Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104 (2026)

Policy regarding settlement; enforcement of settlement terms; remedies

✓ current as of May 2026

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

107.104 Policy regarding settlement; enforcement of settlement terms; remedies. (1) It is the policy of this state:

(a) To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and

(b) For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in subsection (2) of this section to the fullest extent possible, except when to do so would violate the law or would clearly contravene public policy.

(2) In a suit for marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the court may enforce the terms set forth in a stipulated judgment signed by the parties, a judgment resulting from a settlement on the record or a judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement:

(a) As contract terms using contract remedies;

(b) By imposing any remedy available to enforce a judgment, including but not limited to contempt; or

(3) A party may seek to enforce an agreement and obtain remedies described in subsection (2) of this section by filing a motion, serving notice on the other party in the manner provided by ORCP 7 and, if a remedy under subsection (2)(b) of this section is sought, complying with the statutory requirements for that remedy. All claims for relief arising out of the same acts or omissions must be joined in the same proceeding.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) of this section limits a party’s ability, in a separate proceeding, to file a motion to set aside, alter or modify a judgment under ORS 107.135 or to seek enforcement of an ancillary agreement to the judgment. [2001 c.203 §2; 2003 c.576 §108]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013). · cites it 21× “In this domestic relations case, we decide that, pursuant to ORS 107.104 1 and ORS 107.135(15), 2 a court may enforce an agreement between parents not to seek modification of the child support terms of a stipulated judgment of dissolution unless to do so would violate the law or…”

In re the Marriage of Brown, 315 P.3d 422 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “ORS 107.104 expresses a state policy favoring, inter alia, marital settlement agreements and providing for the enforcement of those agreements that have been incorporated into a judgment.”

In Re the Marriage of Reeves, 238 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “Mother opposed father’s motion, contending that the stipulated judgment’s provision for such support until the twins reached age 23 was enforceable under ORS 107.104, which provides for the enforcement of stipulated judgments.”

Matter of Marriage of Grossman, 106 P.3d 618 (Or. 2005). · cites it 7× “4 The legislature enacted ORS 107.104 m 2001 to overturn this court’s decision in Webber v.”

In re the Marriage of Patterson, 136 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “In 2001, the legislature enacted ORS 107.104, 2 which provides: “(1) It is the policy of this state: “(a) To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and “(b) For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in subsection (2) of…”

Baertlein & Stocks, 464 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “” Mother subsequently amended her enforcement motion, clarifying her claims and also alleg- ing a right to attorney fees and costs, citing, among other authorities, ORCP 68, ORS 107.104, ORS 107.135(8), para- graphs 18 and 24 of the MSA, and paragraph 6 of the 2014 judgment.”

Patterson & Kanaga, 255 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “" We agreed with wife, concluding: "[I]f the trial court determines on remand that the parties intended their agreement to apply in the context of a dissolution, it will need to address whether enforcement of its terms would violate the law or clearly contravene public policy.”

In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “The dissent then discusses the embodiment of that policy in several cases and in ORS 107.104 and ORS 107.135(12). Id. at 750-55, 757 (Edmonds, J.”

In re the Marriage of Haggerty, 322 P.3d 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “It then gave its ruling, noting that husband had cited ORS 107.104 in support of the motion: “First of all, the statute is discretionary.”

Brown v. Brown, 136 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “However, the legislature enacted ORS 107.104 in 2001 to overturn Webber. See Grossman and Grossman, 338 Or 99 , 107 n 4, 106 P3d 618 (2005) (so stating).”

In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004). · cites it 2× “Although neither party refers to the statute, we note that ORS 107.104(1) provides: "It is the policy of this state: "(a) To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and "(b) For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in…”

In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “135(15) but, instead, ORS 107.104. 4 McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or App 223 , 110 P3d 639 , rev dismissed, 338 Or 681 (2005), is illustrative.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(1) — 11 cases

In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004). “Although neither party refers to the statute, we note that ORS 107.104(1) provides: "It is the policy of this state: "(a) To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and "(b) For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in…”

In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “The dissent then discusses the embodiment of that policy in several cases and in ORS 107.104 and ORS 107.135(12). Id. at 750-55, 757 (Edmonds, J.”

In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013). “In this domestic relations case, we decide that, pursuant to ORS 107.104 1 and ORS 107.135(15), 2 a court may enforce an agreement between parents not to seek modification of the child support terms of a stipulated judgment of dissolution unless to do so would violate the law or…”

In re the Marriage of Brown, 315 P.3d 422 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “ORS 107.104 expresses a state policy favoring, inter alia, marital settlement agreements and providing for the enforcement of those agreements that have been incorporated into a judgment.”

In re the Marriage of Pollock, 313 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(1)(B) — 1 case

In Re Jennings, 306 B.R. 672 (Bankr. D. Or. 2004).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(1)(a) — 3 cases

Matter of Marriage of Grossman, 106 P.3d 618 (Or. 2005). “4 The legislature enacted ORS 107.104 m 2001 to overturn this court’s decision in Webber v.”

In Re the Marriage of Reeves, 238 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Mother opposed father’s motion, contending that the stipulated judgment’s provision for such support until the twins reached age 23 was enforceable under ORS 107.104, which provides for the enforcement of stipulated judgments.”

Pollock & Pollock (Or. 2015).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(1)(b) — 8 cases

Patterson & Kanaga, 255 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “" We agreed with wife, concluding: "[I]f the trial court determines on remand that the parties intended their agreement to apply in the context of a dissolution, it will need to address whether enforcement of its terms would violate the law or clearly contravene public policy.”

K. R. M. v. Baker, 515 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

In re the Marriage of Patterson, 255 P.3d 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(2) — 11 cases

Matter of Marriage of Grossman, 106 P.3d 618 (Or. 2005). “4 The legislature enacted ORS 107.104 m 2001 to overturn this court’s decision in Webber v.”

In re the Marriage of Haggerty, 322 P.3d 1101 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “It then gave its ruling, noting that husband had cited ORS 107.104 in support of the motion: “First of all, the statute is discretionary.”

In re the Marriage of Haggerty, 380 P.3d 1176 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(2)(a) — 4 cases

Tupper v. Roan, 243 P.3d 50 (Or. 2010).

Baertlein & Stocks, 464 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” Mother subsequently amended her enforcement motion, clarifying her claims and also alleg- ing a right to attorney fees and costs, citing, among other authorities, ORCP 68, ORS 107.104, ORS 107.135(8), para- graphs 18 and 24 of the MSA, and paragraph 6 of the 2014 judgment.”

In Re the Marriage of Lynch-Kirby, 185 P.3d 494 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “135(15) but, instead, ORS 107.104. 4 McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or App 223 , 110 P3d 639 , rev dismissed, 338 Or 681 (2005), is illustrative.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(2)(b) — 1 case

In re the Marriage of Berry, 284 P.3d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(4) — 1 case

In re the Marriage of Dow, 302 P.3d 1188 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(b) — 1 case

In re the Marriage of Berry, 284 P.3d 1202 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(l)(a) — 4 cases

Matter of Marriage of Grossman, 106 P.3d 618 (Or. 2005). “4 The legislature enacted ORS 107.104 m 2001 to overturn this court’s decision in Webber v.”

Brown v. Brown, 136 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “However, the legislature enacted ORS 107.104 in 2001 to overturn Webber. See Grossman and Grossman, 338 Or 99 , 107 n 4, 106 P3d 618 (2005) (so stating).”

In re the Marriage of Pollock, 313 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

In Re the Marriage of Pollock, 355 P.3d 117 (Or. 2015).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.104(l)(b) — 10 cases

In re the Marriage of Patterson, 136 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “In 2001, the legislature enacted ORS 107.104, 2 which provides: “(1) It is the policy of this state: “(a) To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and “(b) For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in subsection (2) of…”

In Re the Marriage of Porter, 262 P.3d 1169 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

In re the Marriage of Pollock, 313 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

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.