In the Matter of the Marriage of Kathleen Ann HUGHES-KUDA, Petitioner-Respondent, and Alan Peter KUDA, Respondent-Appellant.
and Submitted January 5, 2017
County Circuit Court 13DR04446; Timothy C. Gerking, Judge.
Graser argued the cause and fled the briefs for appellant.
W. Kelly argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent.
DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Duncan,
Judge pro tempore.
Summary: Husband appeals from the trial court's amended
general judgment of dissolution. The judgment directed wife
to pay husband spousal support of $2, 750 per month for six
and one half years. Husband challenges the award, contending
that the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to
award support indefinitely. Held: The trial court
did not abuse its discretion in setting spousal support to
terminate in relation to wife's age and career. The
parties kept separate finances, pursued their own careers,
and did not have children together. Husband was not a typical
caregiver or homemaker who curtailed a career to provide a
home for the benefit of the family.
Or.App. 555] DeVORE, P.J.
appeals from the trial court's amended general judgment
of dissolution. ORS 107.105. The judgment directed wife to
pay husband spousal support of $2, 750 per month for six and
one-half years. Husband challenges the award, contending that
the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to award
support indefinitely. We conclude that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.
does not seek de novo review, ORS 19.415(3), and we
do not believe such a review is warranted in this case.
See ORAP 5.40 (8)(c) (de novo review
appropriate only in exceptional cases). As a consequence, we
are "bound by the trial court's express and implicit
factual findings if they are supported by any evidence in the
record, and we state the facts consistently with that
standard." Morton and Morton, 252 Or.App. 525,
527, 287 P.3d 1227 (2012).
parties were married for 17 years. Before meeting husband,
wife had earned her medical degree and became a psychiatrist.
Throughout the marriage, wife worked demanding hours. Before
and during the marriage, husband owned several businesses.
parties did not have children. The parties often ate
separately, in part, due to wife's work schedule or her
dietary preferences. Husband did some laundry, and sometimes
each did their own. At times, wife hired people to help with
parties moved during the course of the marriage, living in
Montana, North Dakota, and finally Oregon. The moves were
prompted largely by wife's employment opportunities. At
each location, husband started a new business-tiling
businesses, a tree farm operation, and a car renovation
business. Eventually, each business proved to be
unsuccessful. Husband spent much of his time improving or
remodeling the parties' homes. For at least four years of
the marriage, wife rented a room closer to her work, living
only part time with husband.
Or.App. 556] During the marriage, the parties kept separate
finances. The parties did not have joint bank accounts or
joint credit cards, and they did not purchase assets
together. Wife paid all of the parties' household living
expenses, including the mortgages, utilities, health
insurance, home improvement costs, and other expenses. Wife
also helped pay off husband's consumer debt several
times. Generally, husband's financial contribution to the
marriage was relatively insignificant. Occasionally, husband
paid for restaurant dinners or movies, but, for the most
part, husband did not spend his money on marital or household
expenses. Any income husband derived from his businesses went
into his personal account or went back into those businesses.
In his business ...