In Re the Marriage of Cassezza
243 Or App 400, 260 P.3d 504, 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 842 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oregon law, an award of transitional spousal support is only appropriate when there is evidence that the receiving party intends to use the funds to attain education or training necessary for reentry into the job market or for career advancement.
Facts:
- Husband and Wife divorced after an 18-year marriage.
- Husband, aged 37, was an engineer earning $120,000 per year.
- Wife, aged 44, had a GED and worked part-time from home as a contract transcriptionist, earning approximately $10,000 to $12,000 annually.
- Wife testified that she suffered from several health conditions, including an anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, and fibromyalgia, which limited her ability to work full-time outside the home.
- Wife also testified that she had no intention of obtaining further education or training to advance her employment opportunities.
- Husband expressed skepticism about the severity of Wife's health problems, citing her online posts about an active lifestyle.
Procedural Posture:
- The parties' marriage was dissolved in a state trial court.
- The trial court's judgment ordered Husband to pay Wife $1,500 per month in indefinite maintenance support and $500 per month for 18 months in transitional spousal support.
- Husband (appellant) appealed the dissolution judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- On appeal, Husband challenged only the trial court's awards of transitional and maintenance spousal support to Wife (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an award of transitional spousal support under ORS 107.105(l)(d)(A) require evidence that the receiving party intends to attain education or training to re-enter the job market or advance their career?
Opinions:
Majority - Brewer, C. J.
Yes. An award of transitional spousal support under ORS 107.105(l)(d)(A) is improper without evidence that the recipient intends to use it for job-related education or training. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute expressly limits the purpose of transitional support to attaining education and training for job market reentry or advancement. Here, Wife explicitly stated she had no such plans. The trial court's goal of providing funds for Wife to manage her health and 'take charge of her life' does not align with the statutory purpose of transitional support. The court clarified that a party's health-related needs are properly considered and addressed through an award of maintenance spousal support, not transitional support. Because the award was mislabeled, the court struck the transitional support but, exercising de novo review, reclassified the amount as additional, temporary maintenance support to address Wife's health needs, deeming it just and equitable overall.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the statutory purpose of transitional spousal support, reinforcing the distinction between it and maintenance support. It serves as a clear directive to trial courts that they cannot use a transitional support award as a flexible tool for general financial assistance, even with benevolent intentions. The ruling mandates that the purpose of the award must align precisely with the statutory definition, meaning a party must present a credible plan for education or training to qualify. This case solidifies that health issues and general life adjustments are the province of maintenance support, preventing the blurring of lines between the different statutory categories of spousal support.
