111.205
Commencement of probate proceeding; pleadings and mode of procedure; jury
trial. (1) A
probate proceeding is commenced by the filing of a petition in a court with
jurisdiction over probate proceedings. Petitions to commence probate
proceedings are authorized in ORS chapters 113 and 117.
(2) No particular
pleadings or forms of pleadings are required in the exercise of jurisdiction of
probate courts. All petitions, inventories, reports and accountings in a
probate proceeding must be in writing and include a declaration under penalty
of perjury in the form required by ORCP 1 E. The declaration must be made by at
least one of the persons making the pleading or by the attorney for the person,
or in the case of a business entity by an authorized agent. A declarant who is
physically outside the boundaries of the United States must make an unsworn
declaration under ORS 194.800 to 194.835.
(3) Actions in a
probate proceeding are not triable by a jury except as otherwise provided by
law. [1969 c.591 §12; 1979 c.284 §104; 2007 c.284 §1; 2013 c.218 §13; 2017
c.169 §45; 2021 c.282 §9]
111.210 [Repealed by 1969 c.591 §305]
111.212 [1953 c.650 §2; repealed by 1969
c.591 §305]
Notes of Decisions
O'Neill v. O'Neill, 545 P.2d 97 (Or. 1976).
“060(1) (commitments made by court having probate jurisdiction); ORS 111.205 (jurisdiction of probate courts in nature of suit in equity); In re Fehl, 159 Or 545, 551 , 81 P2d 130 (1938) (commitment proceedings not actions at law).”
Sanders v. United States Nat'l Bank, 694 P.2d 548 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “ORS 111.205, relating to procedure in probate courts, was amended to change the second sentence to read: "The mode of procedure in the exercise of jurisdiction is in the nature of an action not triable by right to a jury * * *.”
State v. Nance, 735 P.2d 1271 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“060(1); ORS 111.205; State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 61 , 545 P2d 97 (1976), we reverse.”
Rawls v. Evans, 48 P.3d 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 111.205 and ORS 115.175. Next, appellants argue that Zollman’s claim was time barred under the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 115.”
Helgesson v. Est. of Frank, 521 P.2d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Helgesson is an “interested person” in the sense that the earnest money agreement gave him a contract right which would be affected by the probate court’s decision concerning the power of the personal representative to *144 sell the real property in question.”
Fuentes v. Tillett, 326 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“See ORS 111.205 (stating that “[n]o particular pleadings or forms thereof are required in the exercise of jurisdiction of probate courts”).”
Adams v. West Coast Trust, 338 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“It is true, as petitioners contend, that ORS 111.205 to 111.275 describe probate procedures generally, and that ORS 111.”
Van v. Van, 513 P.2d 1205 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
“The basis for the finding of incompetency was a factual determination that the respondent, now approximately 60 years old, was a chronic alcoholic and was thus unable, unassisted, to properly manage and take care of herself and her property.”
Matter of Barker, 600 P.2d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“060(1); ORS 111.205; State v. Nesbitt, 23 Or App 202 , 541 P2d 1055 (1975).”
Thomas v. Senior & Disabled Serv. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994).
“ORS 111.205. We believe, however, that the informality of the probate process calls for a liberal application of the Lithia rule.”
State ex rel. Child.'s Servs. Div. v. Horner, 606 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“ORS 111.205. In their briefs and arguments in this court the parties essentially discussed only the questions whether CSD was entitled to petition the court as an "interested person,” whether the conservator had any statutory duty to reimburse CSD, whether CSD was estopped by…”
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.