In re the Marriage of Austin
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHaselton, P. J.
The majority concludes that the 1999 amendments to ORS 107.105(1)(d) created an entitlement to compensatory support without reference to enhancement of earning potential. That conclusion rests on a single word “or” — in ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B). However, when construed in context, that statute is, at least, ambiguous — and the legislative history of the 1999 amendments conclusively demonstrates that enhanced earning capacity is the sine qua non of compensatory support. Here, wife’s erstwhile contributions to husband’s education have not enhanced, and will never enhance, husband’s earning…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- White v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- Johnson v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Samuel v. KingCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- In re the Marriage of HarperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.