## Facts

- The parties married in 1990 and dissolved their marriage after approximately 16 years.
- During husband’s college and dental school, wife worked full time and provided primary or near-primary financial support for household expenses and schooling-related costs.
- The couple had a child while husband was in dental school; wife was the primary caregiver.
- After dental school, husband assumed a dental practice and earned roughly $300,000–$400,000 annually over time; the family lived comfortably.
- The parties had a second child; wife became a stay-at-home parent and later worked part time in husband’s dental office.
- At dissolution (filed 2006), husband’s earning capacity was undisputedly much higher than wife’s.
- The trial court divided marital property essentially equally, awarded wife custody, and granted four years of transitional support and nine years of maintenance support, but denied compensatory spousal support, characterizing wife’s contributions as “typical and expected.”
- The court of appeals rejected the “typical and expected” rationale as legally incorrect but affirmed denial of compensatory support as not “just and equitable.”
- The supreme court reviewed to clarify the proper standard for compensatory spousal support under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B).

## Issues

1. Whether wife made a “significant contribution” to husband’s education, training, career, or earning capacity under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B).
2. If so, whether compensatory spousal support was “just and equitable in all the circumstances,” considering the statutory factors and the existing property division and other support awards.

## Decision

- The court held wife’s financial support, caregiving, and assistance in the dental office were a “significant contribution” to husband’s education and enhanced earning capacity.
- The court rejected any rule that a contribution must be beyond “typical” marital conduct to qualify as “significant.”
- The court held that, applying the statutory factors, an award of compensatory support was “just and equitable in all the circumstances.”
- The court reversed the denial of compensatory support and remanded with instructions to award wife $2,000 per month for 10 years as compensatory spousal support.

## Legal Principles

- A “significant contribution” under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B) turns on the contribution’s economic significance and connection to the other spouse’s education, training, career, or earning capacity, not whether the conduct was “typical.”
- After the “significant contribution” threshold is met, the court must evaluate whether an award is “just and equitable in all the circumstances” by considering the statutory factors, including the nature and duration of the contribution, marriage length, earning-capacity disparity, and whether the marital estate already compensates the contributing spouse.
- Equal property division and awards of transitional or maintenance support do not automatically substitute for compensatory support, which serves a distinct function of compensating investment-like contributions to enhanced earning capacity.
- Appellate review of compensatory support requires examining whether the lower court meaningfully applied the full set of statutory considerations rather than relying on a single factor.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that wife’s long-term financial and caregiving support materially enabled husband’s professional qualification and high earnings, and that fairness under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B) required a compensatory award in addition to property division and other support; it ordered $2,000 per month for 10 years.


In re Marriage of Harris, 349 Or. 393, 244 P.3d 801 (Or. 2010)