Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452

Reopening case if assets discovered after entry of judgment

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

      107.452 Reopening case if assets discovered after entry of judgment. (1) A court that entered a judgment of marital annulment, dissolution or separation shall reopen the case upon the motion of either party if the moving party alleges that significant assets belonging to either or both of the parties:

      (a) Existed at the time of the entry of the judgment; and

      (b) Were not discovered until after the entry of the judgment.

      (2) If the court finds that the assets were inadvertently omitted from the distribution of the marital estate, the court shall make such distribution of the omitted assets as is just and proper in all the circumstances.

      (3) If the court finds that the assets were intentionally concealed and thereby not included in the distribution of the marital estate, the court may order:

      (a) The division of the appreciated value of the omitted assets;

      (b) The forfeiture of the omitted assets to the injured party;

      (c) A compensatory judgment in favor of the injured party;

      (d) A judgment in favor of the injured party as punitive damages; or

      (e) Any other distribution as may be just and proper in all the circumstances.

      (4) The court may award attorney fees on any motion filed pursuant to this section. The court shall award attorney fees to the moving party if the court finds that assets were intentionally concealed and thereby not included in the distribution of the marital estate.

      (5)(a) A motion alleging inadvertent omission of assets must be filed within two years after the date of discovery of the omission but no later than three years after the entry of the judgment.

      (b) A motion alleging intentional concealment of assets must be filed within two years after the date of discovery of the omission but no later than 10 years after the entry of the judgment.

      (6) A motion under this section may be filed with and decided by the trial court during the time an appeal from a judgment is pending before an appellate court. The moving party shall serve a copy of the motion on the appellate court. The moving party shall file a copy of the trial court’s order in the appellate court within seven days after the date of the trial court order. Any necessary modification of the appeal required by the trial court order shall be pursuant to rule of the appellate court. [1995 c.800 §6]

 

SEPARATION

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Conrad
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Marriage of Conrad (2003) orctapp · cites it 30× “He argues that wife committed intrinsic fraud by falsely representing during the dissolution trial that she did not own certain property and that the trial court erred in concluding that ORS 107.452, the statutory foundation for husband’s motion, does not provide relief for that…”
In re the Marriage of Tibbetts (2002) orctapp · cites it 11× “Wife appeals and husband cross-appeals after the trial court reopened the parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding under ORS 107.452. Previously, the parties had filed a co-petition for the dissolution of their marriage, and a judgment on the co-petition had been entered.”
Dunkin v. Dunkin (1999) orctapp · cites it 17× “Following the filing of the civil action, the legislature enacted ORS 107.452, which permits a dissolution proceeding that has gone to judgment to be reopened on the ground of discovery of previously undisclosed marital assets.”
Menten and Deatherage (2020) orctapp “135(1)(e) (relating to modifi- cation of property awards made based on enhanced earn- ing capacity); ORS 107.452(3) (reopening of case after inten- tional concealment)), courts do not have authority to modify a property division in a dissolution judgment.”
Matter of Marriage of Landis (2005) orctapp “Husband does not argue on appeal that the trial court lacked authority to reopen the dissolution proceeding under ORS 107.452 (permitting reopening based on significant undiscovered assets) or that, if otherwise lawful, the court’s modified disposition of.”
In re Marriage Of Kasner (2019) orctapp · cites it 22× “*55 Wife appeals the trial court's order denying an ORS 107.452 motion to reopen her dissolution case to address an interest in real property allegedly concealed by husband in the course of the parties' underlying divorce proceedings.”
Raga v. Cortinas (2025) orctapp “For her part, wife said that she was open to husband having 1 To the extent that husband asks us to reopen the record under ORS 107.452 based on discovery of “significant assets” following dissolution, we decline to do so.”
Solomon and Solomon (2026) orctapp · cites it 3× “To the extent that husband is actually refer- encing his motion to reopen made pursuant to ORS 107.452, which requires the trial court to reopen the case if the mov- ing party alleges that significant assets existed at the time of entry of the judgment and were not discovered…”
In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson, In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson (2022) iowa “Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452 (2022). Section 107.”
In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson and Robert Gregory Hutchinson, In re the Marriage of Susan Gayle Hutchinson (2022) iowa “Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452 (2022). Section 107.”
Raga v. Cortinas (2025) orctapp “For her part, wife said that she was open to husband having 1 To the extent that husband asks us to reopen the record under ORS 107.452 based on discovery of “significant assets” following dissolution, we decline to do so.”
Schnitzer and Schnitzer (2020) orctapp “104 (action for enforcement of stipu- lated judgment) and ORS 107.452 (reopening of dissolution judgment when significant assets are discovered after entry of judgment), wife appeals a second supplemental judgment awarding husband his attorney fees, contending that the trial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452(1) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Tibbetts (2002) orctapp “Wife appeals and husband cross-appeals after the trial court reopened the parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding under ORS 107.452. Previously, the parties had filed a co-petition for the dissolution of their marriage, and a judgment on the co-petition had been entered.”
In re Marriage Of Kasner (2019) orctapp “*55 Wife appeals the trial court's order denying an ORS 107.452 motion to reopen her dissolution case to address an interest in real property allegedly concealed by husband in the course of the parties' underlying divorce proceedings.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Conrad (2003) orctapp “He argues that wife committed intrinsic fraud by falsely representing during the dissolution trial that she did not own certain property and that the trial court erred in concluding that ORS 107.452, the statutory foundation for husband’s motion, does not provide relief for that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452(2) — 2 cases
Dunkin v. Dunkin (1999) orctapp “Following the filing of the civil action, the legislature enacted ORS 107.452, which permits a dissolution proceeding that has gone to judgment to be reopened on the ground of discovery of previously undisclosed marital assets.”
In re Marriage Of Kasner (2019) orctapp “*55 Wife appeals the trial court's order denying an ORS 107.452 motion to reopen her dissolution case to address an interest in real property allegedly concealed by husband in the course of the parties' underlying divorce proceedings.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452(3) — 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Tibbetts (2002) orctapp “Wife appeals and husband cross-appeals after the trial court reopened the parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding under ORS 107.452. Previously, the parties had filed a co-petition for the dissolution of their marriage, and a judgment on the co-petition had been entered.”
Menten and Deatherage (2020) orctapp “135(1)(e) (relating to modifi- cation of property awards made based on enhanced earn- ing capacity); ORS 107.452(3) (reopening of case after inten- tional concealment)), courts do not have authority to modify a property division in a dissolution judgment.”
Dunkin v. Dunkin (1999) orctapp “Following the filing of the civil action, the legislature enacted ORS 107.452, which permits a dissolution proceeding that has gone to judgment to be reopened on the ground of discovery of previously undisclosed marital assets.”
In re Marriage Of Kasner (2019) orctapp “*55 Wife appeals the trial court's order denying an ORS 107.452 motion to reopen her dissolution case to address an interest in real property allegedly concealed by husband in the course of the parties' underlying divorce proceedings.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.452(4) — 1 case
Dunkin v. Dunkin (1999) orctapp “Following the filing of the civil action, the legislature enacted ORS 107.452, which permits a dissolution proceeding that has gone to judgment to be reopened on the ground of discovery of previously undisclosed marital assets.”
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.