Opinion ID: 1228809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legislative policy governing spousal support

Text: The legislature in ORS 107.105(1)(c) made certain policy choices by indicating that the factors listed shall be considered in awarding spousal support and by providing that the courts may consider other matters. The legislature has not, however, indicated how the various factors are to be weighed or given the courts any specific directions for determining what kind of spousal support is just and equitable. For example, the statute directs the court to consider the duration of the marriage. It does not indicate, however, the significance to be given that factor. The courts must determine, because the legislature has not, whether support payments should be higher or lower upon the dissolution of a lengthy marriage than upon the dissolution of a relatively brief marriage (assuming that all other factors are the same). We find limited additional guidance to legislative policy in ORS 107.407 [2] which indicates that efforts by the supported spouse to become self-supporting and independent of the former spouse are favored. We also note that the 1977 legislature has amended the marriage dissolution statutes in several particulars which are helpful in determining the applicable policy, although they were not in force at the time of the decree which we are considering in this case. One such change is the addition to ORS 107.105(1)(c) of a provision that the court, in determining spousal support, is to consider: The need for maintenance, retraining or education to enable the spouse to become employable at suitable work or to enable the spouse to pursue career objectives;    1977 Or. Laws ch. 847 § 2. Although suitable work is not defined, we interpret the term, in light of the further provision for enabling the supported spouse to pursue career objectives, as not necessarily limited to work which will provide the supported spouse with an income adequate for minimal self-support. In addition, the courts have been directed, when dividing the parties' property, to:    view the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker in the contribution of marital assets. There is a rebuttable presumption that both spouses have contributed equally to the acquisition of property during the marriage.    1977 Or. Laws ch. 847 § 2. Although this provision is not directly applicable to spousal support awards, it indicates a legislative intent that the homemaker spouse, who is most likely to seek spousal support, be recognized as an economic contributor to the marriage rather than as a passive recipient of economic benefits provided by the breadwinner. [3]