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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 110.620 (2026)

Contest of registration or enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      110.620 Contest of registration or enforcement. (1) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered support order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:

      (a) The issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party;

      (b) The order was obtained by fraud;

      (c) The order has been vacated, suspended or modified by a later order;

      (d) The issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal;

      (e) There is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought;

      (f) Full or partial payment has been made;

      (g) The statute of limitation under ORS 110.611 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or

      (h) The alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.

      (2) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (1) of this section, a tribunal may stay enforcement of a registered support order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered support order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.

      (3) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection (1) of this section to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order. [2015 c.298 §52]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: State v. Baldwin, 341 Or. App. 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Baldwin, 341 Or. App. 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Appellant appeared pro se to contest the registration and focused on the argument that the Washington support order “was obtained by fraud,” which is one of the allowable defenses under ORS 110.”
State v. Baldwin, 341 Or. App. 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Appellant appeared pro se to contest the registration and focused on the argument that the Washington support order “was obtained by fraud,” which is one of the allowable defenses under ORS 110.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 110.620(1)(b): 2 cases
State v. Baldwin, 341 Or. App. 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Appellant appeared pro se to contest the registration and focused on the argument that the Washington support order “was obtained by fraud,” which is one of the allowable defenses under ORS 110.”
State v. Baldwin, 341 Or. App. 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Appellant appeared pro se to contest the registration and focused on the argument that the Washington support order “was obtained by fraud,” which is one of the allowable defenses under ORS 110.”
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.