Kerr and Kerr

Argued and submitted March 19, affirmed April 14, 2021

In the Matter of the Marriage of Robert Alan KERR, Petitioner-Appellant, and Deborah Beth KERR, Respondent-Respondent, and Jenna Michelle KERR, A Statutory Party. Clackamas County Circuit Court 18DR20799; A172901 485 P3d 315

Eve L. Miller, Senior Judge. (General Judgment) Jeffrey S. Jones, Judge. (Supplemental Judgment) Robert A. Kerr argued the cause pro se. Also on the briefs was Kerr Law Office P.C. Peter Bunch argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was The Law Firm of Peter Bunch, LLC. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed.

696 Kerr and Kerr

PER CURIAM In this case involving a dissolution of a long-term marriage, husband appeals the general judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage and a supplemental judgment grant- ing wife’s request that husband pay her attorney fees. We affirm. Husband requests that we review de novo but has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to do so. See Johnson and Johnson, 309 Or App 682, 688, 483 P3d 1174 (2021) (citing ORS 19.415(3)(b) (granting us “sole discretion” to review de novo) and ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (explain- ing that we will exercise our discretion to review de novo in “exceptional cases” only)). That, it turns out, is largely dispositive of this appeal. With respect to the general judgment, husband con- tends that the trial court erred in awarding indefinite main- tenance support to wife, asserting that an award of limited duration would have been more appropriate. Relatedly, he asserts that the court erred in requiring him to main- tain indefinitely a life insurance policy for wife’s benefit to ensure that the purpose of the indefinite award of spousal support is met in the event of husband’s death. Absent a decision to review de novo, we examine the trial court’s spousal support and life insurance determinations for abuse of discretion. Boatfield and Boatfield, 297 Or App 716, 720, 447 P3d 35 (2019); Berg and Berg, 250 Or App 1, 5, 279 P3d 286 (2012). The standard is deferential: We “will not disturb a trial court’s determination unless the court misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations required by the statute permitting these awards.” Boatfield, 297 Or App at 720. Having reviewed the record and considered husband’s arguments, we see no grounds for disturbing the challenged determinations. As is almost always the case with discre- tionary determinations, the choices that the trial court made were not the only permissible ones the court could have made, but they are choices that fit within the set of permissible choices. With respect to the supplemental judgment, hus- band argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney

Cite as 310 Or App 695 (2021) 697

fees to wife and, further, in not ordering wife to pay hus- band’s fees. Our review is, again, for abuse of discretion. Olson and Olson, 308 Or App 633, 634, 480 P3d 965 (2021). We again see none. Affirmed.