In the Matter of the Marriage of Elizabeth Anne AAROE, Petitioner-Appellant Cross-Respondent, and David William AAROE, Respondent-Respondent Cross-Appellant.
and submitted January 9, 2017
County Circuit Court DR10020008, Eve L. Miller, Judge.
F. Schuster, II, argued the cause and fled the briefs for
Kimberly A. Quach argued the cause for
respondent-cross-appellant. With her on the briefs was Quach
Family L aw, P C.
DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and
Sercombe, Senior Judge. [*]
appeals a judgment modifying her spousal support and awarding
her indefinite maintenance in the amount of $17, 000 per
month. Husband cross-appeals and assigns error to both the
amount and duration of the award. The Court of Appeals
rejects wife's assignments of error without discussion
and writes only to address husband's cross-appeal. On
cross-appeal, husband argues that the trial court abused its
discretion because the change in circumstances that the court
relied on did not justify modifying the spousal support from
a limited duration award of $7, 000 per month to an
indefinite award of $17, 000 per month. Wife argues that the
evidence supported modifying the amount and duration of the
award. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
modifying wife's spousal support to an indefinite award
in the amount of $17, 000
on appeal and cross-appeal.
DEHOOG, P. J.
domestic relations case, wife appeals a judgment modifying
her spousal support and awarding her indefinite maintenance
support in the amount $17, 000 per month. Wife requests
de novo review and raises three assignments of
error. She contends that the trial court erred in finding
that she had not established that she had Lymes-Babesia
disease; that it abused its discretion in denying her request
to make the spousal support modification retroactive; and
that the amount of the court's award was not just and
equitable under the circumstances. Husband cross-appeals and
assigns error to both the amount and duration of the award.
He argues that, in light of what he views as the court's
express findings, it was an abuse of discretion to increase
the award in an amount greater than the change in
circumstances justified and to make the new award indefinite.
We reject wife's assignments of error without written
discussion and write only to address husband's
cross-appeal regarding the amount and duration of the award.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the court did
not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, we affirm on
the facts from the evidence presented at trial and limit our
discussion to those facts relevant to husband's
cross-appeal, which are largely undisputed. Husband and wife
married in 1996. In 2010, when wife and husband were 51 and
53 years of age, respectively, wife petitioned for indefinite
separation. Following a trial on wife's petition,
the trial court made the following findings of fact:
• Husband's income was at least $500, 000 per year;
• Wife did not have an income at the time of trial;
• Wife would have investment income following the trial
because her award of "approximately $2, 000, 000 in
non-retirement assets" would give her "the ability
to use [those] assets to generate $50, 000 per year in
• Wife was "very employable at a range of
jobs" and "should be able to secure *** employment
within 12 months" paying "at least $60, 000 per
[287 Or.App. 59] • Wife's proposed $25, 000 per
month in spousal support did "not reflect historical
spending levels" and was "inflated by costs that
[did not] currently exist and [were] unlikely to exist in the
• Wife's "reasonable living expenses [were] ***
$13, 500 per month, together with another $3, 500 per month
for income taxes, " giving "her necessary living
expenses total[ing] $17, 000 per month."
on those findings, the court entered a general judgment (the
2011 judgment) that dissolved the parties' marriage,
divided their assets, and, in relevant part, ordered the