107.465
Conversion of judgment of separation into judgment of dissolution. (1) Upon motion of a party for an
order to show cause why a judgment of separation should not be converted to a
judgment of dissolution and after service of notice to the other party at least
30 days before the scheduled hearing, the court may, within two years after the
entry of a judgment of separation, convert a judgment of separation into a
judgment of dissolution of the marriage. The other party may file a written
consent to conversion and waiver of the hearing at any time before the hearing.
A supplemental judgment of dissolution entered under this section does not set
aside, alter or modify any part of the judgment of separation that has created
or granted rights that have vested.
(2) Nothing in
this section is intended to prevent either party to a judgment of separation
from commencing at any time in the manner required by law a suit for
dissolution of the marriage. [1973 c.502 §16; 1999 c.569 §5; 2003 c.576 §127]
Notes of Decisions
In re the Marriage of Patterson, 136 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“ORS 107.465 provides: “(1) Upon motion of a party for an order to show cause why a judgment of separation should not be converted to a judgment of dissolution and after service of notice to the other party at least 30 days before the scheduled hearing, the court may, within two…”
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Greisamer, 547 P.2d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “On December 8, 1974 father filed a new suit, apparently under authority of ORS 107.465(2), 1 for dissolution of the marriage in the same circuit court, alleging, inter alia, that he had been awarded custody in the separation suit and that he sought to continue that custody.”
In re the Marriage of Wagner, 747 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “” ORS 107.465. That motion was stricken, because husband was not served.”
In re the Marriage of Mannix, 776 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 107.465(1). Wife was served by mail at a Baltimore, Maryland, address.”
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Dealy, 549 P.2d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“ORS 107.465 provides: “(1) The court has the power within two years after the entry of a decree of separation, upon motion of a party and after service of notice to the other party in the manner provided by law for service of summons, to allow supplemental proceedings for…”
In re the Marriage of Jones, 936 P.2d 372 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “According to wife, the trial court’s award of a one-half interest in the residence violates ORS 107.465, which she contends prohibits courts from setting aside, altering or modifying any part of a judgment of separation that has vested.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.465(1) — 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Mannix, 776 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 107.465(1). Wife was served by mail at a Baltimore, Maryland, address.”
In re the Marriage of Jones, 936 P.2d 372 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“According to wife, the trial court’s award of a one-half interest in the residence violates ORS 107.465, which she contends prohibits courts from setting aside, altering or modifying any part of a judgment of separation that has vested.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.465(2) — 2 cases
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Greisamer, 547 P.2d 155 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“On December 8, 1974 father filed a new suit, apparently under authority of ORS 107.465(2), 1 for dissolution of the marriage in the same circuit court, alleging, inter alia, that he had been awarded custody in the separation suit and that he sought to continue that custody.”
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.