107.105
Provisions of judgment.
(1) Whenever the court renders a judgment of marital annulment, dissolution or
separation, the court may provide in the judgment:
(a) For the
future care and custody, by one party or jointly, of all minor children of the
parties born, adopted or conceived during the marriage and for minor children
born to the parties prior to the marriage, as the court may deem just and
proper under ORS 107.137. The court may hold a hearing to decide the custody
issue prior to any other issues. When appropriate, the court shall recognize
the value of close contact with both parents and encourage joint parental
custody and joint responsibility for the welfare of the children.
(b) For parenting
time rights of the parent not having custody of such children and for
visitation rights pursuant to a petition filed under ORS 109.119. When a
parenting plan has been developed as required by ORS 107.102, the court shall
review the parenting plan and, if approved, incorporate the parenting plan into
the court’s final order. When incorporated into a final order, the parenting
plan is determinative of parenting time rights. If the parents have been unable
to develop a parenting plan or if either of the parents requests the court to
develop a detailed parenting plan, the court shall develop the parenting plan
in the best interest of the child, ensuring the noncustodial parent sufficient
access to the child to provide for appropriate quality parenting time and
ensuring the safety of the parties, if implicated. The court shall deny
parenting time to a parent under this paragraph if the court finds that the
parent has been convicted of rape under ORS 163.355, 163.365 or 163.375 or
other comparable law of another jurisdiction and the rape resulted in the
conception of the child. Otherwise, the court may deny parenting time to the
noncustodial parent under this subsection only if the court finds that
parenting time would endanger the health or safety of the child. In the case of
a noncustodial parent who has a disability as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), the court may consider the
noncustodial parent’s disability in determining parenting time only if the
court finds that behaviors or limitations related to the noncustodial parent’s
disability are endangering or will likely endanger the health, safety or
welfare of the child. The court shall recognize the value of close contact with
both parents and encourage, when practicable, joint responsibility for the
welfare of such children and extensive contact between the minor children of
the divided marriage and the parties. If the court awards parenting time to a
noncustodial parent who has committed abuse, other than being convicted for
rape as described in this paragraph, the court shall make adequate provision
for the safety of the child and the other parent in accordance with the
provisions of ORS 107.718 (6).
(c) For the
support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In ordering child
support, the formula established under ORS 25.275 shall apply. The court may at
any time require an accounting from the custodial parent with reference to the
use of the money received as child support. The court is not required to order
support for any minor child who has become self-supporting, emancipated or
married or for any child who has ceased to attend school after becoming 18
years of age. A general judgment entered under this section may include an
amount for support as requested in a petition filed under ORS 107.085 or under
a motion for relief made pursuant to ORS 107.095 (1)(b) for which a limited
judgment was not entered, payment of which commences no earlier than the date
the petition or motion was served on the nonrequesting party, and the amount
shall be considered a request for relief that has been decided by the general
judgment for purposes of ORS 18.082 (3).
(d) For spousal
support, an amount of money for a period of time as may be just and equitable
for one party to contribute to the other, in gross or in installments or both.
Unless otherwise expressly provided in the judgment and except for any unpaid
balance of previously ordered spousal support, liability for the payment of
spousal support shall terminate on the death of either party, and there shall
be no liability for either the payment of spousal support or for any payment in
cash or property as a substitute for the payment of spousal support after the
death of either party. The court may approve an agreement for the entry of an
order for the support of a party. A general judgment entered under this section
may include an amount for support as requested in a petition filed under ORS
107.085 or under a motion for relief made pursuant to ORS 107.095 (1)(b) for
which a limited judgment was not entered, payment of which commences no earlier
than the date the petition or motion was served on the nonrequesting party, and
the amount shall be considered a request for relief that has been decided by
the general judgment for purposes of ORS 18.082 (3). In making the spousal
support order, the court shall designate one or more categories of spousal
support and shall make findings of the relevant factors in the decision. The
court may order:
(A) Transitional
spousal support as needed for a party to attain education and training
necessary to allow the party to prepare for reentry into the job market or for
advancement therein. The factors to be considered by the court in awarding
transitional spousal support include but are not limited to:
(i) The duration
of the marriage;
(ii) A party’s
training and employment skills;
(iii) A party’s
work experience;
(iv) The
financial needs and resources of each party;
(v) The tax
consequences to each party;
(vi) A party’s
custodial and child support responsibilities; and
(vii) Any other
factors the court deems just and equitable.
(B) Compensatory
spousal support when there has been a significant financial or other
contribution by one party to the education, training, vocational skills, career
or earning capacity of the other party and when an order for compensatory
spousal support is otherwise just and equitable in all of the circumstances.
The factors to be considered by the court in awarding compensatory spousal support
include but are not limited to:
(i) The amount,
duration and nature of the contribution;
(ii) The duration
of the marriage;
(iii) The
relative earning capacity of the parties;
(iv) The extent
to which the marital estate has already benefited from the contribution;
(v) The tax
consequences to each party; and
(vi) Any other
factors the court deems just and equitable.
(C) Spousal
maintenance as a contribution by one spouse to the support of the other for
either a specified or an indefinite period. The factors to be considered by the
court in awarding spousal maintenance include but are not limited to:
(i) The duration
of the marriage;
(ii) The age of
the parties;
(iii) The health
of the parties, including their physical, mental and emotional condition;
(iv) The standard
of living established during the marriage;
(v) The relative
income and earning capacity of the parties, recognizing that the wage earner’s
continuing income may be a basis for support distinct from the income that the
supported spouse may receive from the distribution of marital property;
(vi) A party’s
training and employment skills;
(vii) A party’s
work experience;
(viii) The
financial needs and resources of each party;
(ix) The tax
consequences to each party;
(x) A party’s
custodial and child support responsibilities; and
(xi) Any other
factors the court deems just and equitable.
(e) For the
delivery to one party of such party’s personal property in the possession or
control of the other at the time of the giving of the judgment.
(f) For the
division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal
property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper
in all the circumstances. In determining the division of property under this
paragraph, the following apply:
(A) A retirement
plan or pension or an interest therein shall be considered as property.
(B) The court
shall consider the contribution of a party as a homemaker as a contribution to
the acquisition of marital assets.
(C) Except as
provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, there is a rebuttable
presumption that both parties have contributed equally to the acquisition of
property during the marriage, whether such property is jointly or separately
held.
(D)(i) Property
acquired by gift to one party during the marriage and separately held by that
party on a continuing basis from the time of receipt is not subject to a
presumption of equal contribution under subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
(ii) For purposes
of this subparagraph, “property acquired by gift” means property acquired by
one party through gift, devise, bequest, operation of law, beneficiary
designation or inheritance.
(E) Subsequent to
the filing of a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage or
separation, the rights of the parties in the marital assets shall be considered
a species of co-ownership, and a transfer of marital assets under a judgment of
annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation entered on or after
October 4, 1977, shall be considered a partitioning of jointly owned property.
(F) The court
shall require full disclosure of all assets by the parties in arriving at a
just property division.
(G) In arriving
at a just and proper division of property, the court shall consider reasonable
costs of sale of assets, taxes and any other costs reasonably anticipated by
the parties.
(H)(i) If a party
has been awarded spousal support in lieu of a share of property, the court
shall so state on the record and shall order the obligor to provide for and
maintain life insurance in an amount commensurate with the obligation and
designating the obligee as beneficiary for the duration of the obligation.
(ii) The obligee
or attorney of the obligee shall cause a certified copy of the judgment to be
delivered to the life insurance company or companies.
(iii) If the
obligee or the attorney of the obligee delivers a true copy of the judgment to
the life insurance company or companies, identifying the policies involved and
requesting such notification under this section, the company or companies shall
notify the obligee, as beneficiary of the insurance policy, whenever the
policyholder takes any action that will change the beneficiary or reduce the
benefits of the policy. Either party may request notification by the insurer
when premium payments have not been made. If the obligor is ordered to provide
for and maintain life insurance, the obligor shall provide to the obligee a
true copy of the policy. The obligor shall also provide to the obligee written
notice of any action that will reduce the benefits or change the designation of
the beneficiaries under the policy.
(g) For the
creation of trusts as follows:
(A) For the
appointment of one or more trustees to hold, control and manage for the benefit
of the children of the parties, of the marriage or otherwise such of the real
or personal property of either or both of the parties, as the court may order
to be allocated or appropriated to their support and welfare, and to collect,
receive, expend, manage or invest any sum of money awarded for the support and
welfare of minor children of the parties.
(B) For the
appointment of one or more trustees to hold, manage and control such amount of
money or such real or personal property of either or both of the parties, as
may be set aside, allocated or appropriated for the support of a party.
(C) For the
establishment of the terms of the trust and provisions for the disposition or
distribution of such money or property to or between the parties, their
successors, heirs and assigns after the purpose of the trust has been
accomplished. Upon petition of a party or a person having an interest in the
trust showing a change of circumstances warranting a change in the terms of the
trust, the court may make and direct reasonable modifications in its terms.
(h) To change the
name of either spouse to a name the spouse held before the marriage. The court
shall order a change if it is requested by the affected party.
(i) For a money
award for any sums of money found to be then remaining unpaid upon any order or
limited judgment entered under ORS 107.095. If a limited judgment was entered
under ORS 107.095, the limited judgment shall continue to be enforceable for
any amounts not paid under the limited judgment unless those amounts are
included in the money award made by the general judgment.
(j) For an award
of reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the
action in favor of a party or in favor of a party’s attorney.
(2) In
determining the proper amount of support and the proper division of property
under subsection (1)(c), (d) and (f) of this section, the court may consider
evidence of the tax consequences on the parties of its proposed judgment.
(3) Upon the
filing of the judgment, the property division ordered shall be deemed effective
for all purposes. This transfer by judgment, which shall affect solely owned
property transferred to the other spouse as well as commonly owned property in
the same manner as would a declaration of a resulting trust in favor of the
spouse to whom the property is awarded, is not a taxable sale or exchange.
(4) If an appeal
is taken from a judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of
separation or from any part of a judgment rendered in pursuance of the
provisions of ORS 107.005 to 107.086, 107.095, 107.105, 107.115 to 107.174,
107.405, 107.425, 107.445 to 107.520, 107.540 and 107.610, the court rendering
the judgment may provide in a supplemental judgment for any relief provided for
in ORS 107.095 and shall provide that the relief granted in the judgment is to
be in effect only during the pendency of the appeal. A supplemental judgment
under this subsection may be enforced as provided in ORS 33.015 to 33.155 and
ORS chapter 18. A supplemental judgment under this subsection may be appealed
in the same manner as provided for supplemental judgments modifying a domestic
relations judgment under ORS 19.275.
(5) If an appeal
is taken from the judgment or other appealable order in a suit for annulment or
dissolution of a marriage or for separation and the appellate court awards
costs and disbursements to a party, the court may also award to that party, as
part of the costs, such additional sum of money as it may adjudge reasonable as
an attorney fee on the appeal.
(6) If, as a
result of a suit for the annulment or dissolution of a marriage or for
separation, the parties to such suit become owners of an undivided interest in
any real or personal property, or both, either party may maintain supplemental
proceedings by filing a petition in such suit for the partition of such real or
personal property, or both, within two years from the entry of the judgment,
showing among other things that the original parties to the judgment and their
joint or several creditors having a lien upon any such real or personal
property, if any there be, constitute the sole and only necessary parties to
such supplemental proceedings. The procedure in the supplemental proceedings,
so far as applicable, shall be the procedure provided in ORS 105.405 for the
partition of real property, and the court granting the judgment shall have in
the first instance and retain jurisdiction in equity therefor. [1971 c.280 §13;
1973 c.502 §8; 1975 c.722 §1; 1975 c.733 §2; 1977 c.205 §2; 1977 c.847 §2; 1977
c.878 §2a; 1979 c.144 §2; 1981 c.775 §1; 1983 c.728 §2; 1987 c.795 §9; 1987
c.885 §2; 1989 c.811 §6; 1993 c.315 §1; 1993 c.716 §3; 1995 c.22 §1; 1995 c.608
§3; 1997 c.22 §1; 1997 c.71 §19; 1997 c.707 §7; 1999 c.587 §1; 1999 c.762 §1;
2001 c.873 §5; 2003 c.576 §109; 2005 c.536 §7; 2005 c.568 §29; 2007 c.71 §27;
2011 c.115 §2; 2011 c.306 §1; 2011 c.438 §4; 2013 c.72 §2; 2013 c.126 §1; 2025
c.592 §112]
Notes of Decisions
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or · cites it 62×
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
Matter of Marriage of Engle (1982)
or · cites it 60×
“In the interim, the legislature passed and the governor signed 1981 Oregon Laws chapter 775, which, as will appear below, amends ORS 107.105 in a way that directly affects this case.”
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp · cites it 64×
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
In Re the Marriage of Githens (2009)
orctapp · cites it 56×
“The statutory authority of the courts set out in ORS 107.105 dates back to the enactment of the state's no-fault dissolution statute in 1971.”
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or · cites it 34×
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
Matter of Marriage of Jenks (1982)
or · cites it 20×
“” As we held in Pierson, any property owned by either party is subject to the dispositional authority of the court pursuant to the first sentence of ORS 107.105(1) (e) and property acquired by either party during the marriage is a marital asset as that term is used in the…”
In Re Marriage of Denton (1996)
orctapp · cites it 78×
“Nor does it necessitate awarding a share of enhanced earning capacity as property, as opposed to reflecting contributions in the form of increased spousal support, as allowed in ORS 107.105-(1)(d)(C). Third, the dissent spares no effort in attempting to paint husband as a “bad”…”
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood (1981)
or · cites it 14×
“In that case, however, this *1145 court undertook that task only after a request to the parties prior to oral argument for their views upon the question whether "this court [can] provide a guideline for consistent application of the statutory criteria" provided by ORS…”
Hoyt v. American Traders, Inc. (1986)
or · cites it 27×
“740 and the dissolution statutes, ORS 107.105 and 107.115. The plaintiff (whom we shall call the wife) filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage and requested that the real property at issue, which was specifically described in her petition, be awarded to her as her sole…”
Matter of Marriage of Richardson (1989)
or · cites it 15×
“Consequently, a court may order an unequal division of property “to the extent required for the accomplishment of the other purposes of the decree, whether that be to preserve assets, to enable a party to pay support, or, as here, to enable both parties to begin post-marital…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1) — 125 cases
Hoyt v. American Traders, Inc. (1986)
or
“740 and the dissolution statutes, ORS 107.105 and 107.115. The plaintiff (whom we shall call the wife) filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage and requested that the real property at issue, which was specifically described in her petition, be awarded to her as her sole…”
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
Matter of Marriage of Richardson (1989)
or
“Consequently, a court may order an unequal division of property “to the extent required for the accomplishment of the other purposes of the decree, whether that be to preserve assets, to enable a party to pay support, or, as here, to enable both parties to begin post-marital…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(1) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(D) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(F) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(I) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(a) — 12 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(b) — 19 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) — 37 cases
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood (1981)
or
“In that case, however, this *1145 court undertook that task only after a request to the parties prior to oral argument for their views upon the question whether "this court [can] provide a guideline for consistent application of the statutory criteria" provided by ORS…”
Matter of Marriage of Jenks (1982)
or
“” As we held in Pierson, any property owned by either party is subject to the dispositional authority of the court pursuant to the first sentence of ORS 107.105(1) (e) and property acquired by either party during the marriage is a marital asset as that term is used in the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c)(D) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c)(F) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c)(G) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c)(H) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d) — 86 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(A) — 18 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(A)(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(A)(vii) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(B) — 15 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(B)(i) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(B)(ii) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(B)(iii) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(B)(iv) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(B)(vi) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C) — 41 cases
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
In Re Marriage of Denton (1996)
orctapp
“Nor does it necessitate awarding a share of enhanced earning capacity as property, as opposed to reflecting contributions in the form of increased spousal support, as allowed in ORS 107.105-(1)(d)(C). Third, the dissent spares no effort in attempting to paint husband as a “bad”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C)(i) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C)(iv) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C)(v) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C)(viii) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C)(x) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(C)(xi) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(D) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(E) — 6 cases
Matter of Marriage of Richardson (1989)
or
“Consequently, a court may order an unequal division of property “to the extent required for the accomplishment of the other purposes of the decree, whether that be to preserve assets, to enable a party to pay support, or, as here, to enable both parties to begin post-marital…”
In re the Marriage of Austin (2003)
orctapp
“Before 1999, ORS 107.105 provided that one spouse could receive a property award for contributing to the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(F) — 17 cases
In Re Marriage of Denton (1996)
orctapp
“Nor does it necessitate awarding a share of enhanced earning capacity as property, as opposed to reflecting contributions in the form of increased spousal support, as allowed in ORS 107.105-(1)(d)(C). Third, the dissent spares no effort in attempting to paint husband as a “bad”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(G) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(H) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(J)(M) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(K) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(M) — 11 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(d)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(e) — 43 cases
Matter of Marriage of Engle (1982)
or
“In the interim, the legislature passed and the governor signed 1981 Oregon Laws chapter 775, which, as will appear below, amends ORS 107.105 in a way that directly affects this case.”
Matter of Marriage of Jenks (1982)
or
“” As we held in Pierson, any property owned by either party is subject to the dispositional authority of the court pursuant to the first sentence of ORS 107.105(1) (e) and property acquired by either party during the marriage is a marital asset as that term is used in the…”
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood (1981)
or
“In that case, however, this *1145 court undertook that task only after a request to the parties prior to oral argument for their views upon the question whether "this court [can] provide a guideline for consistent application of the statutory criteria" provided by ORS…”
Hoyt v. American Traders, Inc. (1986)
or
“740 and the dissolution statutes, ORS 107.105 and 107.115. The plaintiff (whom we shall call the wife) filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage and requested that the real property at issue, which was specifically described in her petition, be awarded to her as her sole…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f) — 161 cases
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
In Re the Marriage of Githens (2009)
orctapp
“The statutory authority of the courts set out in ORS 107.105 dates back to the enactment of the state's no-fault dissolution statute in 1971.”
In Re Marriage of Denton (1996)
orctapp
“Nor does it necessitate awarding a share of enhanced earning capacity as property, as opposed to reflecting contributions in the form of increased spousal support, as allowed in ORS 107.105-(1)(d)(C). Third, the dissent spares no effort in attempting to paint husband as a “bad”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(A) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(C) — 22 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(D) — 7 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(D)(i) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(D)(ii) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(F) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(f)(c) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(g) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(g)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(h) — 7 cases
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood (1981)
or
“In that case, however, this *1145 court undertook that task only after a request to the parties prior to oral argument for their views upon the question whether "this court [can] provide a guideline for consistent application of the statutory criteria" provided by ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(i) — 11 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(j) — 9 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(11)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(11)(f) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Githens (2009)
orctapp
“The statutory authority of the courts set out in ORS 107.105 dates back to the enactment of the state's no-fault dissolution statute in 1971.”
In Re Marriage of Denton (1996)
orctapp
“Nor does it necessitate awarding a share of enhanced earning capacity as property, as opposed to reflecting contributions in the form of increased spousal support, as allowed in ORS 107.105-(1)(d)(C). Third, the dissent spares no effort in attempting to paint husband as a “bad”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1999) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(2) — 19 cases
Matter of Marriage of Engle (1982)
or
“In the interim, the legislature passed and the governor signed 1981 Oregon Laws chapter 775, which, as will appear below, amends ORS 107.105 in a way that directly affects this case.”
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood (1981)
or
“In that case, however, this *1145 court undertook that task only after a request to the parties prior to oral argument for their views upon the question whether "this court [can] provide a guideline for consistent application of the statutory criteria" provided by ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(3) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(4) — 21 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(4)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(5) — 24 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(6) — 8 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(c) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(d) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(d)(1)(F) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(d)(C)(xi) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(d)(F) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(e) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(f) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(h) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(a) — 13 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(b) — 30 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(c) — 52 cases
Matter of Marriage of Jenks (1982)
or
“” As we held in Pierson, any property owned by either party is subject to the dispositional authority of the court pursuant to the first sentence of ORS 107.105(1) (e) and property acquired by either party during the marriage is a marital asset as that term is used in the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(c)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(c)(E) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(c)(E)(H) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(c)(F) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(c)(H) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d) — 126 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(A) — 28 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(A)(i) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(A)(l) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(A)(vii) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B) — 17 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B)(i) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B)(iii) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B)(iv) — 6 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B)(v) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(B)(vi) — 5 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C) — 39 cases
In Re the Marriage of HARRIS (2010)
or
“In 1999, the legislature revised the spousal support statutes and amended ORS 107.105 to its present form. 5 Or *405 Laws 1999, ch 587, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C)(i) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C)(iii) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C)(iv) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C)(v) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C)(viii) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(C)(x) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(D) — 13 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(E) — 13 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(F) — 27 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(G) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(G)(I) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(H) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(J) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(K) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(d)(M) — 14 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(e) — 56 cases
Matter of Marriage of Engle (1982)
or
“In the interim, the legislature passed and the governor signed 1981 Oregon Laws chapter 775, which, as will appear below, amends ORS 107.105 in a way that directly affects this case.”
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
Hoyt v. American Traders, Inc. (1986)
or
“740 and the dissolution statutes, ORS 107.105 and 107.115. The plaintiff (whom we shall call the wife) filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage and requested that the real property at issue, which was specifically described in her petition, be awarded to her as her sole…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(e)(F) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f) — 151 cases
In Re Marriage of Kunze (2004)
or
“ORS 107.105(1X0. If a party establishes that the property at issue is a marital asset, however, then the court must apply the rebuttable presumption of equal contribution under ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(A) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(C) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(D) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(D)(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(E) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(F) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(f)(G) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(g) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(g)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(h) — 9 cases
In Re the Marriage of Haguewood (1981)
or
“In that case, however, this *1145 court undertook that task only after a request to the parties prior to oral argument for their views upon the question whether "this court [can] provide a guideline for consistent application of the statutory criteria" provided by ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(i) — 13 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(l)(j) — 8 cases
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.