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.
and submitted April 19, 2016
County Circuit Court 13DR02511; Thomas McHill, Judge.
L. Daniels argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent.
With him on the briefs was Law Offce of Daniels and Ivers.
S. Margolin argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant.
With him on the briefs was Stephens & Margolin, LLP.
Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and DeHoog,
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.
appeal, awards of spousal maintenance support and child
support reversed and remanded; otherwise affrmed. Affrmed on
Or.App. 790] TOOKEY, J.
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. 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ...