108.040
Liability of parents for expenses of family and education of children. (1)(a) The expenses of the family
and the education of the minor children are chargeable upon the property of
both spouses in a marriage who are parents of the minor children, or either of
them, and in relation thereto they may be sued jointly or separately.
(b) As used in
this subsection:
(A) “Expenses of
the family” includes only expenses incurred for the benefit of a member of the
family.
(B) “Family”
means the spouses in a marriage and the minor children of the spouses.
(2)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, after the separation of one
spouse from the other spouse, a spouse is not responsible for debts contracted
by the other spouse after the separation except for debts incurred for
maintenance, support and education of the minor children of the spouses.
(3) For the
purposes of subsection (2) of this section, spouses shall be considered
separated if the spouses are living in separate residences without intention of
reconciliation at the time the debt is incurred. The court may consider the
following factors in determining whether the spouses are separated in addition
to such other factors as may be relevant:
(a) Whether the
spouses subsequently reconciled.
(b) The number of
separations and reconciliations of the spouses.
(c) The length of
time the spouses lived apart.
(d) Whether the
spouses intend to reconcile.
(e) Whether the
spouses have filed a petition for separation or dissolution.
(4) An action
under this section shall be commenced within the period otherwise provided by
law. [Amended by 1965 c.530 §1; 1993 c.598 §1; 2005 c.732 §3; 2015 c.629 §17]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2022 · leading case:
Burnette v. Wahl, 588 P.2d 1105 (Or. 1978).
Burnette v. Wahl, 588 P.2d 1105 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 2× “" [5] Among these laws are ORS 108.040, providing an action against both parents for family necessities; ORS 108.”
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.”
State v. Laemoa, 533 P.2d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
““Parent” is definite and certain by itself and needs no other modifying or qualifying language. Use of the word “parent” by itself is a proper allegation of a necessary element of the crime.”
Rowley v. Rowley, 375 P.2d 84 (Or. 1962).
“ORS 108.040 and 167.605. The children of his present wife may appear to him as moral obligations, but that status does not impose as exacting a duty as the one imposed by law.”
Louie v. Louie, 506 P.3d 1187 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 7× “After the proceedings closed, Jasmine’s appointed counsel filed a motion seeking an award of fees, citing as support ORS 108.040 and ORS 125.095. In the motion, counsel asked the court to “direct[ ] the guardian, who is the husband of the protected person, to pay her attorney’s…”
Peterson v. Woods, 617 P.2d 915 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“We need not further define the ambit of a survivor’s power to make gifts of marital property in this case because the gift to defendant of all the assets is invalid as a matter of law. ORS 108.020: "Neither husband nor wife is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other…”
Credit Serv. Co. v. Stierly, 495 P.2d 270 (Or. 1972).
· cites it 2× “The defendant husband filed a general denial and also alleged as an affirmative defense that he and his wife separated in September, 1968, and were di *512 vorced on March 21, 1969, and that he was not responsible, under ORS 108.040(3), for debts incurred by Mrs.”
West v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2017).
“During Plaintiff’s divorce trial, the judge explicitly distinguished marital debt from personally-incurred debt as she equitably divided the couple’s assets and liabilities.”
Graff v. Comm'r, 44 T.C.M. 701 (Tax Ct. 1982).
· cites it 2× “When property is owned by either husband or wife, the other has no interest therein which can be the subject of contract *307 between them, or such interest as will make the same liable for the contracts or liabilities of either the husband or wife who is not the owner of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.040(3) — 1 case
Credit Serv. Co. v. Stierly, 495 P.2d 270 (Or. 1972).
“The defendant husband filed a general denial and also alleged as an affirmative defense that he and his wife separated in September, 1968, and were di *512 vorced on March 21, 1969, and that he was not responsible, under ORS 108.040(3), for debts incurred by Mrs.”
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.