Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Marriage of Skinner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 1, 2017

In the Matter of the Marriage of Cynthia R. SKINNER, nka Cynthia R. Davenport, Petitioner-Appellant Cross-Respondent, and Andrew J. SKINNER, Respondent-Respondent Cross-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted April 19, 2016

         Linn County Circuit Court 13DR02511; Thomas McHill, Judge.

          Edward L. Daniels argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Law Offce of Daniels and Ivers.

          Daniel S. Margolin argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant. With him on the briefs was Stephens & Margolin, LLP.

          Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

         Case Summary: Wife appeals a general judgment of dissolution, raising two assignments of error. In her frst assignment of error, wife argues that the trial court erred in its award of spousal maintenance support; wife raises two arguments concerning the amount and timing of the award. In her second assignment of error, wife argues that the trial court erred in setting child support based upon her imputed income. Husband cross-appeals, raising two assignments of error. Held: In determining spousal maintenance support, the trial court misapplied the factors specifed in ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C). First, the trial court erred when it denied wife spousal maintenance support for the frst fve years following [285 Or.App. 789] dissolution, because that denial was contrary to the court's express and implied fndings that at the time of dissolution wife was a full-time student with little to no fnancial resources and that it would take at least four years for wife to obtain her master's degree and earn a reasonable income. Second, in awarding spousal maintenance support, the trial court incorrectly imputed wife's estimated future income in calculating the amount of the spousal maintenance support award. Similarly, the trial court erred in setting wife's child support obligation because the court incorrectly imputed to wife a speculative future income-an income that wife estimated she could make after obtaining her master's degree-that did not relate to wife's present earning capacity at the time of dissolution. Husband's assignments of error on cross-appeal are rejected without discussion.

         On appeal, awards of spousal maintenance support and child support reversed and remanded; otherwise affrmed. Affrmed on cross-appeal.

         [285 Or.App. 790] TOOKEY, J.

         Wife appeals a general judgment of dissolution, raising two assignments of error. In her first assignment of error, wife argues that the trial court erred in its award of spousal maintenance support; wife raises two arguments concerning the amount and timing of the award. In her second assignment of error, wife argues that the trial court erred in setting child support based upon her imputed income. Husband cross-appeals, raising two assignments of error.[1] We write only to address wife's contentions on appeal, and reject without discussion husband's assignments of error on cross-appeal. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand the awards of spousal maintenance support and child support, and otherwise affirm on appeal and cross-appeal.

         On appeal, wife does not seek de novo review and this is not an exceptional case warranting such review. ORS l9.4l5(3)(b); ORAP 5.4O(8)(c). "Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court's express and implicit factual findings if they are supported by any evidence in the record." Andersen and Andersen. 258 Or.App. 568, 570, 310 P.3d 1171 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). We recite the facts consistently with that standard of review.

         The parties were married for over 20 years. At the time of dissolution, the parties' only child was 19 years old and was living with husband and attending community college.

         Husband has a high school education and had taken some classes at a community college. At the time of trial, husband worked for DNV/KEMA; husband estimated that his base salary was approximately $70, 400 per year, averaging a gross monthly income of $6, 200. In addition to husband's base salary, he enjoys a benefits package of an additional $24, 000; husband's entire "salary package" is approximately $94, 400.

         [285 Or.App. 791] Wife has a high school education and was employed during most of the marriage at various retail stores. Wife's most recent long-term employment was as a manager for Save-A-Lot; in that position, wife earned approximately $49, 000 per year, working seven days per week for about 75-85 hours per week. Additionally, that position required wife to commute from the family home in Albany to the store's location in Springfield, which added an additional two hours to her workday.

         Husband and wife agreed that wife should find a job that would allow wife to work fewer hours. Wife was unable to find work at a comparable income because her experience made her too qualified for sales or retail work and her education was inadequate for management positions that might have approached her income at Save-A-Lot. As a result, in order to qualify for management positions and earn a higher salary, wife decided to return to school. The parties disputed whether they had agreed that wife would pursue ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.