This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted June 3, affirmed August 3, 2022

In the Matter of the Marriage of Melanie Frances MILLS, Petitioner-Respondent, and Michael Christopher MILLS, Respondent-Appellant.

Washington County Circuit Court 18DR24109; A176741 Ramón A. Pagán, Judge.

Daniel S. Margolin and Margolin Family Law filed the brief for appellant.

Melanie Frances Mills filed the brief pro se.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

KAMINS, J.

Affirmed.

206 Mills and Mills KAMINS, J.

In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, husband appeals a supplemental judgment awarding wife attorney fees, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion because husband could not afford to pay the award. See ORS 107.105(1)(j) (A judgment of dissolution may provide for “an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the action in favor of a party.”); ORS 20.075 (listing the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether to award discretionary attorney fees).

“We review a discretionary award of attorney fees under ORS 20.075(1) for abuse of discretion.” Niman & Niman, 206 Or App 400, 415, 136 P3d 1186 (2006).

As the trial court found, husband “caused unneces- sary litigation at every stage of this case.” He requested sole custody, although the evidence showed that “[h]e was never the primary caregiver, he showed little to no interest in the children’s major life decisions or health, * * * and he testified in a manner that demonstrated he did not even want sole custody.” (Emphasis in original.) Husband also “engaged in a most transparent attempt at concealing assets” and was “egregiously dilatory and obstructive with discovery obliga- tions.” On the other hand, wife “always sought reasonable settlement positions,” even though husband’s obstructive conduct forced her to incur an inordinate amount of attor- ney fees and costs. The trial court’s findings are supported by the record, its analysis appropriately weighed the statu- tory factors, and it did not abuse its discretion in awarding wife attorney fees and costs.

Affirmed.