, filed the brief for respondents Glenn A. Tofell, Laree N. Waid-Tofell, and Glenn A. Tofell and Laree N. Waid-Tofell, as trustees for Levi Tofell, Tess A. Tofell, and Alexis L. Waid.
No appearance for respondent Jerome C. Waid.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.
Wife appeals a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, challenging three provisions of the judgment. We affirm, writing only to address the award of spousal support.
We take the following facts, which are supported by evidence in the record, from the trial court's letter opinion. See, e.g., Morton and Morton, 252 Or.App. 525, 527, 287 P.3d 1227 (2012) (when the Court of Appeals does not exercise its discretion to review an equitable action de novo, it is bound by the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by any evidence in the record). At the time of the court's decision in January 2011, the parties had been married more than 42 years. Husband was 69 and wife was 64.
Husband owns a business and has been self-employed in that business for many years. He started drawing Social Security at age 62 but continues to work "occasionally" in his business. After expenses, husband receives about $15, 000 annually from his business. He lives on the family ranch; annual net proceeds to husband from ranch operations are about $6, 000. Husband also receives about $10, 000 annually in Social Security benefits. Accordingly, husband's total annual income at the time of trial was about $31, 000. The trial court found that he will continue to have a similar income.
At the time of trial in August and October 2010, wife worked as a medical technician, earning about $27, 000 per year gross, or $21, 500 after deductions. Wife had no additional income.
In a letter opinion, the trial court concluded:
"[Wife] is about 5 years younger than [husband] and she can continue working and enjoy take home income of about $21, 500, just slightly less than [husband's] income [of $25, 000] from Social Security and his business. Splitting the ranch proceeds equally would nearly equalize the parties' incomes. [Husband] proposes that the court do so, but I am concerned that would involve ongoing disputes about what constitutes legitimate deductions. To avoid those disputes, I order that [husband] ...