Legal Opinion

In re the Marriage of Gohlman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 22, 1997No. D8505-63301; CA A90906PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

Husband appeals the trial court’s refusal to terminate or modify his spousal support obligation. We review de novo and affirm.

The parties’ 28-year marriage was dissolved in 1985. The dissolution judgment incorporated a stipulated settlement agreement that required husband to pay wife spousal support in the amount of $1,500 per month for a period of 12 months, $1,200 per month for the next 60 months and $1,000 per month for an indefinite period.1 Husband is currently paying $1,000 a month in support. He argues that this payment should be terminated or modified because (1) wife unreasonably has…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Compass Insurance Co. v. City of LittletonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
  2. In re the Marriage of BatesOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. In re the Marriage of HallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  4. Matter of Marriage of PowellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. Marriage of Blake v. BlakeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of WeberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. In re the Marriage of StutzCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  3. In re the Marriage of CoughlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API