Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.020 (2026)

Nonliability for other spouse’s obligations

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      108.020 Nonliability for other spouse’s obligations. Neither spouse in a marriage is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other spouse incurred before marriage. Except as provided in ORS 108.040, a spouse in a marriage is not liable for the separate debts of the other spouse, and the rent or income of property owned by either spouse is not liable for the separate debts of the other spouse. [Amended by 2015 c.629 §15]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Haley v. Highland, 142 Wash. 2d 135 (2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Haley v. Highland, 142 Wash. 2d 135 (2000). “The plain language of the statute demonstrates that the statute was not intended to protect community property. The phrase “community property” is never mentioned in the general provision of RCW 26.”
Matter of Marriage of Engle, 629 P.2d 397 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 108.020, 108.060. The equitable rights the wife has in marital assets by virtue of ORS 107.”
Alldrin v. Lucas, 490 P.2d 141 (Or. 1971). “Defendants contend that a husband and wife relationship does not, of itself, make one the agent for the other, and the mere fact that Alice Lucas signed the mortgage does not justify the creation of agency by implication, relying on ORS 108.”
Engman v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 677 P.2d 719 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “ORS 108.020 provides that a person is not liable for her spouse’s premarital debts.”
Peterson v. Woods, 617 P.2d 915 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “While ORS 108.020 5 insulates one spouse from liability for the debts of the other, defendant may not rely on that statute because the expenses here, insofar as the record shows, have been paid and are therefore not debts.”
Zhou, No. 3:24-cv-01944 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2025). · cites it 6× “ORS 108.020 and 108.030 Defendants first move to dismiss all claims against Defendants Yu and Liu because neither is liable “solely because [they are] married to [Defendants Zhang and Huang].”
West v. Dept. of Rev., No. TC-MD 160254N (Or. T.C. May 2, 2017). “) The court rejects Plaintiff’s contention that he is not personally liable for the SELCO debts.”
Louie v. Louie, 506 P.3d 1187 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 108.020 similarly provides: “Except as provided in ORS 108.”
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.