Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.025 (2026)

Irreconcilable differences as grounds for dissolution or separation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      107.025 Irreconcilable differences as grounds for dissolution or separation. (1) A judgment for the dissolution of a marriage or a permanent or unlimited separation may be rendered when irreconcilable differences between the parties have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.

      (2) A judgment for separation may be rendered when:

      (a) Irreconcilable differences between the parties have caused a temporary or unlimited breakdown of the marriage;

      (b) The parties make and file with the court an agreement suspending for a period not less than one year their obligation to live together as spouses, and the court finds such agreement to be just and equitable; or

      (c) Irreconcilable differences exist between the parties and the continuation of their status as married persons preserves or protects legal, financial, social or religious interest. [1971 c.280 §9; 1973 c.502 §1; 2003 c.576 §104; 2015 c.629 §12]

 

      107.030 [Amended by 1953 c.439 §2; 1965 c.311 §1; repealed by 1971 c.280 §28]

 

      107.035 [1969 c.264 §2; repealed by 1971 c.280 §28]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1973–2012 · leading case: In Re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Dunn, 511 P.2d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Dunn, 511 P.2d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “His principal contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that there were irreconcilable differences or its conclusion that such differences were irremediable, within the meaning of ORS 107.025. ORS 107.025 is probably the key section, so…”
In re the Marriage of Patterson, 136 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 107.025(2)(b) provides that a judgment for separation may be rendered when “[t]he parties make and file with the court an agreement suspending for a period of not less than one year their obligation to live together as husband and wife, and the court finds such agreement to…”
Matter of Marriage of Ballard, 762 P.2d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “See ORS 107.025(1). It found that “[husband] lucidly and seriously decided that he had irreconcilable differences with [wife] and that because of these differences his marriage to [her] had broken down.”
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Greisamer, 547 P.2d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “ORS 107.025(2)(a). That case was contested and after both parties had submitted extensive evidence concerning child custody the court decreed the separation and awarded custody to father on November 20, 1974.”
In re the Marriage of Mannix, 776 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “In February, 1985, husband filed a petition for separation, ORS 107.025, in which he requested that wife have custody of the children.”
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “015(1) (describing grounds on which “a judgment for the annulment or dissolution of a marriage may be rendered”); ORS 107.025 (describing grounds on which “[a] judgment for the dissolution of a marriage or a permanent or unlimited separation may be rendered”); ORS 107.”
Hoyt v. Am. Traders, Inc., 709 P.2d 1090 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “Either party is entitled to dissolve the marriage without regard to fault, ORS 107.025, *258 107.036, and the only issues, other than the custody of children, are economic — support and property division.”
Graziano v. City Council of Canby, 581 P.2d 552 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “ORS 107.025 provides: "(1) The dissolution of a marriage or a permanent or unlimited separation may be decreed when irreconcilable differences between the parties have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.”
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Schunk, 511 P.2d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). “The case was heard on August 25 and September 20,1972 under a ruling that proceedings -would be had under the “no fault” divorce law (ORS 107.025 et seq:) which became effective during the interim between 1970.”
In re the Marriage of Dee, 772 P.2d 404 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “See ORS 107.025(1) and ORS 107.105(1)(f). Husband also contends that, if the court had the authority to re-open the original judgment and to award wife a portion of his pension, then it must also have the authority to modify the property division further.”
Ohrman, 2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 123 (1970). · cites it 2× “Oregon law does not require, however, that the spouses live apart before or after a court renders a judgment for permanent and unlimited separation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.025(1) — 2 cases
Matter of Marriage of Ballard, 762 P.2d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “See ORS 107.025(1). It found that “[husband] lucidly and seriously decided that he had irreconcilable differences with [wife] and that because of these differences his marriage to [her] had broken down.”
In re the Marriage of Dee, 772 P.2d 404 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “See ORS 107.025(1) and ORS 107.105(1)(f). Husband also contends that, if the court had the authority to re-open the original judgment and to award wife a portion of his pension, then it must also have the authority to modify the property division further.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.025(2)(a) — 1 case
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Greisamer, 547 P.2d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “ORS 107.025(2)(a). That case was contested and after both parties had submitted extensive evidence concerning child custody the court decreed the separation and awarded custody to father on November 20, 1974.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.025(2)(b) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Patterson, 136 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 107.025(2)(b) provides that a judgment for separation may be rendered when “[t]he parties make and file with the court an agreement suspending for a period of not less than one year their obligation to live together as husband and wife, and the court finds such agreement to…”
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.