Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.089 (2026)

Documents parties must furnish to each other; effect of failure to furnish

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

107.089 Documents parties must furnish to each other; effect of failure to furnish. (1) If served with a copy of this section as provided in ORS 107.088, each party in a suit for legal separation or for dissolution shall provide to the other party copies of the following documents in their possession or control:

(a) All federal and state income tax returns filed by either party for the last three calendar years.

(b) If income tax returns for the last calendar year have not been filed, all W-2 statements, year-end payroll statements, interest and dividend statements and all other records of income earned or received by either party during the last calendar year.

(d) All financial statements, statements of net worth and credit card and loan applications prepared by or for either party during the last two calendar years.

(e) All documents such as deeds, real estate contracts, appraisals and most recent statements of assessed value relating to real property in which either party has any interest.

(f) All documents showing debts of either party, including the most recent statement of any loan, credit line or charge card balance due.

(g)(A) Certificates of title or registrations of all automobiles, motor vehicles, boats or other personal property registered in either party’s name or in which either party has any interest.

(B) For all automobiles, motor vehicles and boats described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, documentation evidencing the vehicle identification number or other unique identifying number.

(h) Documents showing stocks, bonds, secured notes, mutual funds and other investments in which either party has any interest.

(i) The most recent statement describing any retirement plan, IRA pension plan, profit-sharing plan, stock option plan or deferred compensation plan in which either party has any interest.

(j) All financial institution or brokerage account records on any account in which either party has had any interest or signing privileges in the past year, whether or not the account is currently open or closed.

(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the party shall provide the information listed in subsection (1) of this section to the other party no later than 30 days after service of a copy of this section.

(b) If a support hearing is pending fewer than 30 days after service of a copy of this section on either party, the party upon whom a copy of this section is served shall provide the information listed in subsection (1)(a) to (d) of this section no later than three judicial days before the hearing.

(3)(a) If a party does not provide information as required by subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the other party may apply for a motion to compel as provided in ORCP 46.

(b) Notwithstanding ORCP 46 A(4), if the motion is granted and the court finds that there was willful noncompliance with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the court shall require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising the action, or both, to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees.

(4) If a date for a support hearing has been set and the information listed in subsection (1)(a) to (d) of this section has not been provided as required by subsection (2) of this section:

(a) By the obligor, the judge shall postpone the hearing, if requested to do so by the obligee, and provide in any future order for support that the support obligation is retroactive to the date of the original hearing; or

(b) By the obligee, the judge shall postpone the hearing, if requested to do so by the obligor, and provide that any support ordered in a future hearing may be prospective only.

(5) The provisions of this section do not limit in any way the discovery provisions of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure or any other discovery provision of Oregon law. [1995 c.800 §5; 1997 c.631 §402; 1997 c.707 §33; 2013 c.171 §1]

107.090 [Amended by 1953 c.602 §2; 1955 c.648 §4; 1959 c.572 §1; 1969 c.221 §1; repealed by 1971 c.280 §28]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Conrad, 81 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re the Marriage of Conrad, 81 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “452 was enacted in 1995 as part of the same bill that included ORS 107.089. See Or Laws 1995, ch 800, §§ 4-6.”

In re the Marriage of Pollock, 313 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “” In addition, wife cites ORS 107.089, which provides that, upon the request of one party to a dissolution proceeding, the other party must furnish copies of certain documents such as tax returns, deeds to real property in which a party has an interest, certificates of title,…”

State v. Cartwright, 20 P.3d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “, ORCP 46 (motion to compel available for party seeking discovery from opposing party); ORS 107.089(3)(a) (same in dissolution proceedings).”

In Re the Marriage of Pollock, 355 P.3d 117 (Or. 2015). · cites it 6× “105(l)(f)(F), 4 and ORS 107.089, 5 *582 required the court to compel production of the documents that she sought.”

Noor & Chowdhury (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “Considering husband’s flagrant violation of discovery obligations, and his failure to make basic disclosures as required by ORS 107.089, we further conclude that there was no abuse of dis- cretion in the trial court’s choice of sanction.”

Pollock & Pollock (Or. 2015). · cites it 6× “105(1)(f)(F),4 and ORS 107.089,5 3 The Court of Appeals nevertheless proceeded to address an issue that it thought was likely to arise on remand, namely, whether husband actually had engaged in inequitable conduct with respect to the line of credit.”

Solomon & Solomon, 350 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “In his first assignment of error, husband argues that “the trial court erred by failing to properly acknowledge husband’s objection to the initial settlement order, and failing to require [wife] to provide proof of her financial claims,” in contravention of ORCP 71 B and ORS…”

In re the Marriage of Van Winkle, 10 P.3d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “House Bill 3196 was enacted into law by the legislature as Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 800, and was later compiled, in part, as ORS 107.089 (1995). By the time husband’s motion for discovery was filed, the legislature had amended ORS 107.”

Dennis & Dennis, 324 Or. App. 200 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Even after that deadline, the documents that husband pro- duced failed to comply with husband’s production obligations.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.089(1) — 3 cases

Solomon & Solomon, 350 Or. App. 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “In his first assignment of error, husband argues that “the trial court erred by failing to properly acknowledge husband’s objection to the initial settlement order, and failing to require [wife] to provide proof of her financial claims,” in contravention of ORCP 71 B and ORS…”

Noor & Chowdhury (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Considering husband’s flagrant violation of discovery obligations, and his failure to make basic disclosures as required by ORS 107.089, we further conclude that there was no abuse of dis- cretion in the trial court’s choice of sanction.”

In re the Marriage of Van Winkle, 10 P.3d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “House Bill 3196 was enacted into law by the legislature as Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 800, and was later compiled, in part, as ORS 107.089 (1995). By the time husband’s motion for discovery was filed, the legislature had amended ORS 107.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.089(1)(e) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of Conrad, 81 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “452 was enacted in 1995 as part of the same bill that included ORS 107.089. See Or Laws 1995, ch 800, §§ 4-6.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.089(3)(a) — 1 case

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.