107.135
Vacation or modification of judgment; policy regarding settlement; enforcement
of settlement terms; remedies.
(1) The court may at any time after a judgment of annulment or dissolution of
marriage or of separation is granted, upon the motion of either party and after
service of notice on the other party in the manner provided by ORCP 7, and
after notice to the Division of Child Support when required under subsection
(9) of this section:
(a) Set aside,
alter or modify any portion of the judgment that provides for the appointment
and duties of trustees, for the custody, parenting time, visitation, support
and welfare of the minor children and the children attending school, as defined
in ORS 107.108, including any health or life insurance provisions, for the
support of a party or for life insurance under ORS 107.820 or 107.830;
(b) Make an
order, after service of notice to the other party, providing for the future
custody, support and welfare of minor children residing in the state, who, at
the time the judgment was given, were not residents of the state, or were
unknown to the court or were erroneously omitted from the judgment;
(c) Terminate a
duty of support toward any minor child who has become self-supporting,
emancipated or married;
(d) After service
of notice on the child in the manner provided by law for service of a summons,
suspend future support for any child who has ceased to be a child attending
school as defined in ORS 107.108; and
(e) Set aside,
alter or modify any portion of the judgment that provides for a property award
based on the enhanced earning capacity of a party that was awarded before
October 23, 1999. A property award may be set aside, altered or modified under
this paragraph:
(A) When the
person with the enhanced earning capacity makes a good faith career change that
results in less income;
(B) When the
income of the person with the enhanced earning capacity decreases due to
circumstances beyond the person’s control; or
(C) Under such
other circumstances as the court deems just and proper.
(2) When a party
moves to set aside, alter or modify the child support provisions of the
judgment:
(a) The party
shall state in the motion, to the extent known:
(A) Whether there
is pending in this state or any other jurisdiction any type of support
proceeding involving children of the marriage, including one brought under ORS
25.287, 25.501 to 25.556, 107.431, 109.100, 125.025 or 419B.400 or ORS chapter
110; and
(B) Whether there
exists in this state or any other jurisdiction a support order, as defined in
ORS 110.503, involving children of the marriage, other than the judgment the
party is moving to set aside, alter or modify.
(b) The party
shall include with the motion a certificate regarding any pending support
proceeding and any existing support order other than the judgment the party is
moving to set aside, alter or modify. The party shall use a certificate that is
in a form established by court rule and include information required by court
rule and paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(3) In a
proceeding under this section to reconsider the spousal or child support
provisions of the judgment, the following provisions apply:
(a) A substantial
change in economic circumstances of a party, which may include, but is not
limited to, a substantial change in the cost of reasonable and necessary
expenses to either party, is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order
of support, except that an order of compensatory spousal support may only be
modified upon a showing of an involuntary, extraordinary and unanticipated
change in circumstances that reduces the earning capacity of the paying spouse.
(b) If the
judgment provided for a termination or reduction of spousal support at a
designated age in anticipation of the commencement of pension, Social Security
or other entitlement payments, and if the obligee is unable to obtain the
anticipated entitlement payments, that inability is sufficient change in
circumstances for the court to reconsider its order of support.
(c) If Social
Security is considered in lieu of spousal support or partial spousal support,
the court shall determine the amount of Social Security the party is eligible
to collect. The court shall take into consideration any pension, retirement or
other funds available to either party to effect an equitable distribution
between the parties and shall also take into consideration any reduction of
entitlement caused by taking early retirement.
(4) In
considering under this section whether a change in circumstances exists
sufficient for the court to reconsider spousal or child support provisions of a
judgment, the following provisions apply:
(a) The court or
administrator, as defined in ORS 25.010, shall consider income opportunities
and benefits of the respective parties from all sources, including but not
limited to:
(A) The
reasonable opportunity of each party, the obligor and obligee respectively, to
acquire future income and assets.
(B) Retirement
benefits available to the obligor and to the obligee.
(C) Other
benefits to which the obligor is entitled, such as travel benefits,
recreational benefits and medical benefits, contrasted with benefits to which
the obligee is similarly entitled.
(D) Social
Security benefits paid to a child, or to a representative payee administering
the funds for the child’s use and benefit, as a result of the obligor’s
disability or retirement if the benefits:
(i) Were not
previously considered in the child support order; or
(ii) Were
considered in an action initiated before May 12, 2003.
(E) Apportioned
Veterans’ benefits or Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance under
38 U.S.C. chapter 35 paid to a child, or to a representative payee
administering the funds for the child’s use and benefit, as a result of the
obligor’s disability or retirement if the benefits:
(i) Were not
previously considered in the child support order; or
(ii) Were
considered in an action initiated before May 12, 2003.
(b) An obligee’s
conviction for the attempted murder or conspiracy to commit the murder of the
obligor qualifies as a change in circumstances sufficient for reconsideration
of support provisions.
(c) If the motion
for modification is one made by the obligor to reduce or terminate support, and
if the obligee opposes the motion, the court shall not find a change in
circumstances sufficient for reconsideration of support provisions, if the
motion is based upon a reduction of the obligor’s financial status resulting
from the obligor’s taking voluntary retirement, partial voluntary retirement or
any other voluntary reduction of income or self-imposed curtailment of earning
capacity, if it is shown that such action of the obligor was not taken in good
faith but was for the primary purpose of avoiding the support obligation. In
any subsequent motion for modification, the court shall deny the motion if the
sole basis of the motion for modification is the termination of voluntarily
taken retirement benefits and the obligor previously has been found not to have
acted in good faith.
(d) The court
shall consider the following factors in deciding whether the actions of the
obligor were not in “good faith”:
(A) Timing of the
voluntary retirement or other reduction in financial status to coincide with
court action in which the obligee seeks or is granted an increase in spousal
support.
(B) Whether all
or most of the income producing assets and property were awarded to the
obligor, and spousal support in lieu of such property was awarded to the
obligee.
(C) Extent of the
obligor’s dissipation of funds and assets prior to the voluntary retirement or
soon after filing for the change of circumstances based on retirement.
(D) If earned
income is reduced and absent dissipation of funds or large gifts, whether the
obligor has funds and assets from which the spousal support could have been
paid.
(E) Whether the
obligor has given gifts of substantial value to others, including a current
spouse, to the detriment of the obligor’s ability to meet the preexisting
obligation of spousal support.
(5) Upon
terminating a duty of spousal support, a court shall make specific findings of
the basis for the termination and shall include the findings in the judgment.
(6) Any
modification of child or spousal support granted because of a change of
circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for
modification was served or to any date thereafter.
(7) The judgment
is final as to any installment or payment of money that has accrued up to the
time the nonmoving party, other than the state, is served with a motion to
modify the judgment. The court may not modify any portion of the judgment that
provides for any payment of money, either for minor children or for the support
of a party, that has accrued before the motion is served. However:
(a) The court may
allow a credit against child support arrearages for periods of time, excluding
reasonable parenting time unless otherwise provided by order or judgment,
during which the obligor, with the knowledge and consent of the obligee or
pursuant to court order, has physical custody of the child; and
(b) The court may
allow, as provided in the rules of the Oregon Child Support Program, a
dollar-for-dollar credit against child support arrearages for any Social
Security or Veterans’ benefits paid retroactively to the child, or to a
representative payee administering the funds for the child’s use and benefit,
as a result of an obligor’s disability or retirement.
(8) In a
proceeding under subsection (1) of this section, the court may assess against
either party a reasonable attorney fee and costs for the benefit of the other
party. If a party is found to have acted in bad faith, the court shall order
that party to pay a reasonable attorney fee and costs of the defending party.
(9) Whenever a
motion to establish, modify or terminate child support or satisfy or alter
support arrearages is filed and the child support rights of one of the parties
or of a child of both of the parties have been assigned to the state, a true
copy of the motion shall be served by mail or personal delivery on the
Administrator of the Division of Child Support of the Department of Justice or
on the branch office providing support services to the county in which the
motion is filed.
(10)(a) Except as
provided in ORS 109.701 to 109.834, the courts of Oregon, having once acquired
personal and subject matter jurisdiction in a domestic relations action, retain
such jurisdiction regardless of any change of domicile.
(b) The courts of
Oregon, in a proceeding to establish, enforce or modify a child support order,
shall recognize the provisions of the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child
Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. 1738B).
(11) In a
proceeding under this section to reconsider provisions in a judgment relating
to custody or parenting time, the court may consider repeated and unreasonable
denial of, or interference with, parenting time to be a substantial change of
circumstances.
(12) In a
proceeding under this section to reconsider provisions in a judgment relating
to parenting time, the court may suspend or terminate a parent’s parenting time
with a child if the court finds that the parent has abused a controlled
substance and that the parenting time is not in the best interests of the
child. If a court has suspended or terminated a parent’s parenting time with a
child for reasons described in this subsection, the court may not grant the
parent future parenting time until the parent has shown that the reasons for
the suspension or termination are resolved and that reinstated parenting time
is in the best interests of the child. Nothing in this subsection limits the
court’s authority under subsection (1)(a) of this section.
(13) In a
proceeding under this section to reconsider provisions in a judgment relating
to custody, temporary placement of the child by the custodial parent pursuant
to ORS 109.056 (3) with the noncustodial parent as a result of military
deployment of the custodial parent is not, by itself, a change of
circumstances. Any fact relating to the child and the parties occurring
subsequent to the last custody judgment, other than the custodial parent’s
temporary placement of the child pursuant to ORS 109.056 (3) with the
noncustodial parent, may be considered by the court when making a change of
circumstances determination.
(14) Within 30
days after service of notice under subsection (1) of this section, the party
served shall file a written response with the court.
(15)(a) It is the
policy of this state:
(A) To encourage
the settlement of cases brought under this section; and
(B) For courts to
enforce the terms of settlements described in paragraph (b) of this subsection
to the fullest extent possible, except when to do so would violate the law or
would clearly contravene public policy.
(b) In a
proceeding under subsection (1) of this section, the court may enforce the
terms set forth in a stipulated order or judgment signed by the parties, an
order or judgment resulting from a settlement on the record or an order or
judgment incorporating a settlement agreement:
(A) As contract
terms using contract remedies;
(B) By imposing
any remedy available to enforce an order or judgment, including but not limited
to contempt; or
(C) By any
combination of the provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph.
(c) A party may
seek to enforce an agreement and obtain remedies described in paragraph (b) of
this subsection by filing a motion, serving notice on the other party in the
manner provided by ORCP 7 and, if a remedy under paragraph (b)(B) of this
subsection 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.
(d) Nothing in
paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection limits a party’s ability, in a separate
proceeding, to file a motion to modify an order or judgment under subsection
(1) of this section or to seek enforcement of an ancillary agreement to the
order or judgment. [1971 c.280 §16; 1973 c.502 §9; 1981 c.775 §2a; 1981 c.855 §1;
1983 c.728 §3; 1983 c.761 §9; 1987 c.795 §10; 1987 c.885 §3; 1989 c.545 §1;
1991 c.888 §2; 1993 c.315 §2; 1995 c.22 §2; 1997 c.91 §1; 1997 c.475 §6; 1997
c.704 §52; 1997 c.707 §9; 1999 c.80 §65; 1999 c.587 §2; 1999 c.1030 §2; 2001
c.104 §32; 2001 c.203 §4; 2001 c.334 §4; 2003 c.14 §41; 2003 c.116 §4; 2003
c.419 §1; 2003 c.572 §13a; 2003 c.576 §§112,112a,112b; 2005 c.708 §6; 2007
c.611 §11; 2009 c.80 §5; 2015 c.298 §90; 2019 c.291 §13; 2019 c.354 §2; 2021
c.597 §59; 2025 c.99 §76]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
432
cases (
34 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
· cites it 60× “Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 48× “” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 40× “135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
Matter of Marriage of Medill, 40 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 18× “Even though father remains a resident of the State of Oregon and ORS 107.135 provides Oregon courts with continuing subject matter jurisdiction over Oregon's dissolution of marriage judgments, the majority interprets ORS 109.”
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 51× “Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 25× “Pursuant to ORS 107.135(1), such proceedings may include the modification of any portion of a judgment that provides for “support and welfare of the minor children.”
Baertlein & Stocks, 464 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 22× “For his part, Brian joined in mother’s motion to enforce, opposed father’s motion to modify, and requested attorney fees under ORS 107.135 and ORCP 68, and pursu- ant to paragraph 24 of the parties’ MSA.”
Ellis v. Ellis, 640 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 32× “135(2), relating to the enforcement of support decrees, provides: "The decree is a final judgment as to any instalment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter, or modify the decree, and the court does not have the…”
Matter of Marriage of Eagen, 640 P.2d 1019 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 17× “This case is governed by ORS 107.135(2) [1] which provided: "The decree is a final judgment as to any instalment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the decree, and the court does not have the power to…”
In re the Marriage of Tilson, 317 P.3d 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× “ORS 107.135 provides, in relevant part: “(3) In a proceeding under this section to reconsider the spousal or child support provisions of the judgment, the following provisions apply: “(a) A substantial change in economic circumstances of a party, which may include, but is not…”
In Re the Marriage of Polacek, 243 P.3d 1190 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 7× “That statute is silent, however, regarding the authority of an appellate court to award attorney fees on appeal or review from a trial court proceeding under ORS 107.135(1). The legislature has addressed that potential gap in judicial authority by enacting ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1) — 43 cases
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
“Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
In Re the Marriage of Polacek, 243 P.3d 1190 (Or. 2010).
“That statute is silent, however, regarding the authority of an appellate court to award attorney fees on appeal or review from a trial court proceeding under ORS 107.135(1). The legislature has addressed that potential gap in judicial authority by enacting ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(a) — 53 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(e) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(e)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(e)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(1)(e)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(11) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(12) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(12)(a) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(12)(a)(B) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(13) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(14) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(15) — 11 cases
In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013).
“Pursuant to ORS 107.135(1), such proceedings may include the modification of any portion of a judgment that provides for “support and welfare of the minor children.”
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
Baertlein & Stocks, 464 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“For his part, Brian joined in mother’s motion to enforce, opposed father’s motion to modify, and requested attorney fees under ORS 107.135 and ORCP 68, and pursu- ant to paragraph 24 of the parties’ MSA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(15)(a) — 6 cases
In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013).
“Pursuant to ORS 107.135(1), such proceedings may include the modification of any portion of a judgment that provides for “support and welfare of the minor children.”
Baertlein & Stocks, 464 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“For his part, Brian joined in mother’s motion to enforce, opposed father’s motion to modify, and requested attorney fees under ORS 107.135 and ORCP 68, and pursu- ant to paragraph 24 of the parties’ MSA.”
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(15)(b) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013).
“Pursuant to ORS 107.135(1), such proceedings may include the modification of any portion of a judgment that provides for “support and welfare of the minor children.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(15)(b)(B) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(2) — 43 cases
Matter of Marriage of Eagen, 640 P.2d 1019 (Or. 1982).
“This case is governed by ORS 107.135(2) [1] which provided: "The decree is a final judgment as to any instalment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the decree, and the court does not have the power to…”
Ellis v. Ellis, 640 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1982).
“135(2), relating to the enforcement of support decrees, provides: "The decree is a final judgment as to any instalment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter, or modify the decree, and the court does not have the…”
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
“135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(2)(a) — 42 cases
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
“135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(2)(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3) — 26 cases
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
“Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3)(a) — 55 cases
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
“Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
In re the Marriage of Tilson, 317 P.3d 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“ORS 107.135 provides, in relevant part: “(3) In a proceeding under this section to reconsider the spousal or child support provisions of the judgment, the following provisions apply: “(a) A substantial change in economic circumstances of a party, which may include, but is not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3)(a)(A) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
“135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3)(a)(A)(1995) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3)(a)(B) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
“135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3)(b) — 15 cases
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
“135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3)(c) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Willis v. Willis, 840 P.2d 697 (Or. 1992).
“135(2)(a), a "substantial change in economic circumstances of a party * * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support." ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(3Xb) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4) — 9 cases
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
“Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4)(a) — 12 cases
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
“Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4)(a)(A) — 3 cases
In Re Marriage of Weber, 91 P.3d 706 (Or. 2004).
“Husband, the payor in this case, is a physician. In the months preceding the parties' 1994 marriage dissolution, husband's income had declined significantly due to changes in the medical profession.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4)(a)(B) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4)(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4)(c) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(4)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(5) — 16 cases
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(6) — 38 cases
In re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 69 P.3d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” That concession appears to be based on ORS 107.135, which provides, in part: “(5) Any modification of spousal support granted because of a change of circumstances may be ordered effective retroactive to the date the motion for modification was filed or to any date thereafter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(7) — 22 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(7)(a) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(8) — 25 cases
Baertlein & Stocks, 464 P.3d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“For his part, Brian joined in mother’s motion to enforce, opposed father’s motion to modify, and requested attorney fees under ORS 107.135 and ORCP 68, and pursu- ant to paragraph 24 of the parties’ MSA.”
In Re the Marriage of Berry, 271 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Wife’s allegation of entitlement was based solely on ORS 107.135. Husband objected to that request on numerous grounds.”
In Re the Marriage of Polacek, 243 P.3d 1190 (Or. 2010).
“That statute is silent, however, regarding the authority of an appellate court to award attorney fees on appeal or review from a trial court proceeding under ORS 107.135(1). The legislature has addressed that potential gap in judicial authority by enacting ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(9) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(9)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(d)(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(l)(a) — 53 cases
In Re the Marriage of Polacek, 243 P.3d 1190 (Or. 2010).
“That statute is silent, however, regarding the authority of an appellate court to award attorney fees on appeal or review from a trial court proceeding under ORS 107.135(1). The legislature has addressed that potential gap in judicial authority by enacting ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(l)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(l)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(l)(e) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.135(l)(e)(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.