Legal Opinion

In re the Marriage of McArdle

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 6, 2003No. 99-0333-D2 and 99-0372-D2; A114177PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

When husband’s income decreased after retirement, he moved for termination of his spousal support obligation. The court denied the motion. Husband appeals. On de novo review, ORS 19.415(3), we modify the judgment to reduce, but not terminate, the obligation. See Halsey and Halsey, 180 Or App 169, 171 n 1, 41 P3d 1119 (2002) (treating motion to terminate as motion to modify).

The parties’ 10-year marriage was dissolved by a judgment entered on November 9, 1999. At the time, husband was 61 years old and had a monthly income of $5,888 derived from two sources: $4,880 from his employment as an…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of BatesOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  2. In re the Marriage of AlbrichCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. In re the Marriage of HalseyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. In re the Marriage of MoserCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  5. In re the Marriage of HoagCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of HutchinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  2. In re the Marriage of HarlessCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  3. In re the Marriage of WaidCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  4. In re the Marriage of MitchellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API