310 ORAPP 695 - Kerr and Kerr

                                695

        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 granting 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) (explaining 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 contends that the trial court erred in awarding indefinite maintenance 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 maintain 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 discretionary 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, husband 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 husband’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.