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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 114.015 (2026)

Support of spouse and children

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

      114.015 Support of spouse and children. The court by order shall make necessary and reasonable provision from the estate of a decedent for the support of the spouse and dependent children of the decedent, or any of them, upon:

      (1) Petition therefor by or on behalf of the spouse or any dependent child;

      (2) Service of the petition and notice of hearing thereon to the personal representative, unless the petitioner is the personal representative;

      (3) Notice to persons whose distributive shares of the estate may be diminished by the granting of the petition, unless the court by order directs otherwise; and

      (4) Hearing. [1969 c.591 §104]

 

      114.020 [Amended by 1955 c.69 §1; repealed by 1969 c.591 §305]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1976–1986 · leading case: Simmons v. Simmons, 728 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Simmons v. Simmons, 728 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Appellant argues that, even if the agreement is valid, she is entitled to support as provided in ORS 114.015, which states: “The court by order shall make necessary and reasonable provision from the estate of a decedent for the support of the spouse and dependent children of the…”
Smith v. Lovejoy, 552 P.2d 606 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Moreover, he did not give notice to Sister Cantera of his petition for a support order in violation of ORS 114.015(3). As a result of these statutory violations, Sister Cantera was effectively precluded from earlier voicing any objections she may have had to respondent’s…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 114.015(3): 1 case
Smith v. Lovejoy, 552 P.2d 606 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Moreover, he did not give notice to Sister Cantera of his petition for a support order in violation of ORS 114.015(3). As a result of these statutory violations, Sister Cantera was effectively precluded from earlier voicing any objections she may have had to respondent’s…”
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.