modification hearing in Oregon

1976Such allegations are necessary to apprise the other party of the grounds upon which the applicant intends to rely for a modification so that a defense may be prepared * * Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968), quoted in D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 15 Or App 435, 438-39 , 515 P2d 1353 (1973), and Howser v. Howser, 2 Or App 474, 476 , 469 P2d 790 (1970).

1974Hurner v. Hurner, 179 Or 349, 357 , 170 P2d 720 (1946). * * *’ Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 66-67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968).” With specific reference to the problem confronting the trial judge here, we said in Brown v. Brown, 1 Or App 543, 545 , 464 P2d 706 (1970): “Realistic as the trial judge’s appraisal of the situation may have been, he exceeded his powers by * * * [modifying] the child support' requirements in the absence of a finding of a change in circumstances. * * *” .

1976Such allegations are necessary to apprise the other party of the grounds upon which the applicant intends to rely for a modification so that a defense may be prepared * * Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968), quoted in D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 15 Or App 435, 438-39 , 515 P2d 1353 (1973), and Howser v. Howser, 2 Or App 474, 476 , 469 P2d 790 (1970).

1974Hurner v. Hurner, 179 Or 349, 357 , 170 P2d 720 (1946). * * *’ Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 66-67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968).” With specific reference to the problem confronting the trial judge here, we said in Brown v. Brown, 1 Or App 543, 545 , 464 P2d 706 (1970): “Realistic as the trial judge’s appraisal of the situation may have been, he exceeded his powers by * * * [modifying] the child support' requirements in the absence of a finding of a change in circumstances. * * *” .

1974Hurner v. Hurner, 179 Or 349, 357 , 170 P2d 720 (1946). * * *’ Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 66-67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968).” With specific reference to the problem confronting the trial judge here, we said in Brown v. Brown, 1 Or App 543, 545 , 464 P2d 706 (1970): “Realistic as the trial judge’s appraisal of the situation may have been, he exceeded his powers by * * * [modifying] the child support' requirements in the absence of a finding of a change in circumstances. * * *” .

1974Hurner v. Hurner, 179 Or 349, 357 , 170 P2d 720 (1946). * * *’ Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 66-67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968).” With specific reference to the problem confronting the trial judge here, we said in Brown v. Brown, 1 Or App 543, 545 , 464 P2d 706 (1970): “Realistic as the trial judge’s appraisal of the situation may have been, he exceeded his powers by * * * [modifying] the child support' requirements in the absence of a finding of a change in circumstances. * * *” .

2025Father’s reliance on Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or App 126 , 238 P3d 427 (2010), is similarly misplaced because that case involved the enforce- ment of a stipulated judgment of dissolution that squarely falls within the terms of ORS 107.135(15).

2025Father’s reliance on Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or App 126 , 238 P3d 427 (2010), is similarly misplaced because that case involved the enforce- ment of a stipulated judgment of dissolution that squarely falls within the terms of ORS 107.135(15).

1976Such allegations are necessary to apprise the other party of the grounds upon which the applicant intends to rely for a modification so that a defense may be prepared * * Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968), quoted in D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 15 Or App 435, 438-39 , 515 P2d 1353 (1973), and Howser v. Howser, 2 Or App 474, 476 , 469 P2d 790 (1970).

1976Such allegations are necessary to apprise the other party of the grounds upon which the applicant intends to rely for a modification so that a defense may be prepared * * Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968), quoted in D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 15 Or App 435, 438-39 , 515 P2d 1353 (1973), and Howser v. Howser, 2 Or App 474, 476 , 469 P2d 790 (1970).

2021In considering whether an asserted change of cir- cumstances has affected the custodial parent’s “ability or inclination to care for the child in the best possible manner,” Boldt, 344 Or at 9 , it is therefore important to keep in mind the fundamental standard for a change of circumstances— that the custodial parent is no longer “competent to care for the child” or that some condition has arisen that renders the child’s continued care and custody by the custodial parent to be “inimical to the child’s welfare,” Merges, 94 Or at 254—as well as the primary purpose of the requirement—“to avoid rep

2021In considering whether an asserted change of cir- cumstances has affected the custodial parent’s “ability or inclination to care for the child in the best possible manner,” Boldt, 344 Or at 9 , it is therefore important to keep in mind the fundamental standard for a change of circumstances— that the custodial parent is no longer “competent to care for the child” or that some condition has arisen that renders the child’s continued care and custody by the custodial parent to be “inimical to the child’s welfare,” Merges, 94 Or at 254—as well as the primary purpose of the requirement—“to avoid rep

2013Becklin v. Board of Examiners for Engineering, 195 Or App 186, 204 , 97 P3d 1216 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 16 (2005).

2013Becklin v. Board of Examiners for Engineering, 195 Or App 186, 204 , 97 P3d 1216 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 16 (2005).

2007In Albrich, we held that, in the modification inquiry, the court is required to consider “each party’s income opportunities from all sources, irrespective of whether the opportunity derives from property awarded in the marital property division.” 162 Or App at 36 .

2007In Albrich, we held that, in the modification inquiry, the court is required to consider “each party’s income opportunities from all sources, irrespective of whether the opportunity derives from property awarded in the marital property division.” 162 Or App at 36 .

2006PER CURIAM Wife, who prevailed as appellant, see Miller and Miller, 207 Or App 198 , 140 P3d 1172 (2006), petitions for reconsideration, asserting that our opinion erroneously failed to address her contention that (as she now styles it) the case “should be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of [wife’s] request for attorney fees for the modification hearing.” We grant reconsideration and, with the following clarification, adhere to our original opinion and disposition.

2006PER CURIAM Wife, who prevailed as appellant, see Miller and Miller, 207 Or App 198 , 140 P3d 1172 (2006), petitions for reconsideration, asserting that our opinion erroneously failed to address her contention that (as she now styles it) the case “should be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of [wife’s] request for attorney fees for the modification hearing.” We grant reconsideration and, with the following clarification, adhere to our original opinion and disposition.

2004Those cases, however, and Bates and Bates, 303 Or 40 , 733 P2d 1363 (1987), a case on which Cowden and husband rely, differ in a critical respect from this case.

2004Those cases, however, and Bates and Bates, 303 Or 40 , 733 P2d 1363 (1987), a case on which Cowden and husband rely, differ in a critical respect from this case.

2004Husband argues that our decisions in Thomas and Thomas, 160 Or App 365 , 981 P2d 382 (1999), and Cowden and Cowden, 172 Or App 343 , 18 P3d 479 (2001), support a conclusion that parol evidence of his intent of the type he offered is relevant in the modification hearing to prove the purposes of a spousal support award and whether those purposes have been satisfied.

2004Husband argues that our decisions in Thomas and Thomas, 160 Or App 365 , 981 P2d 382 (1999), and Cowden and Cowden, 172 Or App 343 , 18 P3d 479 (2001), support a conclusion that parol evidence of his intent of the type he offered is relevant in the modification hearing to prove the purposes of a spousal support award and whether those purposes have been satisfied.

2004Husband argues that our decisions in Thomas and Thomas, 160 Or App 365 , 981 P2d 382 (1999), and Cowden and Cowden, 172 Or App 343 , 18 P3d 479 (2001), support a conclusion that parol evidence of his intent of the type he offered is relevant in the modification hearing to prove the purposes of a spousal support award and whether those purposes have been satisfied.

2004Husband argues that our decisions in Thomas and Thomas, 160 Or App 365 , 981 P2d 382 (1999), and Cowden and Cowden, 172 Or App 343 , 18 P3d 479 (2001), support a conclusion that parol evidence of his intent of the type he offered is relevant in the modification hearing to prove the purposes of a spousal support award and whether those purposes have been satisfied.

2004Moser and Gilmore, 184 Or App 377, 381 , 56 P3d 417 (2002) (stating that when no purpose for an award is stated, the task of the court is to maintain relative financial positions).

2004Moser and Gilmore, 184 Or App 377, 381 , 56 P3d 417 (2002) (stating that when no purpose for an award is stated, the task of the court is to maintain relative financial positions).

2000LaFavor and LaFavor, 151 Or App 257, 262 , 949 P2d 313 (1997) (citing OAR 137-050-0360).

2000LaFavor and LaFavor, 151 Or App 257, 262 , 949 P2d 313 (1997) (citing OAR 137-050-0360).

1999In construing a statute, we first examine its text and context because a statute’s wording “is the best evidence of the legislature’s intent.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

1999In construing a statute, we first examine its text and context because a statute’s wording “is the best evidence of the legislature’s intent.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

1997See, e.g., Deffenbaugh and Deffenbaugh, 286 Or 759, 765 , 596 P2d 966 (1979) (requiring a showing of change in circumstances); Henrickson v. Henrickson, 225 Or 398, 402 , 358 P2d 507 (1961) (same); Leverich v. Leverich, 175 Or 174, 179-80 , 152 P2d 303 (1944) (same). *398 The rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the

1997See, e.g., Deffenbaugh and Deffenbaugh, 286 Or 759, 765 , 596 P2d 966 (1979) (requiring a showing of change in circumstances); Henrickson v. Henrickson, 225 Or 398, 402 , 358 P2d 507 (1961) (same); Leverich v. Leverich, 175 Or 174, 179-80 , 152 P2d 303 (1944) (same). *398 The rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the

1997See, e.g., Deffenbaugh and Deffenbaugh, 286 Or 759, 765 , 596 P2d 966 (1979) (requiring a showing of change in circumstances); Henrickson v. Henrickson, 225 Or 398, 402 , 358 P2d 507 (1961) (same); Leverich v. Leverich, 175 Or 174, 179-80 , 152 P2d 303 (1944) (same). *398 The rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the

1997See, e.g., Deffenbaugh and Deffenbaugh, 286 Or 759, 765 , 596 P2d 966 (1979) (requiring a showing of change in circumstances); Henrickson v. Henrickson, 225 Or 398, 402 , 358 P2d 507 (1961) (same); Leverich v. Leverich, 175 Or 174, 179-80 , 152 P2d 303 (1944) (same). *398 The rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the

1993That is a modification of the test, under federal securities law, adopted in SEC v. Howey Co., 328 US 293, 298 , 66 S Ct 1100 , 90 L Ed 1244 (1946).

1993That is a modification of the test, under federal securities law, adopted in SEC v. Howey Co., 328 US 293, 298 , 66 S Ct 1100 , 90 L Ed 1244 (1946).

1992The circuit court held a modification hearing in July 1990 and granted father's motion, relying on Edmonds and Edmonds, 53 Or.App. 539 , 633 P.2d 4 (1981).

1992The circuit court held a modification hearing in July 1990 and granted father's motion, relying on Edmonds and Edmonds, 53 Or.App. 539 , 633 P.2d 4 (1981).

1985This court held that this proviso did not preclude the surviving testator from substituting a legatee after the death of the other testator. 194 Or at 287 ; see also Manufacturers’ Finance Co. v. Rockwell, 278 Mass 502, 180 NE 224 (1932) (upholding a modification clause that authorized unilateral acts by one party and bound the other party without notice).

1976Such allegations are necessary to apprise the other party of the grounds upon which the applicant intends to rely for a modification so that a defense may be prepared * * Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968), quoted in D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 15 Or App 435, 438-39 , 515 P2d 1353 (1973), and Howser v. Howser, 2 Or App 474, 476 , 469 P2d 790 (1970).

1976Such allegations are necessary to apprise the other party of the grounds upon which the applicant intends to rely for a modification so that a defense may be prepared * * Watson v. Watson, 251 Or 65, 67 , 444 P2d 476 (1968), quoted in D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 15 Or App 435, 438-39 , 515 P2d 1353 (1973), and Howser v. Howser, 2 Or App 474, 476 , 469 P2d 790 (1970).