Marriage of Harris and Harris
Oregon Supreme Court
244 P.3d 801 (2010)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Jackie Harris (plaintiff) and Lane Harris (defendant) married in 1990 while Lane was still in college. Jackie worked full time and supported the family until Lane completed his education and graduated from dental school. Jackie was also the primary caregiver of their child, who was born during Lane’s time in dental school. After graduating dental school, Lane took over his father’s dental practice and eventually averaged an annual income between $300,000 and $400,000. The Harrises then had a second child, and Jackie became a stay-at-home mother. When the younger child was two years old, Jackie started working part time in Lane’s dental office. Lane’s income afforded the family a lavish lifestyle. In 2006, after 16 years of marriage, Jackie filed for divorce. Both Jackie and Lane were in their late thirties. It was undisputed that Lane’s earning capacity was significantly higher than Jackie’s. The trial court awarded Jackie custody, divided the substantial marital property equally, and granted Jackie four years of transitional alimony plus an additional nine years of maintenance alimony. Jackie appealed, arguing that she was also entitled to a compensatory alimony award to compensate her for her substantial contributions to Lane’s enhanced earning capacity. Lane countered, arguing that Jackie’s contributions were not sufficiently substantial to qualify for compensatory alimony because she had not done anything exceeding normal spousal behavior. The appellate court affirmed. Jackie appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (De Muniz, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.