105.970
Prospective application.
(1) Except as extended by subsection (2) of this section, ORS 105.950 to
105.975 apply to a nonvested property interest or a power of appointment that
is created on or after January 1, 1990. For purposes of this section, a
nonvested property interest or a power of appointment created by the exercise
of a power of appointment is created when the power is irrevocably exercised or
when a revocable exercise becomes irrevocable.
(2) If a
nonvested property interest or a power of appointment was created before
January 1, 1990, and is determined in a judicial proceeding, commenced on or
after January 1, 1990, to violate this state’s rule against perpetuities as
that rule existed before January 1, 1990, a court upon the petition of an
interested person may reform the disposition in the manner that most closely
approximates the transferor’s manifested plan of distribution and is within the
limits of the rule against perpetuities applicable when the nonvested property
interest or power of appointment was created. [1989 c.208 §5]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1991–2016 · leading case:
Kerr v. Bauer, 222 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Kerr v. Bauer, 222 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “The court explicitly stated that, “in the exercise of its discretion,” it declined to reform Deed #1 under ORS 105.970, as requested by Donald, because the court had “previously modified [Deed #1] upon plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment by applying the common law…”
Kerr v. Bauer, 373 P.3d 1263 (Yamhill Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 23× “) and Senior, Donald petitioned the court to reform Deed #1 under ORS 105.970(2). 1 Donald argued that the court could better preserve Sylva’s intent by modifying the deed to include a savings clause and additional trustees.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.970(1) — 1 case
Kerr v. Bauer, 222 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The court explicitly stated that, “in the exercise of its discretion,” it declined to reform Deed #1 under ORS 105.970, as requested by Donald, because the court had “previously modified [Deed #1] upon plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment by applying the common law…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.970(2) — 2 cases
Kerr v. Bauer, 222 P.3d 1117 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The court explicitly stated that, “in the exercise of its discretion,” it declined to reform Deed #1 under ORS 105.970, as requested by Donald, because the court had “previously modified [Deed #1] upon plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment by applying the common law…”
Kerr v. Bauer, 373 P.3d 1263 (Yamhill Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“) and Senior, Donald petitioned the court to reform Deed #1 under ORS 105.970(2). 1 Donald argued that the court could better preserve Sylva’s intent by modifying the deed to include a savings clause and additional trustees.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.