Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GOSS, 57 Or. App. 836 (1982)

In the Matter of Marriage of GOSS, Appellant, & GOSS, Respondent., 646 P.2d 111 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1982-06-16
Topic
general

MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GOSS, 57 Or. App. 836 (1982) 646 P.2d 111 In the Matter of the Marriage of GOSS, Appellant, and GOSS, Respondent. No. D8006-65076, CA A21604Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted December 14, 1981Resubmitted In Banc May 4, 1982 Affirmed June 16, 1982 In Banc Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Kathleen B.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GOSS, 57 Or. App. 836 (1982). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GOSS,57 Or. App. 836(1982)
646 P.2d 111
In the Matter of the Marriage of GOSS,Appellant,and GOSS,Respondent.
No. D8006-65076, CA A21604
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted December 14, 1981
Resubmitted In Banc May 4, 1982
Affirmed June 16, 1982
In Banc
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Kathleen B. Nachtigal, Judge.
Eric C. Larson, Gresham, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Larson and Sharp, Gresham.

Susan Watts, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Jack L. Kennedy and Kennedy, King McClurg, Portland.
PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

THORNTON, J., dissenting.Page 837
PER CURIAM
Onde novoreview, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.Pullen and Pullen,38 Or. App. 137,589 P.2d 1145,rev den286 Or. 449(1979);McCoy and McCoy,28 Or. App. 919,562 P.2d 207,clarified29 Or. App. 287,563 P.2d 738(1977).See also Haguewood and Haguewood,292 Or. 197,638 P.2d 1135(1981).
THORNTON, J.,dissenting.
Contrary to the majority, my review of this record persuades me that payment of $1,800 per month spousal support plus $700 per month in child support, a total of $2,500, is not equitable when compared to husband's average monthly income. I believe the majority opinion is based on an erroneous impression of the size of husband's business. According to the evidence, husband's primary income source is as a manufacturer's representative selling parts to Tektronix. The second source is a computerized bookkeeping service for two small travel agencies. The third is rendering computer management consulting services to another firm.

Under the formula applied by the trial court and approved by the majority wife would receive $1800 per month from husband for her spousal support (plus $700 for the children); husband would then have $900 per month for his living expenses. I do not believe that to be equitable and therefore respectfully dissent.

Joseph, C.J., and Richardson and Buttler, JJ., join in this dissent.Page 838