Title: Lawrence v. Lawrence

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Reversed February 17, 1954.
Petition for rehearing denied March 17, 1954.
Francis F. Yunker, of Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was P.K. Hammond, of Oregon City.
William Miller, of Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were McCarty, Dickson & Swindells, of Portland.
*629 Before LATOURETTE, Chief Justice, and WARNER, ROSSMAN and PERRY, Justices.
REVERSED.
LATOURETTE, C.J.
Plaintiff and defendant, pending a divorce proceeding, entered into a property settlement wherein the following stipulation was inserted:
Shortly after the divorce was obtained, and in July, 1950, defendant secured employment with the Beall Pipe & Tank Company at a salary of $240.00 per month. Plaintiff continued the alimony payments until June, 1951, at which time the Beall Pipe & Tank Company offered defendant a ten per cent increase in salary, which she declined.
In a declaratory judgment proceeding in which both asked for relief, the trial court held that plaintiff was still obligated to pay alimony. Plaintiff appeals.
As to the offer and declination of the ten per cent *630 increase in salary, we quote from the testimony of defendant:
*631 It is our opinion that the court erred in holding plaintiff to the further payment of alimony. Unquestionably it was the intention of the parties, when the property settlement arrangement was made, that when defendant was in a position to sustain herself or remarry the alimony should cease. The sum of $250.00 was the amount determined which would afford defendant ample sustenance. To all intents and purposes, when she was offered the additional ten per cent increase in salary, she, in contemplation of law, earned the same.
Reversed.